1971-03-18

PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF DELEGATION OF LEADERS OF CONSULTATIVE ASSEMBLY OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE

Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has the honour and pleasure of drawing the attention of the House to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a delegation of leaders of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. To many of you, our distinguished visitors need no introduction as you have met them in discussions and on social occasions during the past three days. Some members of the House have also become familiar with the Council of Europe through visits to Strasbourg as members of Canadian parliamentary delegations invited to participate in meetings of their Consultative Assembly.

It is the first time that we have the honour to welcome in our Parliament the members of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.
The talks we have had with those parliamentarians devoted to the cause of a united Europe, while being members of their own national Parliament, have enabled us to get a more accurate outlook on the wonderful development of Europe today.

On the basis of the valuable and, I hope, mutually satisfactory experiences of the last few days, I am sure I speak for the whole House in expressing the hope that these exchanges will continue to our mutual benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PREMIER WILLIAM


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, may I draw to the attention of the House that the premier of Ontario and a very important delegation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I be allowed to bring to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of another very distinguished group, the newly named premier of the province of Ontario, the Hon. William Davis, who is accompanied by very distinguished and senior members of his cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: It is the hope, I am sure, of all members of the House that their deliberations in Ottawa will be beneficial to Ontario and to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report in both official languages of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Legault.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolieite):: Under Standing Order 43, Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a question of vital importance.
It has to do with an announcement by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which, after consideration of subjects dealing with the Supreme Court, Parliament, arts and culture, mass media and political equality, has decided not to make any report on those subjects, report which was to be submitted to the Secretary of State and, through him, to the House. That decision of the Commission is contrary to the instructions of the Governor in Council as formulated in the terms of reference of the Commission as well as to those of the House which has voted the required credits enabling the Commission to carry on its inquiry-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again, I must object to the way the motion is moved by the hon. member. Yesterday I took the liberty of mentioning to the hon. members for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and for Athabaska (Mr. Yew-chuk), I believe, who were moving a motion under Standing Order 43, that they should limit their remarks to a brief indication of the urgency of the matter.
Under this order, the hon. member cannot express views on the substance of the matter for which he seeks consideration by the House. I therefore invite him to abide not only by the letter but also by the spirit of Standing Order 43.


Roch La Salle: I was about to finish, Mr. Speaker. In view of the urgency of the matter, I ask the House to agree unanimously to the following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be requested to inquire into the refusal of the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism to print and publish its final report, and to report to the House on or before May 31, 1971.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) pursuant to Standing Order 43. A motion of this kind requires

March 18, 1971
Environmental Pollution
the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to see unanimous consent of the House to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Very briefly, because of the tragic plight of 146,000 Canadians who have been unemployed for four to six months and the fact that 117,000 Canadians have been out of work for more than six months compared with 61,000 a year ago, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the House urge the government to immediately introduce some short-term, though temporary, changes in the Unemployment Insurance and the Canada Assistance plans to help alleviate the immediate and devastating hardship confronting these thousands of Canadians from all walks of life.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. If the hon. member's motion is to be put to the House at this time the unanimous consent of the House would be required. I have to inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.



ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, seconded by-may I inquire who the seconder of the motion is?


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, the seconder is the vice-chairman of the committee, the former mayor of Toronto. I am afraid I cannot remember his riding.


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


An hon. Member:: Does he have a voice?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Anderson: that the second report of the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution presented to the House on Friday, March 12, 1971, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works I want to put on the record the request that any hearings that are held by the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution on the west coast of Canada do not in any way involve policies connected with the National Energy Board which reports to our committee.


Mr. Woolliams:: What superfluous nonsense!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: It has been the desire of our committee for some time to go to western Canada for hearings with the oil and resource people there, and I think it is very important that this be done. So long as there is no interference with the estimates of the National Energy Board, I am willing to concur in this motion.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will
read the motion I believe he will find that that assurance is inherent in it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member had the opportunity to speak when the motion was put. I bring to the attention of the House that this is a debatable motion. Any hon. member who wishes to do so may speak on the motion. I have no intention of course, of provoking a debate on this matter, but from the interventions by hon. members which I heard I gather there was some misunderstanding of the situation. The motion is properly before the House and is debatable and can be voted upon. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich had an opportunity to make a statement when the motion was put. I am prepared to put the motion now unless other hon. members want to take part in the debate.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, there will be a time and a place for a debate on this particular issue. We do not think this is the time nor the place. It is quite obvious from the fact that the motion was not unanimously presented by the committee that there should be an opportunity for the committee to review its decision and to decide on the terms of reference. For that reason I wish to move that this debate be adjourned.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare
the motion carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
March 18, 1971

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-25, an act respecting Canadian National Environment Week, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Finance who is supposed to be here today. I hope he has not suffered the same unfortunate fate as his white paper on tax reform. Perhaps I can direct the question to the Prime Minister. Is the government now considering further methods to stimulate the economy, such as a reduction in taxation, particularly in view of the fact that the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment for the month of February has shown no reduction compared with January, indicating clearly that the economy has not turned the corner that the Minister of Finance has been talking about for a number of months, and can the Prime Minister indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the hon. gentleman is coming to his question soon.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I asked the question to start with, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of these facts the government is considering further methods to stimulate the economy?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition and therefore I cannot announce any further measures of stimulation now. The premise of his question is that the economy has not turned the corner. On the contrary, all available statistics do indicate that the economy is growing at an accelerated rate since last fall. The gross national product increased at a seasonally adjusted rate of 6.4 per cent in the last quarter of 1971, compared with the long-term average of 4.9 per cent, and the index of industrial production rose sharply by 1.1 per cent in January compared with the normal increase of .5 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister considered the fact that employment in manufacturing, for example, between January and February rose only at the normal rate? In particular, I would ask him whether or not he is prepared to undertake some measures with respect to those who have been out of work for more than four months in view of the fact that more than a quarter of a million Canadians have now been out of
Inquiries of the Ministry
work for more than four months, some 40,000 more than in January and over 100,000 more than in February, 1970?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we deplore this regrettable situation but there again the hard-core unemployment to which the Leader of the Opposition refers has fallen slightly on a-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a what?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -seasonally adjusted basis.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot accept that assertion. In view of the admission of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration that his most optimistic forecasts of employment for students this summer will fall well short of the demand and in view of the rate of unemployment for those under 24 years of age exceeding 13 per cent, I ask the Prime Minister again whether the government now proposes to take any additional measures to assist those under 24 years of age who are not students so as to offer them some prospect of obtaining work?


Mr. Lang:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister is rising on a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: I should like to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that in indicating something which he suggests I said he is not stating the facts. I want to bring that to his attention so that matter will be clear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that is not a question of privilege; it is simply an assertion. I repeat my question. In view of the admission of the minister that his most optimistic forecast of student employment will not exceed 900,000 whereas the number seeking employment will reach approximately one million and in view of the rate of unemployment among non-students under the age of 24 exceeding 13 per cent, will the Prime Minister and his government be taking any measures to assist those who are not students to get work?



UNEMPLOYMENT-SEASONALLY ADJUSTED RATE ACCEPTABLE TO GOVERNMENT-MEASURES TO EXPAND ECONOMY

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the figures published today by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicate that the government's policies have had no effect so far in reducing the number of unemployed, either actual or seasonally adjusted, and in view of the statement of the Prime Minister, as reported in the Toronto Star on February 24 last to a $50 a plate dinner in Montreal that unemployment is something Canadians will just have to learn to live with, I want to ask the Prime Minister if we can now assume that the government is prepared to settle down to a seasonally adjusted rate of 5i per cent to 6 per cent per year?

March 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the
Leader of the New Democratic Party is saying that this should be the aim-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, come on, now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to have a seasonally adjusted rate of 5J to 6 per cent, we are prepared to consider in what way it can be applicable in Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The Prime Minister is not debating with students now. He is in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I ask the Prime Minister a direct question. In view of the government's policies not having succeeded in reducing unemployment, does the government intend to further expand the economy in order to reduce unemployment? What steps does the government have in mind at this time in order to accomplish that objective?


An hon. Member:: Not just expand the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the Prime Minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands but it is a very general question. That member is inviting the Prime Minister to indicate what steps the government will take to achieve such and such an end. Normally this type of question might be replied to by way of a general statement, but the Prime Minister might be allowed to answer briefly the question asked by the hon. member.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, I again disagree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. The steps we have taken are effective, and I have given some indices of that a moment ago. If the Leader of the New Democratic Party wants some more figures I could indicate to him-


An hon. Member:: That won't feed the hungry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that exports are remaining at a high level-


George Harris Hees: Exports are down 31 per cent this year and manufactured products are down 5| per cent. Don't give us that nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the floor at the present time. He tried to help the Chair yesterday and I ask him to continue in the same way today. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I was asking the Prime Minister what steps the government is going to take to reduce unemployment. I point out to the Prime Minister that the unemployment figures since the government started its program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggested to the hon. member that normally this question ought to be replied to by way of a general statement. The right hon. gentleman answered the question to some extent in the way
that is ordinarily the procedure on motions. I do not think that a general statement, which would be required in order to answer the hon. member's question, should be made at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I will be very succinct. Since the unemployment figures for the month of February this year are 149,000 higher than they were when the government started its expansionary program, may I ask whether the government is satisfied with that figure and if it considers that this is reducing unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MEETING WITH REPRESENTATIVES OF UNIONS AND INDUSTRY TO FIND SOLUTION

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of present unemployment, and I shall spare you the figures which have been discussed sufficiently, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would consider calling an emergency meeting of the representatives of all sectors of the economy, namely the unions and the employers, to try to find a solution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not be averse to that suggestion, if I thought it would be useful; but as I have indicated to the House repeatedly, as the Minister of Finance has done also, since last March the government has taken a series of steps intended to alter the course of the economic policy applied until then. Some time must elapse before those steps can be fully efficient. Naturally, indications of progress must be taken into account; I have just mentioned a few to the House and I feel they are real.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED PAYMENT OF SALARY TO STUDENTS

Mr. Real Caoueite (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In order to help the unemployed to find work and not to interfere with students looking for summer jobs, does the government intend to pay the students an allowance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we already have measures to help students in a less direct way. As we know, loans to students are financed with the money paid by taxpayers to the federal government. In so far as allowances are concerned, I think that the hon. member will acknowledge that it would be rather ticklish for the federal government to intervene directly in the field of education, which comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The provinces obviously have the means of changing their academic system if they do not want students to be unemployed in summer. Instead of granting them a special allowance, they could keep them studying all year instead of turning them loose on the labour market. The federal government does not have the power to change the academic year for the provinces.
[Mr. Douglas.)
March 18, 1971


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is these long answers by the Prime Minister and other ministers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -which invite the kind of questions Your Honour has ruled out of order.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Absolutely.


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest, respectfully, that the Prime Minister should not be allowed to do so, particularly when his answers are misleading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF ACADEMIC YEAR

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered clearly enough a question which I trust was sensible, and I would now ask him whether the federal government which has no business in provincial affairs, in the education field, could not suggest to the provinces that they do what he suggested a few moments ago?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some universities in certain provinces have already considered the matter. I make my answers public in this House; perhaps provincial authorities will take into consideration this suggestion which, after all, is not totally new. This practice is followed in some countries.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. As the 782,000 people who are today drawing unemployment insurance are out of work and are willing to work but are unemployed, does the Prime Minister not consider this to be a very serious situation and one that merits the government taking measures to stimulate the economy and overcome this serious problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Malpeque.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is not prepared to allow the Prime Minister to reply to a question which in my view is not in order. It is strictly an argument, not a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Malpeque.
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-RENEGOTIATION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND DEVELOPMENT PLAN BY FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Has there been any request yet from the government of Prince Edward Island to renegotiate the existing comprehensive development plan agreed upon by the two governments inasmuch as unemployment in Prince Edward Island has now reached more than 11 per cent of the labour force and our economy seems to be contracting rather than expanding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if such negotiations are under way they would be under way with the minister and not with myself. I can only take notice of the question on his behalf.



RATE OF HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like the Prime Minister to clarify a statement he made. Would he clarify what he meant when he said that the rate of what he called hard-core unemployment had fallen in some seasonally adjusted sense?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The figures I have indicate that the share of hard-core unemployment as a percentage of total unemployment fell on a seasonally adjusted basis in January.


An hon. Member:: From what to what?


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Since over the last 11 months the seasonally ad jus ed rate of unemployment has varied from a low of 5.6 per cent to a high of 8.2 per cent, can we take it that it is government policy to accept an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent for the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question was asked a moment ago.



UNEMPLOYMENT-AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION TO ASSIST THOSE OUT OF WORK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS

John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Very simply, could I ask the Prime Minister whether, since the hard-core unemployed who have been out of work for more than six months have increased by 92 per cent over the period of one year, there is anything at all that he can tell the House which would be of encouragement to these people in the way of amendments to existing federal legislation which could be of some benefit to them in the immediate future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at this stage the debate seems to be on the figures of hard-core unemployment. I want to correct what I said to the Leader of the Opposition a moment ago. The fall in

March 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the share of hard-core unemployment was from the month of January to the month of February. There has been a decline from the one month to last month.


An hon. Member:: By how much?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. gentleman now answer my question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Spadina.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. While the right hon. gentleman was correcting the statistics, perhaps he failed to understand my question. It is very simple. Since 61,000 people had been out of work for more than six months one year ago and since 117,000 are now in the same boat, is there anything encouraging which the right hon. gentleman can tell the House in the way of amendments to federal legislation to give these fellow Canadians some hope for the immediate future?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate that this is the type of question that was asked a moment ago. The hon. member is inviting the Prime Minister or a government member to make a statement of a very general nature. That kind of statement should normally be made on motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I was simply referring to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Assistance Plan. I am sure the right hon. gentleman is familiar with those specific bits of legislation. I was hoping for a simple yes or no response.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED EMERGENCY CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In order to get the country's economy going again, is the government considering convening an emergency conference with the provinces to discuss full employment and growth targets for 1971 budgeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Such a conference is not contemplated at this time. I must repeat that I disagree with the premise of the question. I think that all the economic indicators show that the economy is moving.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see that 12 or more hon. members are seeking the floor for the purpose of asking supplementary questions. Hon. members must decide soon whether they want to take up the entire question period with this one subject. I am not sure whether that is what hon. members would want or that it would achieve the purpose intended by hon. members. I suggest also that individual members should not ask too many supplementary questions. If we spend the whole 40 minutes on the one subject and if one hon. member asks too many supplementary questions, we will not get around to all hon. members who seek the floor on the
same subject. For the moment the hon. member for Spadina has the floor.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the Prime Minister consider a conference of all governments in Canada and all levels of business and labour on growth and productivity planning, for the sake of the country?



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with reference to Home Oil. Can the Prime Minister bring the House up to date on how the negotiations for the purchase of Home Oil are proceeding? Also, when will he be in a position to make an announcement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations have not reached any further stage than what was reported some days ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Consequently I cannot state any date when we will be able to make any final announcement.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT


John George Diefenbaker: My
question is for the Minister of Justice. What is the present position of the proceedings taken by the government of Canada to prevent the Hon. Joseph Thorson, former member of the Canadian cabinet and former President of the Exchequer Court of Canada, from challenging the languages bill on the grounds that it is unconstitutional?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the matter is before the Supreme Court of Ontario.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked what the present position is. In view of the statements made by the minister and by the Prime Minister when the bill was before the House that the legislation was constitutional and that there was no question about it, why are you trying to prevent a challenge being made as to the constitutionality? Are you afraid of the result?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that question was directed to the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: No, Mr. Speaker. I am asking the reason why this is being done. I should not have said "you", I should have said "him". May I now get an answer in proper form? What are you afraid of?


George Harris Hees: What is he afraid of?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. "Him" is out of order.

March 18, 1971



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he investigate a group called Student Employment Europe which entertained 702 applications from students across Canada for employment in Germany? The two parties involved in Montreal cannot be found. There has been $11 paid by these students, and I understand that applications are still being sent in. In view of the seriousness of the matter to the students affected and the suggestion that there may be something fraudulent, will the Minister of Justice look into the matter?


John Napier Turner: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker. It may be that the matter does not fall within the purview of the federal Attorney General. I do not know whether "him" will be allowed to answer the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: I would very much like to have an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think things are getting a bit confusing. The hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary.


John George Diefenbaker: The reason is that the government are afraid of the result.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the minister's colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, became involved and made a statement, as recorded in Hansard, with reference to this matter and at that time promised to give some information and as this is a matter of administration of justice, I think the Minister of Justice should inquire either through the Attorney General of Quebec or on his own behalf. When I used the figure of $11, that was $11 each for the 702 students.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I did say that I was going to look into the matter.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweafher@Fundy-Royal: I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. McCleave:: Oh, him.


Mr. Fairweafher:: It will be an easy question. Now that the premier of Quebec has reassured potential United States investors and the rest of us that political conditions in Quebec have become stabilized, will the government repeal the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act before its expiry date on April 30 next?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, if the government of Quebec were to request such repeal we would have to give it very serious consideration. The premier of that province has not made that request that I know of, even in New York, and he certainly has not made it in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary question. In view of the answer of the Prime Minister, why is he suggesting that permanent legislation be proceeded with along the same lines if he is leaving the whole matter to provincial jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we are not leaving the whole matter to provincial jurisdiction. As the hon. member knows, the War Measures Act and its substitute legislation were under federal jurisdiction. The conditions under which it was invoked did follow from a certain set of circumstances presented to us by the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal, circumstances of which we took cognizance.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the previous exchange with the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, is the federal government taking any initiative in discussing the subject of the possible withdrawal of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act with the province of Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the subject has been discussed between the premier and myself and perhaps between other ministers from time to time.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-REQUEST FOR DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT TO WESTERN FARMERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Since the minister has announced that $100 million is to be distributed to western farmers and as this amount is no longer specifically tied to the basic principles of the grain stabilization plan, will the minister take immediate action to distribute this amount of money through an estimate or some other procedure?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard on the legislation required for the totality of the changes anticipated in the area of the grains industry. This will be a part of that operation. I hope the legislation will be before the House and passed into law very quickly.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Is it not possible for the minister to make this distribution separate and apart from the stabilization plan in view of the fact that it is no longer tied to the stabilization plan through any mathematical equation?

March 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is still very much a part of the total proposal which we are putting forward. It seems to me that this is the most appropriate course to follow.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Will the minister still be receptive to any changes in the amended grain receipts stabilization proposal, which he made to the House the other day, prior to introduction of the bill or is this the third and last call?


Otto Emil Lang: I expect this legislation to be before a committee of the House in due course. Naturally, as is the case with all ministers, I will want to listen to every reasonable suggestion from all sides.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-SHARING OF COST OF MINIMUM RESERVE-TWO-PRICE SYSTEM

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In view of the commitments of the minister's party in 1963 and 1965 and the subsequent yearly requests by the farm organizations and members of the opposition, is the minister now prepared to agree to the most recent request of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool to add to his proposals a sharing of costs of a minimum reserve of grain and a two-price system?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question of the total position of the agricultural community is one, of course, which is always before us. The particular proposal with regard to storage is one which I believe has some serious technical defects attached to it. I could remind the hon. member that when the elections to which he referred were held the position taken by this party did not gain full support-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of a reply the Prime Minister gave me last Tuesday. Has the hon. gentleman decided to refer the whole matter of the interpretation of section 121 of the British North America Act, and the determination placed upon it by the Manitoba Court of Appeal, to the Supreme Court of Canada?


John Napier Turner: I should like to take a look at the judgment before deciding to do anything.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A supplementary to the Minister of Agriculture. Since the Minister of Justice has not yet considered the judgment handed down last Friday, and having regard to the stalemate in the agricultural committee, is he prepared to allow the committee to proceed to examine the estimates of his department and stand the proceedings on the bill until the Minister of Justice has
decided whether or not to refer the whole question to the Supreme Court of Canada under section 55 of the Supreme Court Act?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. What action does the government propose to take in view of the failure of the government's regional development policy to create jobs in Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that there are a few serious defects in the question. Perhaps it might be rephrased.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there were a few serious defects. My question is simply this: In view of the alarming rate of 15.2 per cent unemployment in Newfoundland and the failure of the government's regional development policy to create jobs there, what new initiatives can we expect from the government designed to reduce this very critical, high rate of unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the defects were eliminated from the hon. member's question. It seems to me the question as asked might invite a lengthy reply or perhaps a statement on motions. However, I recognize the importance of the matter and perhaps the Prime Minister or another member of the government might be allowed to reply briefly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is constantly considering new initiatives and discussing them with the provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the government be prepared to consider providing the province of Newfoundland with long-term, interest-free loans similar to those provided to Nigeria and Zambia?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: My
question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Is it the minister's intention to make public the results of the review of the Public Service Staff Relations Act now being conducted under his direction and, if so, when can the House expect a report on this review?


Otto Emil Lang: The intention is that the review should lead to certain conclusions by the government on a course of action which may involve legislation. I do not want to name a date by which the results of any such consideration may be presented to the House.

March 18, 1971



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate was inquiring about the dates of releases on labour.
I read yesterday in La Presse an article from Mr. Claude Beauchamp who said that the government prescribes time limits to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
I want to make clear that these dates are known as early as the month of December for the following year and made public. Had Mr. Beauchamp consulted his correspondent in Ottawa, he would have known it. The dates are known in advance. For instance, the next release will be on April 15.



FINANCE


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council a question. In light of the statement made by the Minister of Finance yesterday that the government could do nothing about the increase in bank charges until there had been an amendment to the Combines Investigation Act, would the minister discuss with the other house leaders the possibility of bringing in an immediate amendment confined to this issue alone? I am sure it could be passed very quickly.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Presidenf of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to do so. If the hon. member will raise the matter at the next meeting I will deal with it very quickly.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Since the price of powdered milk was recently increased to 32 cents per hundredweight and since apparently industrial dairy producers will not according to information available, receive this full amount of 32 cents, can the minister tell us whether he knows of any means to have the industrial dairy producers benefit by this quite legitimate increase?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The price paid to the producers by the processors in Ontario and Quebec is, of course, determined by the boards which are
Inquiries of the Ministry
set up under provincial legislation. What we did was increase the value of this milk by 32 cents a hundred by increasing the value of the powder by four cents a pound. We hope that most of the benefit, if not all, will be passed on to the producers by the processors increasing the prices they pay, but we do not have any direct control over that aspect.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As much as the minister I wish this idea would be put in a concrete form but, at present, it is not the case. Then-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would put his supplementary question.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Here it is: Does the minister know of any way whereby industrial milk producers could benefit these 32 cents?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not know of any legal action we can take. I am sure, though, that the producers who are represented by those who make decisions on these boards could make their wishes known to those boards.



PRAIRIE GRAIN STABILIZATION PLAN-EFFECT ON ACTIVITIES UNDER PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE ACT

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether or not the new farm stabilization program is intended to absorb PFAA or whether it will continue this year as a separate entity?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe, and I have said so publicly, that there ought to be some major changes in PFAA when the grain stabilization program goes into effect. I have not yet made known the details of those major changes.



INDUSTRY


Max Saltsman: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with a question I asked some time ago about the shoe industry. At that time the minister told us he intended to meet with representatives of the industry. He also informed us he was considering some statistical information. I should like to ask whether he has yet held this meeting and whether there is sufficient information at his disposal now to enable him to reach a decision about the future of the shoe industry which presently is in grave distress?

March 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): The hon. member is quite right. We are trying to develop statistics which would give us a better idea of the areas in which the penetration of imports is affecting the Canadian shoe industry most seriously. Unfortunately, the statistics have been somewhat delayed, in great part because of lack of information from some members of the industry. I have made a supplementary plea to these gentlemen and I hope it will be successful.



WELFARE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Si. Barbe):: My question is directed to t he Minister of National Health and Welfare. Having regard to the fact that increasing unemployment will seriously affect the adequacy of welfare funds, would the minister consider advancing the June date of the federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers so as to deal with the emergency immediately?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: The meeting of welfare ministers is slated for May, Mr. Speaker, not June.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree to make a further correction to an answer he gave me, in addition to the correction he has already made. I refer to his statement that the percentage of hard-core unemployed was a smaller percentage of the total number of unemployed in February than it was in January of this year, whereas in fact the percentage of hardcore unemployment rose from 33.7 per cent of the total unemployed in January to some 39 per cent in February.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think a correction is necessary. I was referring to the seasonally adjusted figures and percentages, a practice which the Leader of the Opposition has himself followed regularly in the summer and fall months of last year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the right hon. Prime Minister to very briefly give the House the seasonally adjusted number of hard-core unemployed for the months of January and February of this year? This is an index which is not available to the rest of us.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has decreased from 43.2 per cent in January to 41.9 per cent in February.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What are the figures on the basis of which you give these percentages?


Mr. Gilbert:: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Prime Minister to give us his figures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Broadview who has already started to ask his question. I will return to the Leader of the Opposition in a moment.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST THAT VAGRANCY SECTION OF CRIMINAL CODE NOT BE USED AGAINST TRAVELLING STUDENTS

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that many students and other young people will be travelling across Canada this summer in part because of the government's summer program, will the minister consider rescinding the vagrancy section of the Criminal Code or advising municipal authorities not to use this section to harass these travelling students?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I cannot advise provincial Attorneys General or Crown prosecutors how they should carry out the law.



RATE OF HARD-CORE UNEMPLOYMENT

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give the seasonally adjusted numbers, in thousands of the hard-core unemployed for January and February of this year on which he bases his percentages?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could look up that information, assuming there is such a thing as seasonally adjusted numbers.


George Harris Hees: You said there was.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not have those figures; I do have the percentages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have recognized the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, but I understand the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is rising on a point of order.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to the Prime Minister's statement in respect of certain unemployment percentages. I should like him to indicate how he can arrive at those percentages without knowing the figures on which they are based? Can we have an answer to this question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

March 18, 1971



MANPOWER


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister indicate to the House and to the students who will be seeking employment under the various government programs this summer what the criteria for employment will be, and can he give some assurance that financial need will be the main criterion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is the hope of the government that wherever possible these programs will take need into consideration. The hon. member will appreciate, however, that in some areas this may be completely impractical, but wherever it is possible, wherever it is feasible, this will be done.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the minister in connection with operation "summertime". Would the minister tell the House now, in the absence of the Secretary of State and while these two conferences of student editors are being held in Winnipeg and Montreal respecting these plans, what the plans of the government are? Will he elucidate for their benefit?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will check with my colleague and make that information available.


John George Diefenbaker: Is the minister suggesting that he has not that information available now? Is that his answer? That shows the kind of co-operation we are getting.


INDICATION OF [DOT]*APPLAUSE" IN OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronlenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order pertaining to Hansard for yesterday, March 17. On page 4347 there is a report of a reasonable inquiry by the hon. member for Temiscamingue, to which the Prime Minister replied in a partisan and political manner.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I have no quarrel or complaint in this regard. However, after the Prime Minister's response the word "applause" appears in Hansard. This is my point of order. Other speakers were applauded yesterday but the approbation of the House was verbally recorded. At various other intervals in the conduct of the business of the House hon. members applaud, but I have never before seen the word "applause" recorded in print in this manner.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: The traditional system of reporting in this House, and I have nothing but the highest respect for the reporters, has been the recording of the spoken words, and only that. I ask you to rule, Mr. Speaker, on this recording in yesterday's Hansard, which is evidence to me an attempt is being made to shore up the sagging public image of the Prime Minister in a manner inimical to our parliamentary practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point raised by the hon. member is well taken. I admit that I do not read everything in Hansard every day, but it seems to me that this is to some extent a novel way of reporting and not a correct way of reporting. My understanding is that Hansard reports only the words of the speaker who has the floor, after having been recognized for that purpose by the Chair. There should be no expression of emotions recorded in Hansard. I should like to look a little more closely at the matter. I feel that the hon. member's point is a legitimate one, and I will look into it very closely. I thank him for drawing the matter to the attention of the Chair.
Is the right hon. Prime Minister rising on a point of order?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I only have the French version of Hansard here, Mr. Speaker, but in his statement, the hon. member said that I had answered in a partisan manner. I would like to know to what part of my answer he is referring-


George Harris Hees: Translation, translation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It does not matter, and for the information of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, the parliamentary reporter is listening. All I said was that the rumour about a general election mentioned by the hon. member for Temiscamingue came from opposition members. I myself heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert talk about a fall election while to my knowledge no minister has said anything about that.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister has suggested that no minister has made reference to an election. The Minister of National Defence is on record some time ago in reference to a coming election in 1972 and he carried it as far as 1973.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A ruling has to be made at some point. The hon. member has raised a matter which is relevant. While making his statement he used some qualifications or adjectives within reference to a reply

March 18, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that had been made by the Prime Minister. This really was not the essence of his grievance. The essence of the grievance was the word reported in Hansard, and I judge that there is a valid point of order in that respect. The other point is really a side issue, and I see no point in pursuing the matter further by way of an extended point of order. The Minister of National Defence is apparently anxious and determined to rise on the point of order. I feel I must rule at the moment that there is no point of order in this respect. If the minister asserts that he has another point of order, of course it is the duty of the Chair to listen to him.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, the statement I made to which the hon. member referred was that this Parliament would last for only a finite period. Not only do I say that, but the British North America Act says that as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on his own question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: No, on the question of privilege brought up by the Minister of National Defence. I want to thank him for supporting the statement I made.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to intervene at this point. We have spent quite a few minutes on what I consider a very spurious point of order. I do not think there is a point of order in respect of this matter and I invite hon. members to return to the business of the House.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the traditional Thursday afternoon point of order. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council what the business is to be for the remainder of this week and next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to list the business we intend to call. The first order of business will be the legislation in respect of the textile and clothing board to be followed by the legislation on bail reform, young offenders, government organization, unemployment insurance and the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I might mention that tomorrow is an opposition day and next Thursday is also to be designated as an opposition day


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, may I ask if the order of business for Monday will be a continuation of the order the minister gave today when he named the various items?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: I move:
That Bill C-215, an Act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting subclause (1) of clause 3 in lines 6 to 9 at page 2 thereof and substituting therefor:
"(1) There shall be a board to be called the Textile and Clothing Board, consisting of five members to be appointed by the Governor in Council.
(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province may nominate a person to be appointed under subsection (1) and the Governor in Council shall so appoint four of such persons, or so many of that number as is possible, of whom only one may be a person nominated by any of the Lieutenant Governors in Council of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, only one a person nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec, only one a person nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario, only one a person nominated by any of the Lieutenant Governors in Council of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and only one a person nominated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of British Columbia."
and by renumbering subsequent subclauses accordingly.
In presenting this amendment, which I hope the minister can accept, I am optimistic that it will bring a measure of equity to all areas of Canada in respect of the functioning of this textile board. Prior to the formation of the textile and clothing board, it has been the duty of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to advise the minister of that department concerning the use to be made of tariffs, quotas and surtaxes. As a result of the make-up of the public service a certain measure of regional representation occurred because the staff was drawn from all parts of Canada. However, this new board, composed only of three members appointed at large by the government, will have the effect of being the decision making body responsible for advising the minister on the conduct of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in applying this protectionist apparatus.
Naturally, this board will be dealing largely wi'.h that segment of the industry which feels itself disadvantaged and which will be claiming injury. As a consequence, it is unlikely that the board will be fully in tune with the needs or the other features that go to make up all the decisions that the board must come up with and pass on to the minister. To bring a broader representation to this board, I would suggest, in keeping with the regionalism of our country, that the members be drawn from within the five regions of Canada, namely the Maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. I suggest that at any one time four of these regions would have to be represented which in effect would mean that the normal representation might be, for instance, one member from
March 18, 1971

the Maritimes, two members from Quebec, one member from Ontario, one member from the Prairies, and no member from British Columbia. In effect, we could always expect the two central provinces to have three members out of five and I would assume, with over 60 per cent of the textile industry centred in Quebec, this province would have two members indefinitely.
I put forward this amendment because I believe that, in general, government boards composed of a few members drawn from the central part of Canada have worked to the detriment of the peripheral areas. I should like to point out, as an example, that the Canadian Dairy Commission, with three appointed members, has concentrated on the dairy industry in Central Canada, in Ontario and Quebec, to the detriment of the western dairy industry. Now, the western dairy industry is relatively small in relation to the sum total of the dairy industry, of which 85 per cent is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario. The Canadian Dairy Commission originally contained a representative from western Canada. However, this has not been the case for some time. I believe the absence of such a representative has worked a definite hardship on cream producers and users in that part of our country.
Before the creation of the Canadian Dairy Board, the Prairies were cream surplus areas. The policy of the Dairy Commission has, however, made it a cream deficient area. This was done by manipulating the quotas on the basis of a ruling that the small cream shippers were inefficient producers. The bulk of western cream shippers were all small operators and the Dairy Commission cut off their subsidies by means of the quota system, transferring the quotas to central Canada. From a western viewpoint, it is a situation that makes little sense. The western dairy industry is hamstrung through lack of quotas and subsidies, while the western consumer not only helps subsidize Quebec dairy producers but has to pay the cost of bringing Quebec subsidized dairy butter to the west.
So, Mr. Speaker, I believe this amendment, if accepted by the government, would help bring about a more realistic approach to the textile and clothing field which the textile manufacturing industry completely dominates. The proposed textile and clothing board makes little sense because it is in the interests of the textile industry to have most foreign textiles excluded from Canada. We heard from the textile manufacturers themselves who feel their industry is as efficient as any in the world. Indeed, they did not offer much real hope that a textile board would come up with many ideas to make their industry more viable. The industry also pays the highest wages in the western world even compared to the United States, which makes it very obvious that the industry cannot expand beyond its present maximum operation. In order to give a wider representation to the various regions in Canada, and to the various interests in Canada, I believe that this board would have its usefulness and acceptance increased if it were to be enlarged in the manner which I have proposed.


Mr. Cliff Downey (Bailie River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) in respect of the
Textile and Clothing Board Act
textile bill, Bill C-215, concerning the enlargement of the regional representation on this board to include all parts of Canada. I believe it is very important, at this stage of the country's development, that we establish the principle that all regions shall be equally represented.
The textile industry is, of course, a national industry, but at present 60 per cent of the employment in the industry is located in the province of Quebec, 30 per cent in Ontario, and around 10 per cent is distributed over the rest of Canada. It would seem that any extra protection afforded to the industry will primarily benefit people located in areas where there is a preponderance of the industry. It has become evident from the evidence presented to us, and from the representations of the minister, that this textile bill, if enacted in its present form, will effectively put the control of the textile imports in the hands of the board. It really is a non-tariff barrier situation at which we are looking. No tariffs will be imposed on the import of textiles, but in effect this bill makes a licence to import textiles into Canada a requirement and the granting or withholding of this licence could effectively control imports.
I suggest that in all likelihood the setting up of barriers of this nature could undermine the very good trade relationships that we have with many countries. An item appeared in the Globe and Mail of last Saturday, I believe, in which reference was made to Canada's trade with Korea. It reads:
Canada exported to Korea $18.8 million of goods last year, including asbestos, wheat, sulphur, pulp, newsprints, etc. Canada's imports from Korea in 1970 amounted to $15.8 million. The most important import items from Korea are sweaters, garments, wigs, footwear, cotton, and synthetic textiles, etc.
This is all very well, but I say that if our trade relations with countries such as Korea break down, the results will be detrimental to the west, more so than to the rest of the country. I have to look at this from a western point of view, because I notice that all our exports to Korea are primarily exports from western Canada such as wheat, sulphur and, to a large degree, pulp. So, I must view with some concern any regulations that would undermine our trade relations with some of these countries.
I feel, as do many, that far too great a degree of attention is being focussed on industry and too much money in general is being funnelled into the province of Quebec in comparison with the rest of Canada. It has been intimated that the textile industry is in a great deal of trouble, but that industry has continued to show a fair growth through the years. In fact, if you read the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce commercial letter, issue No. 6, you will find that in reality it is in a very healthy condition; the growth has been considerable over the last ten years.
If you go back to 1951 and look at the growth that has been evident in the agricultural sector in the same period of time you will see there were 623,000 farms in Canada. In 1961, there were 487,000. In 1966, there were 430,000, and the estimates are that in 1980 there will be only
4382

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
315,000 farms. Last year, farm receipts were the lowest since 1955. Erosion of the dollar through inflation in the same period of time amounted to something like 45 per cent. So, we are in a very difficult position with regard to farming in this period of time.
I suggest that we should be looking at some of these industries that are really in trouble so far as import restrictions are concerned, the position of which could conceivably be improved in the same way as the textile industry will be under Bill C-215. Before I go over the clippings that I have here in this regard, I suggest that this will be another definite benefit to the one area of Canada that is at present receiving the bulk of the benefits. The Montreal Gazette of October 2 has the following article:
PAYMENTS: QUEBEC GETS 50 PER CENT PLUS -But although politicians and officials alike remained silent, figures were made available showing that Quebec in the current 1970-71 fiscal year, is getting $437,600,000 of the $803,400,000 total in federal equalization payments.
In the Gazette of February 11, we see the following statement:
Quebec gets the lion's share of the projects withdrawn from the federal public works shelf in December and activated to combat winter unemployment.
Of capital projects with an estimated total cost of $18,488,000, a total of 16 with a valuation of $16,435,000 are located in the province.
That is $16 million out of a total of $18 million. I suggest it is time we all looked at some of the problems in the rest of Canada. I do not think there is anyone here who does not want to help the textile industry if it is really in trouble, but I suggest there are many industries that are in far greater trouble than the textile industry in Canada, and we should be looking in their direction.
One area in which we have a great deal of trouble is the taxation system as it applies to our resource industries. If one really delved into the situation, one would find that one of the major reasons for the proposed Home Oil sale is the tax situation in Canada. In the United States, exploration costs or losses can be written off against income, but we do not have that provision in Canada. This is discouraging the development of many of our resource industries, and is putting them into a very difficult tax situation.
I do not intend to speak at great length on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Dauphin with regard to regional representation on the board, but I wish to mention that at agricultural committee hearings the question of import controls was discussed. The apple industry representatives told us they did not really have any problems in Canada except those caused by imports. Representatives of that industry made this point time and time again. They said they really did not need boards or controls of any kind, except in the area of imports. In fact Mr. Bond, head of the Ontario Apple Marketing Commission, said that his province was the best market in Canada but it was being chipped at and penetrated by every other apple growing country in the
world. We also heard strong representations on this point from the British Columbia apple growers and the Maritime apple growers.
I appeal to the minister to look at these other areas also, particularly if he is prepared to take measures such as this to protect the textile industry. I admire the minister for protecting his home area industry, but he should look at things on a completely national basis, and particularly at the import problems being experienced by other regions of Canada. For example there is the matter of beef imports from Oceania, from New Zealand and Australia. Last year we had a situation in which Canadians ate beef imported from down under for at least one month out of the 12. Both the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) said the importation of this beef was a necessity. Apparently this meat is roughly equivalent to what we obtain from our canner and cutter cows, but if it had not come into Canada this fact would have been reflected in the price our producers obtained.
There is a need in this country for cheap textiles. Any consumer will agree with that statement. However, if the government is going to protect one industry in this manner I suggest it is establishing quite a precedent, and it must look at many other areas where the problems are probably ten times as great as they are in the textile industry.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the minister was very anxious to get up and make a contribution to this debate. I would urge him to wait a moment because after I am through with him he might have a larger contribution to make. For a couple of years now, I have been very impressed with the status of the minister, with his smile and his confidence. But after reading this bill, and having discussed it at some length both with the minister and with others, I believe his reputation is going to be slightly tarnished. In fact, it will be a lot more tarnished three years from now when the effect of the bill will have become public, and will be acknowledged throughout Canada.
It is obvious that the minister intends to rationalize industry, and for some reason he is under the impression that he is minister of textiles. But he is not minister of textiles; he is Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and that department affects everyone who manufactures, who exports, and who imports. But it may be that he wanted to get started on one little bill dealing with textiles because it seems to be the one industry in which rationalization has a great deal going for it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member launches on the speech which he has just announced to the House I have to remind him that it is not the whole bill which is before the House at the moment, but a very specific amendment dealing with the number of directors. I appreciate the hon. member may have considerations of a general nature to impart to the House before he comes to the point, but at this stage he cannot make the speech which he might have wanted to make on second reading, or which he may want to make later on third reading.

March 18, 1971

It is the duty of the Chair to bring to the attention of hon. members that they have to respect the rule of relevancy. The Chair gathered the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the hon. member was proposing to make a rather general contribution to the debate, and that would be out of order. The hon. member would have to wait until third reading stage in order to make such a contribution.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, you just interfered at the moment when I was going to explain how and why my comments would be directly relevant to the amendment. The amendment concerns the appointments to the board. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) indicated that the board should be enlarged to include representatives from all the provinces, and I say to him that it does not much matter how large or how representative the board is if it does not have common sense legislation to deal with in the first place. Without that type of legislation, it does not much matter how efficient and how knowledgeable the board may be. I also wanted to point out that this board will be dealing with the whole subject of rationalization, which is indeed the subject matter of the bill.
As the hon. gentleman who preceded me said, it is impossible for Canada to export $18 million worth of goods to Korea and not expect to import almost an equal amount from Korea. But the relevant question is: what do we export and what do we import? I take it the minister has come to the conclusion that in this field of textiles the board would have to consider whether or not this industry is so important to Canada that imports should be reduced. Through this bill the minister is trying to rationalize the textile industry. He has said, "We will have a board." I ask, where is this board to get its information? It does not matter how large a board is, it must have some research facilities available to it; it must have some expertise, some knowledge. Where is this board to get this expertise?
The board is composed of Dr. Annis, Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Campbell. None of the people named to the board have knowledge of the textile industry. The minister said, "They will get the information from my department. We have research facilities, we have market facilities, we have all those things-"


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, come on!


Steven Otto: The minister says, "Come on, now". I ask him specifically, if this board is to have the money to employ private research agencies and its own officers, then are we not setting up another establishment? Why do we need the minister or his department?


Jean-Luc Pepin: What about the inquiries?


Steven Otto: I will come to the inquiries. They will be directed to the board from people interested. At the present time, that board cannot function unless it has research and administration at its disposal. The minister says that his department will give assistance. I think that what will happen will be that his department will advise
23966-65 S
Textile and Clothing Board Act
the board which, in turn, will advise the minister. Why do we need another staff. There are other reasons, of course. For example, as the minister just said there will be need of a public inquiry but I imagine this could have been done by committees of this House. Nevertheless, that is the method of rationalization. We have a committee or board which will be another step between the department officers and the minister. True, they can get information this way. Naturally, they will investigate and, as the bill states, representations and inquiries will be made to them on which they will have to rule. The board will then require the applicant to put forward a proposal.
If the applicant is in the shirt manufacturing business he will say to the gentlemen that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) wanted on the board, "I want more protection in the sale of shirts, even if they are coloured." The minister is enamoured of coloured shirts and seems to think this is the panacea for all textile problems. The minister will reply, "Suppose we do increase the tariffs, how do we know you will get back any business?" It might not be the most efficient business in Canada and the industry will have to put forward a plan on which the board will rule. Then, the minister may or may not change the law. This might be fine in the type of business that runs without too much interference from the department, but there is an element of rationalization that the minister has not considered. If an industry is told that there is hope for it if it makes some changes, then the co-operation of, not only this department but of other departments will be required. Indeed, the co-operation of a whole bevy of officials will be required to make the industry viable.
For example in the shirt business, and I stay with that because it is the one the minister used to illustrate his point-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says he is going to stay with the shirt business. I think he should also give some thought to staying with the amendment, which is a very limited one and has nothing to do with what the hon. member calls "rationalization of the textile industry". It proposes that there should be five instead of three directors or members of the board. It is obvious to me that is the limit which should be placed on the debate. I do not want to be too restrictive. I know the matter is an important one and that the hon. member is anxious to put on the record the interesting thoughts which he has for the consideration of the minister. However, I wonder whether this is the right time to make these observations.
My interpretation of the rule of relevancy is that the contributions of hon. members must be limited to what is before the House. What is before the House at the moment is motion to increase the number of directors from three to five. I think if we are to follow the rules closely, we must determine whether it is better to have five directors rather than three. The hon. member knows and understands the bill much better than I do, but this is my understanding. Perhaps he might like to keep this in the back of his mind.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I wonder if I might speak on that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The whole question is correctly put as one of rationalization, of bringing in tariff protection for one region of the country. The whole idea of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) is that there should be regional representation on the board so that each region of Canada would be able to consider representations for rationalization. In order to have a viable textile industry-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's point is well taken to -the extent it refers to regional representation, but I wonder whether rationalization is relevant? The hon. member says yes, but the interpretation of the rule of relevancy left to the Chair and that is not my interpretation. In any event, I do not wish to cause serious difficulty to the hon. member. I do suggest to him, however, that he might try to limit the speech he is making. My suggestion is that he should make two speeches rather than one.


Steven Otto: Mr. Speaker, of course I am at your mercy. It is my contention that the member's amendment dealt with an expansion of the board in order to deal with problems on a regional basis. One of the things the board is going to have to deal with is the rationalization of a particular industry. As the hon. member pointed out, in different areas it may be a different industry. In Toronto, it may be textiles or shirts but in another place it may be something else. For that reason I was going to touch briefly on the shirt business, which is the industry located in that part of the country which I represent.
Another point on which I wish to touch is why the bill does not cover many other industries so that it would have application from coast to coast. I purposely spoke on this amendment because it seemed to me the hon. member wanted a much broader representation in order to cover the various ideas of rationalization. If you feel that I am still out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to come back on third reading.
Before you so kindly put me on the right track, I was dealing with the various aspects of rationalization with which the board will have to deal. I was putting forward an example of what I think the minister wants. It seems to me he wants a board of three members to deal with the textile industry and has chosen people knowledgeable in this field. He may say to them "There may be some hope for you if you can show a plan by which the industry can go ahead and succeed in competition with other countries." This would require the co-operation of other departments because it is not enough to say to a manufacturer, "Let's see what you can do." I think it is more in keeping with rationalization if the minister can say to the manufacturer, "Your chances of succeeding against competition in the shirt business are slim. You would be better advised to go into the manufacture of sails for boats." It is more or less the same business. Possibly $28 million worth of sails are sold in Canada annually. Their manufacture requires special training, special machines, special plants as well as markets. If money were needed, the minister could go to the Industrial Development Bank or the chartered banks and say, "Make money available." Other departments would be involved in enabling this industry to succeed.
However, that is not what the board will be doing. The regional or local board will say one thing: "Shall we pension people off at the age of 54?" That, in essense, is what the bill provides. If the amendment of the hon. member for Dauphin is accepted, the board will still be faced with decisions. It will have to say, "Shall we put in lots of work, take lots of risks, give the minister lots of advice in order to rationalize this industry and make it successful, or shall we consider the provisions of section 21 and say that everybody over the age of 54 can go on welfare." That, in essence, is what all this amounts to.
What will the board do, Mr. Speaker? Obviously, the board will take the easiest course; it will always take that course. If the board deals with the expansion of Canadian industry in that manner then, surely, we can say that this bill will not bring about an expansion of Canadian industry. The only result will be a large welfare program. The government will be introducing the concept of early retirement at the age of 54 under the guise of a textile bill instead of under the guise of an amendment to the unemployment insurance scheme or the old age pension scheme. If we do this for the textile workers, what can we possibly say to the people who work in the television and electronics tube business. They will say, "How is it that the people in the textile business can retire early, at 54, and we cannot? Is there anything sacrosanct about textile workers?" We will have to deal with that problem.
Then, the question will be asked, why cannot we do the same for those who work in the shoe and furniture business, and in just about every other business. No matter how you rationalize it, you will be putting people on welfare. If you say that this is part of a growing economy, then this is entirely beyond me. With all respect, I am sorry that an amendment was not moved to throw out a good portion of the bill. Certainly, I think that the proposed amendment, which would increase the number of board members, would not do much good. It does not much matter whether there are 20 or three representatives on that board because, as long as the essence of the bill is the reduction of opportunity, the shutting down of businesses, it will not do much good.


Hon. Walter G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just preceded me has stolen some of my thunder in some respects; I will not repeat the many excellent points he made. I want to direct my attention quite briefly and specifically to the problem of regionalism that is inherent in the bill. I presume that the minister, who is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and not the minister of protectionism, which would be a better description if we were to interpret his functions as outlined in this bill, is quite concerned about the regional inequity that is implicit in the legislation that is before the House this afternoon. For that reason I should think that he has already

March 18, 1971

accepted the spirit of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). I hope that when he comments on the amendment, he will indicate that it is acceptable in its present form or that he will be willing to put forward a reasonable facsimile thereof.
One of the great problems in promoting industry, trade and commerce in Canada lies in our regional disparities which are the result of our tremendous expanse of geography. It goes without saying that what is good for one part of Canada may be fundamentally bad for another part of Canada. I am sure the minister recognizes that there are very strong overtones of this situation in the legislation that he is putting before the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not recognize that at all.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The minister says he does not recognize that. I read a speech that he made recently but I do not have it before me. He made the speech in Montreal in which he interpreted this legislation, apologetically, he said that, normally, he is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and not of protectionism. He came forward with a thesis that, in essence, sounds something like this: protection if necessary but not necessarily protection. No doubt the minister has read some of the comments in that great liberal journal of free trade, the Winnipeg Free Press. I think that newspaper refers to this legislation as "the quintessence of protectionism". It is for that reason that I strongly support the amendment before the House. I am sure the minister will wish to recognize the fundamental principle of regionalism which is provided for in the amendment.
One may disagree about the total number of members on the rationalization board, if I may use that phrase, but I do not think the minister or anybody else in this chamber could argue that there is nothing regionally discriminatory in the legislation. Everyone in Canada is concerned about the problems that have been encountered by the textile industry. The minister surely must recognize the principle of regionalism inherent in the government's regional economic expansion program. The government should be consistent and provide for some such recognition in this legislation.
Not long ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visited the Pacific rim. During the course of that visit, which was intended to expand cordial relationships between Canada and its Pacific partners, the right hon. gentleman went out of his way to point out that Canada is anxious to assist in every way possible the economies of places like Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and all other countries on the Pacific rim which are deeply involved in the subject matter of this legislation. Most of our cheap textile imports originate from this part of Asia. That is another argument as to why there should be, in season and out of season, some voice on the board which will constantly tell the minister that trade is a two-way street and that while he may be assisting one industry in one part of Canada, he may be making it extremely difficult for industry in other parts. As the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Downey) pointed out, this legislation will add to the difficulties that have been almost inherent
Textile and Clothing Board Act in the agricultural economy for the past two decades. We have been developing our markets in western Canada in an encouraging way. Our markets for grain include Japan, China and other Asian countries.
As the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) has pointed out, we cannot continue to export raw materials such as grain to Asia unless we are willing to import a reasonable amount. As is the case with all matters of this kind, the spirit of compromise is necessary. The minister recognized this in his speech. I am sure that he is very carefully listening to the observations that have been made in connection with the thoughtful amendment that has been put forward today. He will want to assure that built into the legislation is the recognition of what we often call co-operative federalism so that the economic, industrial and other interests of every part of Canada will be given due consideration.
This is a complex matter. I am sure the minister will recognize this. You cannot specifically legislate for all aspects of the complexities and difficulties faced by the textile industry. I imagine this is why a board is being set up to deal with the ongoing process from day to day, week to week and month to month. It is eminently fair and reasonable that every part of Canada should be recognized on this board so that we will have co-operative federalism and the spirit of compromise that is necessary. I believe the minister is a reasonable man. I hope he will accept this amendment or something similar to it. As the Winnipeg Free Press, another spokesman for the free trading interests of western Canada has emphasized and drawn to the minister's attention, we will then have a situation in this rationalized program that will be in the best interests of all concerned in all parts of Canada.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be relevant to note at the outset whether or not all members of this House are in agreement that this bill represents a step in the right direction in dealing with the problems of the textile and clothing industry. Leaving that aside, we can discuss this amendment, along with the others to be presented, within the context of determining whether they represent an improvement in the bill.
When looking at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), I must ask whether an increase in the membership of the textile and clothing board from three to five will represent an improvement, taking into account the other considerations put forward. I fail to see how an increase in membership, under the stipulations set out in this amendment, will contribute to a better performance by the board in the job assigned to it by the legislation now under consideration. As a matter of fact, I am mildly surprised that my friends in the Conservative party want to contribute to a proliferation of bureaucracy by increasing the membership of the board from three to five, and increase the staff accordingly. I repeat, I am mildly surprised that my Conservative friends would suggest a step such as this.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Coming to the real issue involved in this amendment, in my view it would be inconsistent with the principles of this bill to insert a clause into it which would force the federal government to name a board on the basis of nominations made by the provinces. This would be inconsistent with the responsibilities which we are asking this board to assume. For that reason, I fail to see how we could support this amendment. Regional concerns have been noted by a number of members who spoke in favour of this amendment. They have advanced this as the principal reason for placing this amendment before the House. I intend to deal with the question of regional concerns ;.t the appropriate time during consideration of this bilh because it is a subject which deserves further conside' (ion.
I fail to see how this change in the structure and composition of the board, as proposed in this amendment, will contribute to a resolution of the concerns that have been expressed by regional interests. None of the amendments propose a change in the structure of the legislation before us. Regardless of whether this or the other amendments are passed, the final responsibility for action will be left in the hands of the federal government. They have to assume final responsibility for whatever actions are decided upon. The board makes recommendations to the federal government. I feel we would be much better off with the kind of board proposed in the bill. I trust that it will take a national viewpoint when dealing with the serious problems of this particular industry.
It has been correctly noted that there are conflicts of interest involving our trade. I intend to deal with this at a later stage, including the whole question of the maintenance and development of this industry in Canada and the employment produced as a result of its existence. The interests of Canada, taking into account all these various factors, would be best served by a board which dealt with problems from a national point of view.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). I am not going to deal with the technical aspects, but rather the principle involved. We have known for a long time that trading is a twoway street. It has often been said that perhaps 80 per cent of our livelihood is obtained through our ability to trade. Trade is a very interesting part of the livelihood of many people in all parts of Canada.
It could be argued by some, I suppose, that this bill is not restrictive of trade, but such an argument will hardly stand up if we examine the measure closely. It is true, the purpose of setting up the board in the first instance is to hear inquiries and complaints. Complaints can be made under the terms of clause 8 in connection with textile imports which could be described as harmful to the Canadian industry or threatening the livelihood of its employees. The board could then take certain steps. It could establish an inquiry, or it could recommend that the importations in question be stopped immediately; it could recommend that they be stopped until the whole
question could be studied by a board of inquiry, or it could recommend that certain tariff restrictions or restrictive licensing procedures be instituted.
Does all this really concern regions other than those in which textiles are produced? Let us consider what is really involved here. According to the report of the committee proceedings, No. 15, one of the witnesses, Mr. Drahotsky made certain comments with regard to aspects of this bill. He is a senior official of the department which the minister at times heads up, though at times I wonder.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Ha, ha!
Mr. Horners Well, the minister can laugh. I have laughed at a lot of his rationalizations, too, and I will laugh further today. At any rate this is what Mr. Drahotsky said at page 14 of committee proceedings, No. 15:
Clause 18 on page 8 lists a number of factors which the Board is asked to take into consideration in examining the plans and making a report to the Minister. I believe that among these factors are most of those which Mr. Lambert has mentioned. They may not be spelled out in the detail that Mr. Lambert would like to see, but among the factors there is a mention of regional consideration, consumer interest, Canada's relevant international agreements and the conditions prevailing in international trade. I believe all the factors that you have alluded to, sir, are covered, perhaps in a broad sense, admittedly, in clause 18.
Clause 18 is a very detailed clause setting out the matters which the board should take into consideration. One of the members of the committee, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), gave an indication of what he thought clause 18 really implied. His remarks are recorded at page 23 of report No. 20 of the committee proceedings. Addressing one of the witnesses, Mr. Armstrong, president of the Canadian Textiles Institute, he said:
I presume that "becoming internationally competitive" implies competition against Taiwan, Japan, and countries of that nature and not necessarily Britain or the United States or European countries. With that kind of provision which is mentioned not only here but elsewhere, I had in the beginning the impression that very little protection would be provided in view of that particular position which the board is asking us to take into consideration.
Mr. Armstrong replied:
I think your interpretation, Mr. Cafik, of what Clause 18 says is quite right. These are difficult things to try to make a decision on now. Most foreign markets, for example, are closed to us for all practical purposes. At least, many of them are. The day will come, I hope, when through a general agreement on tariffs and trade or by some other method we will get better access to these markets.
He went on to say that this situation had been produced by the low cost at which goods could be produced in some areas, and added:
It is too early to say whether or not we shall ever be competitive with Taiwan.
This is the point which concerns western Canada. Will the trade of western Canada be harmed as a result of restrictive measures instituted by this board? I would point out that Japan is fast becoming one of our most important trading partners. At the present time, Japan is

March 18, 1971

our third best customer. Figures have been placed on the record to show that Korea, China and Hong Kong are taking considerably more of our products. Sales to Japan alone now total almost $1,500 million dollars. It is true that the smaller countries buy much less, but we have to begin by acknowledging that trade is a two-way street.
The minister tells us that the whole purpose of this bill is to bring about a rationalization of the industry, rather than to restrict-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have listened to the hon. member with interest, but it occurs to me that he might now be straying somewhat far from the motion before the House. If I am wrong, the hon. member might indicate the grounds for his disagreement but I think that at this stage of our proceedings the debate should be confined as closely as possible to the terms of the amendment.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I was explaining why it was necessary to make provision for regional representation on the board. I was pointing out that if action was taken to protect an industry which is centred largely in Quebec, the consequences might be detrimental to the exports of western Canada. The board should include regional representatives in order that consideration could be given to this question. I am well aware that the textile industry employs some 200,000 people. Sixty per cent of the industry, though, is located in Quebec, thirty per cent is in Ontario and 10 per cent in the rest of the country. At one time 1,350 were employed in the western provinces- I say "were". If imports are restricted without consideration being given to the possible harmful effects on other regions in Canada we might be taking action which, in the long run, would be detrimental to Canada's development.
In defence of his rationalization concept, the minister says we must build a textile industry which will be viable on the international scene. The whole purpose of the board is to assist in the rationalization process, he tells us. The minister then goes on to say that in assisting in this process the board must bear in mind that we can become competitive with countries which are dealing with Europe, the United States and Britain or, rather, that we can become competitive with countries which are using highly sophisticated products from the textile industry. As reported on page 6 of committee proceedings No. 16, the parliamentary secretary read from a speech which the minister had made pointing out that at a trade fair in Frankfurt, Germany, Canadian manufacturers of textiles had received on the spot orders for goods worth $3.2 millions with prospects of further orders valued at another $20 million as a result of this single effort. He went on to make the point that it is possible to create a viable textile industry, adding: "We are therefore not presiding over the demise of a sick and ailing industry."
The point I wish to make is that a great deal of our trade in western Canada is conducted with the Pacific rim countries. We are told that these countries are the ones which are exporting textiles in quantity to Canada, and they are the very countries against which it is desired to set up protective barriers. The Pacific rim
Textile and Clothing Board Act countries producer textiles and goods of low sophistication. I am wondering how the rationalization program can stand up.
First of all, we are to produce an industry which is viable on the international scene in competition with Europe, the United States and Great Britain. These countries produce highly sophisticated goods. But we are also to bring in protective measures against countries which, to use the minister's words, have a low cost of production. These countries against which we are to bring in protective measures are the countries which produce the low sophistication textile products, and the minister says we cannot possibly hope to survive on the international market if we continue to produce products of that nature. So, his rationalization falls completely flat.
On March 11, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked why a highly skilled textile industry which had just laid off 350 men could not receive some help from the Department of Trade and Commerce and the minister replied that conversations had taken place and a full explanation was provided. The minister went on to say that it is not government policy to prevent the closure of a company when this is necessitated by factors of international trade, as in the present case. These were highly sophisticated companies which had tried to sell on the international market, but because they were not large enough the minister said they did not need the protection or assistance of the government and would have to close up.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are all mixed up.


An hon. Member:: The minister is just as mixed up as he was in respect of the grain trade.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be delighted to hear the minister explain the rationalization of the program. I do not accept the philosophy put forward by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) on many occasions, and certainly not on this occasion. This is a country which stretches 4,500 miles from sea to sea. Trade is a two-way street, so we cannot have a policy in which recommendations will be made concerning protective tariffs when there has not been representation from every part of Canada.
We cannot have a federal government which looks at only one part of Canada and hopes that the country will survive. We must remember that in the last two or three elections unity has been the slogan. How can we have unity when a textile board, which will bring in restrictive measures which may be harmful to certain parts of Canada, will not be comprised of representatives from all regions of Canada. I do not believe the minister is working toward unity if he does not want to give all the regions of Canada an opportunity to take part in the decisions this board will make. The minister's parliamentary secretary must find all this very ironic because he comes from an area which has been severely hurt because of a lack of tariff protection. There was a board in respect of the fruit and vegetable industry which

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
operated under a clause similar to clause 8 whereby inquiries could be set up and action taken to protect a failing industry. It is a little ironic that the parliamentary secretary would have to listen to this discussion and yet not be able to get protection of the type provided in this bill for his own constituents.
Where is the free trade aspect about which the Liberal party has been speaking for a century or at least during the 1900's? Where has this all gone? The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) said during the committee proceedings that this is a radical new approach. It may be the first step and the shoe industry might be the next. I see he shakes his head. I will read the evidence to him before this debate finishes. Then, the electronic industry might be the next. If we are to have a board on which there is not regional representation, and in respect of which all regions of Canada will not have an opportunity to take part in counselling on action which might be detrimental to the livelihood of the people in those regions, then the cry of "unity" will not be enough to hold us together. All regions must have an opportunity to be involved in presenting their ideas.
The three members of this board will basically be regional in their representation. The region is what we might call the greater Montreal-Ottawa region. A board with such a narrow concept will be able to implement action which could affect all Canada's trade. The minister can sit there and smile, but this is just one more bill that will do nothing but divide Canada, if we are not to be given an opportunity to have some regional representation on the board. There is no point in making speeches in Parliament on a subject after the decision has been made. In a democracy, representations must be made before the decision is taken and not afterward. Here we are to set up a board which would deprive regions of representation. Members of Parliament will rise in this House and say that the decisions taken by this board are harmful to one region or another, but at that time it will be too late.
If unity is an important question in Canada today, I believe we should move very slowly in respect of the establishment of boards which do not provide regional representation when decisions those boards may make may affect the livelihood of thousands of people in the years ahead.


Mr. Forest:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Yves Forest: Would the hon. member favour similar representation on other federal boards such as the Canadian Wheat Board, the Grain Commission and others.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I want to say just a few words on the proposed amendment. I will refrain from commenting on arguments pertaining to other aspects of the bill brought into the debate.
What should be said about the amendment, and what was just implied in the question asked by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), is that such an amendment which would give regional or provincial representation on the board would constitute a major precedent in the constitution of federal boards in the future. In fact, the acts establishing the Tariff Board, the National Energy Board, the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, the Wheat Board and other boards would likely have to be amended to reflect the same principle.
In addition, it would seem to me that such a move would be an abdication on the part of the federal government of its responsibility in trade matters. On a number of occasions, many provinces have said to us that the responsibility for textiles, because of the importance of imports and exports to the industry, is that of the federal government. Were I to go back to Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes or other provinces at this time to ask them to kindly nominate members on the textile and clothing board, they could very well say "mind your own business, this is your responsibility".
On a number of occasions also members on both sides of the House have expressed regret at the deterioration of the federal power in matters of international and interprovincial trade. Counting on the provinces to nominate members to our boards would be a step backward in the assessment of our responsibility in these matters of international and interprovincial trade.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Would the minister permit a question? This board will carry on inquiries and recommend certain things. .Surely, to ask provinces to appoint somebody to a board to make recommendations or carry out inquiries would further the whole program of decision making and further federal-provincial co-operation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My argument was, first, to indicate that this would be a major precedent and would necessitate changes in other federal government boards. I suggested that this would not be in the interests of Canada.
My second point is that we have refrained in the selection of members to the textile and clothing board, from appointing people with set opinions on these matters because they were from a certain sector of the industry or from a certain region.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Such as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), with set political opinions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To mention one member of the board, Mr. Annis, who is president of the board and who is well known to members of the House as having been associated for a long time with the federal administration, I would not know what interest or region one might accuse him of representing on that board. We have gone out of our way to select people on the basis of their qualifications and judgment rather than on the basis of whether they were associated with one part or another of the country or one sector or another of the industry. We will let the public of Canada judge what we have done. I,
[Mr. Horner.)
March 18, 1971

myself, am very proud of the balanced bill we have brought in and of the category of people we have attracted to this board.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: My last point is to agree with something said by the hon. member for Crowfoot. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) seems to forget at this moment that in matters of protection or non-protection the textile and clothing board only makes recommendations to the government. It should be well know to him also, because he was one of the assiduous members of the committee which studied the bill in depth, that the board will be supported by officials in mine and other departments, by knowledge they acquire during inquiries from consumers, producers, importers and so on. The hon. member's arguments imply that officials were doing a better jog than this board will be doing. I cannot go along with his logic, nor can I go along with the logic used by some hon. members in this short debate. I might also remind members on the other side-and I regret the absence of some-that the decisions will be made by the cabinet, and Canadian cabinets are well known for giving representation to all regions of Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Not this cabinet.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I give up. I know I will not be able to convince the hon. member for Crowfoot or the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I welcome their contribution but I fail to understand the logic in their arguments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75 (11) the vote on this amendment stands deferred.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had some discussions with the hon. member for Crowfoot, the minister, and the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre). Since I will not be able later to go ahead with two amendments which I have, there seems to be willingness on their part, if the House is willing, that the two amendments which stand in my name, Nos. 6 and 7, might be proceeded with at this time.
Textile and Clothing Board Act If that is the feeling of the hon. members, I would like the opportunity to present arguments with respect to motions Nos. 6 and 7.


Mr. Jerome:: I can confirm, on behalf of the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin, that he was consulted and that he is agreeable to defer dealing with his amendment No. 5 in favour of dealing with amendments Nos. 6 and 7.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I also am in agreement with this procedure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By agreement, the House will now proceed to the consideration of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Gerald William Baldwin: I move:
That Bill C-215, an act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting lines 38 and 39 on page 11 thereof and lines 1 to 27 at page 12 thereof and substituting therefor:
"(2) Where at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council, on a report of the minister made pursuant to an inquiry made by the Textile and Clothing Board with respect to the importation of any textile and clothing goods or on any other matter or thing in relation to textile and clothing goods within the meaning of the Textile and Clothing Board Act, that goods of any kind are being imported or are likely to be imported into Canada at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers, any goods of the same kind may, by order of the Governor in Council, be included on the Import Control List in order to limit the importation of such goods to the extent and for the period that, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, is necessary to prevent or remedy the injury".
I will be very brief, having in mind the importance of the subject matter. I simply make the point that my amendment seeks to strike down what I think is an intention in the bill to take it far beyond the original limitations which, of course, should be textiles and clothing. The bill is entitled:
An Act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other Acts in consequence thereof.
The recommendation from His Excellency is also limited to those particular terms. An examination of the interpretation clause shows quite plainly the bill is intended to deal with the question of textiles and clothing. To that extent we have moved amendments, one of which has been debated. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will be moving some more, and I will be supporting them. But what I intend to show to the House is that two of the clauses I am dealing with, and particularly the one now before the House, clause 26, go far beyond what was the intention.
Whether the minister was aware of what he was doing, and whether he intended to do it, I do not know. I think he did. He is a very bright minister. I think he must be aware of what he is trying to do. I think the House should be aware of what it is asked to do before it passes this bill.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Let us look at clause 26 as it now stands, which is the one 1 propose to amend. It reads:
Section 5 of the Export and Import Permits Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) Where at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council on a report of the Minister made pursuant to
(a)	an inquiry made by the Textile and Clothing Board with respect to the importation of any textile and clothing goods within the meaning of the Textile and Clothing Board Act-
That is perfectly all right. If the minister stopped there, I would accept it. I may have some disagreement with him on the question of the philosophy, but he is keeping himself fairly and squarely within the intention of the bill up to that point. But what comes under proposed subparagraph (b)? It reads:
-an inquiry made under section 16A of the Anti-Dumping Act by the Anti-dumping Tribunal in respect of any goods other than textile and clothing goods within the meaning of the Textile and Clothing Board Act.
That is introducing into the restrictive and qualifying provisions of this current legislation certain provisions which deal with goods which are not textiles and clothing. Then, the clause goes on:
-that goods of any kind-
Not clothing and textiles
-goods of any kind are being imported or are likely to be imported into Canada at such prices, in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers-
Without looking for the moment at the Export and Import Permits Act, which we must do later because that is brought into this legislation, we find that by clause 26 the minister is asking this House to extend restrictive and qualifying conditions with respect to the importation of goods which are in no way related to textiles and clothing.
There may be a case for that. It may be just. The government may have a reason to want to introduce legislation of that kind and let this House debate it. But, Mr. Speaker, to attempt to do it by giving the government vast and wide powers so far as clothing and textiles are concerned and letting these powers apply to any goods at all, is something which this House should not be asked to do in connection with legislation limited to clothing and textiles.
I think there is a very good case to argue, and we might well yet do it on third reading, that these clauses are not pertinent, and are out of order in that they go far beyond the recommendation of His Excellency. They should therefore, be struck down. But I am not going to make that argument at this time because now we are going to argue the merits of my amendment. However, I am telling the minister that he might well expect a motion or a point of order on third reading to strike out these paragraphs because they exceed the qualifications established in the recommendation of the Governor General.
What is in the Export and Import Permits Act which is being amended by this legislation? Section 3 of that act provides:
The Governor in Council may establish a list of goods, to be called an Export Control List, including therein any article the export of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes-
The purposes are then specified. They are:
-to ensure that arms, ammunition, implements or munitions of war.. . capable of being converted thereinto or made useful in the production thereof or otherwise having a strategic nature or value will not be made available to any destination wherein their use might be detrimental to the security of Canada;
(b)	to implement an intergovernmental arrangement...
(c)	to ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such article in Canada for defence or other needs.
Those are the very limited purposes established by section 3 of that act. We all know why it was introduced, and I think there is a good case to be made for it. But certainly, Mr. Speaker, it has no relationship whatsoever to textiles and clothing.
Then section 5 which is the section referred to in clause 26 of this bill, reads:
The Governor in Council may establish a list of goods, to be called an Import Control List, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes, namely,
(a) to ensure, in accordance with the needs of Canada, the best possible supply and distribution of an article that is scarce in world markets or is subject to governmental controls in the countries of origin or to allocation by intergovernmental arrangement;
That is quite plain, and we understand why it is in the Export and Import Permits Act. I, for one, would go along with it. But then we go to subparagraph (b):
-to implement any action taken under the Agricultural Prices Support Act, the Fisheries Prices Support Act-
And there is listed a number of other Acts of Parliament
-to support the price of the articleproduced by the particular industry involved. And then finally, it reads:
-to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment.
When those goods are included in an import control list, there are certain consequences which follow and it is possible for the government by an order in council to prohibit, or interfere with, or limit the importation of those goods into the country. But, Mr. Speaker, the purposes set out in section 5 of the Export and Import Permits Act are purposes entirely foreign to the purpose of the bill we are now considering, which is "to establish the Textile and Clothing Board." There is no relationship whatsoever.
If I could I would argue that point alone, that this is not the way for the government to exercise its prohibiting power so far as goods coming into the country are concerned. But when the government goes beyond that and uses clause 26 of this present bill to say, as it does say in subparagraph (b):
-that goods of any kind are being imported or are likely to be imported into Canada at such prices, in such quantities and

March 18, 1971

under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to Canadian producers of like or directly competitive goods, any goods of the same kind may, by order of the Governor in Council, be included on the Import Control List-
I simply must register my objection. I point out that this was not discussed in the committee. There was a very brief explanation by the minister on an irrelevant aspect of it. I am quite sure the members of this House agree that, being asked as they are now asked to give the power to the government to place on the import control list not just imports of clothing and textiles, but any articles at all, is going too far. There is absolutely no qualifying restriction with respect to the type of goods which this Parliament is being asked to put under the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act.
It is true of course that there is an inquiry made by the textile and clothing board, and then there can be an inquiry made under section 16a of the Anti-dumping Act. The Anti-dumping Act at the present time is available for the purpose of permitting the government to impose certain penalties in connection with a case where there apparently has been an infringement of intergovernmental arrangements. The antidumping board might hold that this has been the case and the government might then intervene and impose certain penalties.
I am sure it was never intended that this government should be given power, which it had not held before, to extend the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act so that, at the whim of the government, goods of any kind could be placed on the restricted list. The minister may have an answer, although he has not given it yet and did not give it on second reading. When this situation was first called to my attention, I did not believe that the government was seeking these extraordinary powers.
I am not going to infringe upon the courtesy of the House which gave me permission to proceed now. I raised the issue and will have a chance to develop it on the next motion. It is for the minister to say why, in a bill limited to textiles and clothing, the government is taking these extraordinary powers to prohibit the importation into this country of goods of any kind. It is an issue which is irrelevant and foreign to the legislation we are now considering.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I first say that we are not trying to hide anything. The title of the bill is quite clear, "An act to establish the textile and clothing board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof".
My second point is that this sort of thing is done regularly with bills such as this one which covers a certain sector but also affects a number of other existing bills. In these circumstances, it is quite all right to incorporate changes in the bill which will affect other bills. This is not undemocratic or unparliamentary. We have consolidated versions of existing acts. I fail to see, on the basis of pure legislative process why the bill would be faulty.
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it plain that I have never had any cause to suspect the purity of the government.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And I have never had any cause to suspect the lack of intellectual virginity of my hon. friend!
We come to the three changes that the amendment would make. The first change would be "any other matter or thing in relation to textile and clothing goods". I fail to understand that. Perhaps my hon. friend will agree to push it aside unless it has a hidden meaning which escapes me.
The second point is one of substance and refers to approval of the extension of the bill to goods other than textiles and clothing. As this is the main point, I think we should deal with it now.
First of all, I am surprised to see such an amendment coming from the party which argued for more effective use of import-export permits. I can recall hon. members on the other side saying that we were not making enough use of this act. I can also recall a speech made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) when he said that the power of unilateral action was already available in the Export-Imports Act.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, that is a very weak argument.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let us try another one, then. I wish my hon. friend has as many good ones as I have. Maybe I do not understand the full substance of the argument, but the way I heard it the implication was that this extension should simply not be there. But why not?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: From a free trade party


Gerald William Baldwin: Might I ask the minister a question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, certainly.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister not agree that he could probably secure, without too much trouble, an extension of the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act on clothing and textiles alone to bring them into this legislation? When, in addition to textiles and clothing, he says any other goods at all, does he not think there is valid cause for complaint?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I don't see why. The implication would be that each time the government brings in new legislation covering, for example, a certain industry it would have to bring in bills covering all existing acts affected by the legislation, perhaps as many as ten. I think this is an excessive preoccupation with form.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is a preoccupation in democracy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the spirit is more important than the form. The extension to other goods is clearly identified. When hon. members pass this article they will know what they are doing. I might say that safeguards have been written into the bill to ensure that it can only be used under extreme and stringent conditions. Serious injury must be demonstrated. The bill can only be used and is limited to the period necessary for removal of the injury. Another part of the amendment-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Five o'clock.
23966-66^

March 18, 1971
Government Organization



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. 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 Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Cleave)-Grain-Time of payments to farmers under stabilization program; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter)-Fisheries-Convening of international conference on conservation of marine resources; the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Code)- National Defence-Proposed establishment of Canex store at Kingston base-Effect on merchants.

Order. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Temiscouala) moved: that Bill S-10, an Act respecting La Societe des Artisans, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Rosaire Gendron: that bill be read third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


John Gilbert: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all studies, reviews, etc., that have been undertaken by the Government of Canada regarding the consideration being given to converting the Public Works Department into a Crown corporation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on November 4, last year, I brought forward my notice of motion for the production of papers asking that an order of the House do issue for
copies of all studies, reviews, etc., undertaken by the government of Canada regarding the consideration being given to converting the Public Works Department into a Crown corporation. I did so because, in December, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the appointment of John MacDonald as Deputy Minister of Public Works. He was replacing Lucien Lalonde.
The Prime Minister said that new concepts of administration had to be brought to the area of public works. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) was ready to introduce them. He also said that we must consider new concepts in land and building management, and that it could mean the setting up of a Crown corporation "for some facets". This would be a fundamental reform.
It should also be noted that the Prime Minister said that the Glassco Commission had recommended a Crown corporation to be active in land management. The government was the largest land owner in Canada and the largest tenant of space. It was also suggested that a Crown corporation might be the agency for federal government construction. These suggestions were made in December, 1969. The appointment of John MacDonald as deputy minister was effective on January 15. In February, 1970, Mr. MacDonald made a statement to the press which indicated that serious consideration was being given to converting the Department of Public Works into a Crown corporation with assets of between $10 billion and $20 billion. This shows that public works essentially is a large business. He also said that, unlike other departments, that department is a service organization. It has no policy other than that of meeting the needs of other departments. He cited an example of what he meant. He said that the use of high priced real estate for post offices and other government buildings indicated an inefficient use of government property. He also said, while speaking at Edmonton, that if the new concept were followed the department would have two arms. One arm would do the building for all the other departments, and the second arm would control and manage most of the government's land and property. In other words, he set forth a revolutionary concept because, as he said, in the field of land and property this government department is one of the largest businesses in the country.
Then he made a revealing statement. He said that it has been estimated that the government could save $250 million annually through a Crown corporation, because it would eliminate redundancy and get the optimum return from government land. That figure of $250 million is most striking and interests hon. members of this House. Considering that the government is planning to spend a total of $57 million to employ students across the country during the summer months, and considering that the deputy minister has said that we could save over $200 million annually if we converted the department into a Crown corporation, a move that would eliminate redundancy and get the optimum return from government land, it seems clear that the government could give four or five times more than the amount of assistance to the summer student employment program it now contemplates. As I said, that speech by the deputy minister was made in February, 1970. You will note that my notice of motion is

March 18, 1971

dated November 4, 1970. We were becoming anxious about what was happening with regard to that particular department.
In December, 1970, the Ottawa Citizen reported that a plan for a leaner, more businesslike Department of Public Works had reached the very active stage. It also said that the department would become the central agency responsible for the estimated $20 billion in real estate owned by the federal government. Also, the Department of Public Works would manage more than $800 million a year in government construction as the federal supercontractor. The article also says that leasing arrangements would generate money while keeping the land for government use decades and even a century later. In building highways, marine works and buildings, and in repairing existing properties, the Department of Public Works would continue its policy of calling for bids. Very likely it would do more project management- taking the place of the general contractor-on huge, long term projects to combat the problems caused by unpredictable cost price increases in the construction business.
So, Mr. Speaker, you now have the picture. In December, 1969, the Prime Minister announced that a Crown corporation might take over some of the facets of the Department of Public Works. In February, 1970, the new deputy minister, John MacDonald, spoke about new policies and new concepts. I brought in my motion in November, 1970, and a further article appeared in the Ottawa Citizen in December, 1970. This shows how important it is for the government to consult all opposition members with regard to its plans for setting up this Crown corporation.
You know, Mr. Speaker, we have seen excellent examples of what the government does when it considers setting up Crown corporations. Recently, we debated the Canada Development Corporation bill. The original idea propounded by Walter Gordon and some others, including members of our party, who thought that the CDC would be one of the investing arms for Canadian capital and, as well, take into account the social policies required in the directing of business, has been emasculated. As I say, that idea which was brought forward some years ago has been emasculated. I should not like to see the emasculation of a Crown corporation which would deal with assets as big as those of the Department of Public Works. I hope this government will not emasculate such a corporation. It would be an excellent idea to set up a special committee and invite the Minister of Public Works, who has had wide experience in this field, to come before it. Actually, I think at his stage in life the minister could really be considered as a caretaker minister of public works. He may not be applying the initiative that may be necessary for the operations of the department and he may not consider that this matter is urgent.
We could ask the Minister of Public Works and the deputy minister, who has undertaken some detailed study, to explain this so-called revolutionary concept. The members of the committee could then make a report to the House which would be very useful. I hope that legislation would then emanate from that report.
Government Organization
Hon. members opposite may say that opposition members will have the opportunity to ask questions, when the estimates are before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. However, may I suggest that members of the opposition would not have the detailed knowledge that is within the purview of the government and it would take a great deal of time to set it forth. One of the problems with the estimates is the tendency to hurry them. Many members on the government side are not taking the right attitude with regard to making the minister answer questions relating to his particular department. I fear that if one of the members of the government suggest that we deal with this proposal in the estimates committee, it will not receive the proper consideration which would enable us to understand this important concept.
This is a step forward with regard to the Department of Public Works. In the past, the Department of Public Works has been considered the great patronage department of the government. It can be said that large amounts of money have been unwisely spent with regard to government contracts in order to benefit some of the friends of and contributors to the party in power.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: I am very happy that I have the attention of members opposite. They are now listening intensely. Recently, a new concept has been developing. The political patronage concept is being reduced. I have this feeling, Mr. Speaker. With the development of a crown corporation, it may be that we will have an almost total reduction with regard to political patronage and contributors. This is why we are anxious to know what the government has in mind with regard to this crown corporation. We want to see to it that they do not emasculate this excellent idea in the way that they emasculated the idea of the Canada Development Corporation.
I am only speaking for 10 minutes on this important motion because I am sure that the members supporting the government will see the possibility of this motion being carried quickly with the recommendation that it be sent to an appropriate committee where it could be studied in dept and a report made to the House. As a result of this report legislation could be drafted to establish a Crown corporation.


Mr. Boulanger:: Will the hon. member permit a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just mentioned patronage by the party in power. Could he give one or two examples of such patronage in the Department of Public Works? I ask him to be very clear about it and not a sissy.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question indicates that he is quite sensitive to this patronage. He has a right to be sensitive because his party has been one

March 18, 1971
Government Organization
of the foremost recipients of patronage from construction companies across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Gilbert: There is no doubt about it. If the hon. member were to read the report on election expenses, he would see the tremendous amount of money received by his party for election purposes with no indication from where it was received. Where did it come from? I thought the hon. member would know, Mr. Speaker, but seemingly he does not. I recommend that he contact the right sources within his party to indicate where these moneys came from.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. I liumbly but strongly suggest that this type of discussion [DOT]on either side will not solve the problem of whether the Department of Public Works should be a Crown corporation. If it might clean up the Department of Public Works, it would not make it a Crown corporation.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I humbly suggest that the question is not the discussion that may take place between two members. The hon. member has made charges. He has a responsibility to inform the House of his knowledge so that the matter can be properly investigated. To make raw statements and charges is only wishful thinking. It is only talking for the sake of talk.


John Gilbert: If I may reply, Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that a backbencher has not read the report on election expenses.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. If hon. members are not satisfied with the ruling of the Chair and, in particular, are not satisfied with the conduct of an hon. member, they should follow the proper procedures and deal with the matter in another manner.
tTranslation]


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood correctly the motion presented by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), he wanted, first of all, the production of copies of all studies that have been undertaken by the government regarding the consideration being given to converting the Public Works Department into a Crown Corporation. Now, we know that, on November 4, 1970, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing) refused to produce such documents because he considered them, and still does, of a confidential nature.
The mover then asked that the motion be transferred for debate.
There are two important aspects to be considered in this motion: first, the possibility of reorganizing or transforming the Department of Public Works into a Crown corporation, secondly, the confidential nature of the documents mentioned by the mover of the motion. As a matter of fact, I was under the impression that the purpose of the debate would be to discuss the reasons which had prompted the minister to consider these documents as confidential.
I was surprised and disappointed also to see that the mover of the motion, perhaps inadvertently, has brought the House to discuss very minor questions which never reflect credit on Parliament, an institution upon which the eyes of all Canadians are focused.
If we are convinced that we have a serious part to play in the House, we should forget about these petty questions which make us waste our time. That is one of the most serious charges that our fellow citizens utter daily, concerning delays and waste of time to which we sometimes fall victims.
And since the hon. member has levelled certain charges against members of the Liberal party, he cannot accuse them of needlessly delaying debates, on minor and unimportant matters. I think that he himself, and perhaps some of his colleagues-with all due respect-ought to examine their conscience every night, concerning those questions of delay and waste of time on useless details which have nothing to do with the development of our country. They discuss trifles and afterwards they speak of truly important issues such as unemployment and other similar questions.
At any rate, the hon. member spoke long enough about the present and future management of the Department of Public Works. Let us say that it is as a result of a .statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that he realized that studies could be made to alter the .present status of the Department of Public Works which would become a Crown corporation.
I respect his opinion that this department should become a corporation. Although I am not an expert in this field, he will none the less allow me to express my opinion that we should always be very cautious about promoting a project to change a government structure into a Crown corporation.
I was impressed, among other things, by the fact that in the motion the hon. member accuses government members of not taking the necessary steps to convince the minister to table the documents concerned.
But since the department alleges that the documents are of a confidential nature, I believe that documents of the public administration in general are the property of the public and if necessary, Canadian citizens and most of all members of Parliament should be able to consult them. On the other hand, he will no doubt admit that some documents must remain confidential to ensure proper administration and public protection.
The documents of the administration belong to the public, not only in Canada but throughout the world. However, governments have kept some documents secret and the propriety of such action has often been challenged by experts and other citizens who needed the information.
If we study what has been done in this regard in other countries, we find that they passed laws on information and production of public documents.
It is reported that in Sweden, since long ago, all documents can be made public. On the other hand, there are

March 18, 1971

many exceptions particularly with reference to national defence, foreign policy or internal administration of certain departments.
In the United States, the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in 1967. Although a great deal of freedom of information has been granted to American citizens under this Act, it can be said that many classes of documents are exempt from the Act.
In Canada the situation is reportedly less clear, for there would be no statutory provision on the publication of that kind of documents, except the Official Secrets Act.
There remains for us to rely on custom which has proven its worth in many areas including possibly this one. Governmental departments must examine each - request before reaching a decision. It can be assumed that publication of documents is conducive to good administration. We have only to remember some of the good results derived from the publication of certain documents. Indeed the parties' interest is thus made public through publication of certain documents and this may sometimes be useful. It invites reactions from public opinion so that a good administration may ensue. It provides information each time the activities of the administration are discussed or criticized and in such cases where it can be regarded as a means of control.
Documents should normally be publicized but officers are not legally bound to provide information other than the official account, neither on their own authority nor on request. It could occur however that authorities will refuse to reveal what could be detrimental to public interest. This is where we could say that some documents must really be and remain confidential, not only for those who prepared them, who have not finished them, but also to protect the public at large.
In my humble opinion, the fact remains that we should rightly be concerned with suggestions for liberalizing access to official papers. I believe that knowing that any memorandum could be made public could exert a negative influence which might slow down or put a stop to a movement an enthusiasm or an interest. This would have an adverse effect on the conduct of certain public affairs.
I believe that for the development of a policy the mind should be given free play. There must be dedication to the task, and special favourable conditions. All alternative means of achieving the purpose must be explored at length and there must be wide-ranging studies, as in the case mentioned by the mover on matters of comparison between the Department of Public Works and a Crown corporation. It would, in my opinion, be stupid or undesirable to subject some of the solutions envisaged to general scrutiny.
Emphasis on every activity of administration being made public would, in my opinion, hinder the smooth running of discussions and deliberations which are necessary for judicious administration.
If officials of the Department of Public Works, or others, have now been conducting in-depth studies over months, perhaps even years, with the prospect of transforming the Department of Public Works into a Crown
Government Organization
Corporation, it is normal that these studies be published only after they are finished. Some points are being examined, the opinions of experts, engineers, public servants are being discussed and it would not be advisable at all to make these studies, these plans available to the public, even to hon. members. Hon. members are entitled to information, but only when everything is finished and has become official. In Canada bureaucracy is not so gigantic, whatever might be said sometimes.
The number of competent researchers is rather limited.
I think it might be possible to set up a better system to publish specific documents or files, in order to satisfy legitimate requests from researchers.
If there is any gap in the official policy with regard to information in the field of administration, and if these gaps constitute a serious handicap either to historical research or other types of research, or to the activity of members of Parliament, instead of introducing the same motions in each session and wasting efforts, it might be more logical, more sensible and more efficient to propose the drafting of regulations or legislation that would clearly state what category of document could, in the future, be considered confidential or not.
This is why, considering the case in point, and assuming that studies have been launched in order to draw a comparison between the future of the Department of Public Works and the efficiency or the use of a Crown corporation, I can only approve the attitude of the Minister of Public Works who decided, pursuant to the established practice, to consider these documents as being confidential, as he is responsible for them in the final analysis, and as it is his duty to refuse to produce the documents requested by the hon. member for Broadview.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, from reading over the notice of motion we are now debating, and before I heard the hon. member speak, I drew the inference that the mover of the motion is among those who favour the proliferation of Crown corporations and he is curious to know whether we can soon expect so see a new one rising over the horizon. Having heard the hon. member, it would appear that is his point of view. I cannot entirely agree with him.


John Gilbert: It has been expressed by the deputy minister. All I did was express his opinion.


B. Keith Penner: It may have been expressed by the deputy minister, and probably has been studied. It is my understanding, however-and I do not know how reliable my grapevine is-that now the idea has been discarded. If that in fact is the case, I would applaud it. This leaves me to consider briefly the whole question of government and its many agencies in relation to society as a whole. If I may be permitted to do so in the few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue that theme.
Recently I had occasion to read once again the interesting and thought-provoking book by Peter F. Drucker entitled "The Age of Discontinuity," which was written

March 18, 1971
Government Organization
in 1968. In this book there is a chapter entitled "The Sickness of Government". I would recommend the reading of this chapter to the hon. member who introduced the motion and to the members of his party. They probably are already familiar with it. Mr. Drucker makes the point that government surely has never been more prominent than it is today. He says it is, in short, all pervasive. There is mounting evidence, he states, that government is big, rather than strong; that it is fat and flabby, rather than powerful; that it costs a great deal but does not achieve much.


John Gilbert: That is the Liberal party you are describing.


B. Keith Penner: It is any government. It is your party in Manitoba as well. It is no particular party, no particular province and no particular country. Drucker is not writing a partisan treatise, such as my hon. friend is used to reading. He is writing a book which deals in depth with the theoretical consideration of important political and social questions.
If you want a point in fact-this is true of government in general-that point has been made, but in Canada it is true of our Crown corporations in particular. They are costly, but often they achieve very little. We need only look at the CBC and the CNR as two cases in point. These Crown corporations have been criticized frequently in the House. The last analysis I read on the CBC, for example, showed that this Crown corporation spends at least twice the amount the privately-owned CTV does in producing similar programs.
Over the years, many parliamentarians have expressed concern about the cost of CBC to Canadian taxpayers. The proposal has often been made that it should be carved up and sold, leaving the fate of Canadian culture in the hands of private broadcasters. I think that suggestion was even made at one conference of the party to which the hon. member belongs.


John Gilbert: What is this?


B. Keith Penner: One thing is certain. There is growing disenchantment with government, and citizens everywhere are beginning to balk at paying for bigger government, although conversely these same people still want what government promises to give them. In the years from about 1890 to 1960, mankind, especially in the developed countries, seemed hypnotized by government. The Fabians in Great Britain, and the German Social Democrats started their love affair with government before 1900. It became more general with World War I when government, using taxation and the printing press, mobilized social resources away beyond what anyone earlier would have thought was possible.
When the Great Depression hit a decade later, everybody immediately turned to government as the saviour, and it is rather pathetic to recall the naive belief that prevailed in the late thirties, such as, for instance, what was preached in one of the best-sellers of the depression
years, a book called "To plan or not to plan" by the British Labour economist Barbara Wooton. One critic has described this book as a fervent love letter to government, full of messianic innocence. All it says-and it says it over and over again on almost every page, in different words-is that Utopia is here; all that is needed is to take everything away from the wicked, selfish private interests and turn it over to government. We have done a great deal of that and we have many programs trying to do many things for citizens. These programs have frequently not succeeded in what they were intended to do. So what have we done? We have revised these unsuccessful government programs, not once but over and over again, and we have asserted that nothing is basically wrong with them that a change in procedures or a more competent administration will not cure. I hope it will not be construed that I am arguing for weaker government.


John Gilbert: It is weak enough now.


B. Keith Penner: What I am arguing for is strong, effective and truly performing government which has never been more needed. We need government as the central institution in a society of organizations. We need an organ that expresses the common will and the common vision and enables each organization in society to make its own best contribution to that society and to its citizens. Yet that same central institution, the government, must express common beliefs and common values. Unfortunately, government is not very good at innovation. By design it is a protective institution. It cannot really abandon anything that it once starts. The moment government undertakes anything, that undertaking becomes entrenched and permanent.
Generally, government is not an effective doer. Business management knows this about government but it also knows that you must always separate the decisionmaker from the doer-that is, if you are interested in efficiency of operation. If this lesson were applied to government, the other institutions of society would rightly and properly become the doers. A good analogy, perhaps, is that of an orchestra. Analogies are always a little silly, but this one may serve the purpose. Government ought properly to be the conductor of the orchestra, but those who produce the sounds-the musicians-would liken to the other non-governmental institutions of society, institutions in a society of many organizations. I think that this theme has been adequately developed in the time that is available to me. I conclude by quoting two paragraphs from Mr. Drucker's book, to help sum up the argument. The first paragraph reads as follows:
If we want a really strong and effective government, therefore, we should want businesses that are not owned by government. We should want businesses in which private investors, motivated by their own self interest and deciding on the basis of their own best judgment, take the risk of failure. The strongest argument for "private enterprise" is not the function of profit. The strongest argument is the function of loss. Because of it, business is the most adaptable and the most flexible of the institutions around. It is the one that has a clear, even though limited, performance test. It is the one that has a yardstick.

March 18, 1971

The other paragraph reads:
-we are disenchanted with government, primarily because it does not perform. We can say that we need, in pluralist society, a government that can and does govern.


John Gilbert: You are on our side, Keith.


B. Keith Penner: A long way down the Chamber, though. The paragraph continues:
This is not a government that "does"; it is not a government that "administers"; it is a government that governs.


John Gilbert: Would the hon. member permit a
question?


B. Keith Penner: I would be delighted to entertain the hon. member's question.


John Gilbert: I have always found the hon. member to be a delightful, courteous and kind fellow. I ask him whether we should give serious consideration to the statement of the deputy minister, which I quoted in my speech, that by setting up a Crown corporation Canadians would save $200 million. It seems to me that we should give serious study to that proposition. Would the hon. member agree with that statement, and does he agree that on that basis alone the document should be shown to members?


B. Keith Penner: I believe that we should give serious consideration to every recommendation by every deputy minister, but that we should not necessarily follow what they recommend.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lamblon):: Mr. Speaker, I was frankly surprised that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) did not see fit to accept the explanation of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), who gave the reasons why these papers should not be produced. I was surprised because until I heard some of the comments in his most recent address I had found him to be a fairly responsible and reasonable member of this Chamber.
There comes a time when leaders in government have to make decisions that the uninitiated, those who have never been members of the cabinet and who possibly never will be, would find it difficult to accept. There comes a time when a government must weigh all the evidence and ultimately make a decision. And when the hon. member received a most reasonable response from the Minister of Public Works, I would have thought he would have seen tit to accept it.
I was a little surprised at the somewhat bootlegged, unkind comment that the Minister of Public Works might be considered a caretaker in that position. As one who has had close association with the minister because of area responsibilities and works that have had to be carried out in my riding, I have found him to be anything but a caretaker minister. Frankly, he is dedicated to the job which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has asked him to undertake. I would like to give a small example of this. The minister came to the Sarnia riding, ostensibly to unveil a monument to the first Liberal Prime Minister of Canada, Hon. Alexander Mackenzie.
Government Organization
It would have been a fairly easy task to perform, just to come into the riding and make the appropriate speech. He did make an appropriate speech, off the cuff, filled with Canadiana and much sense. Others might say that having performed that particular function, he would have been happy to attend a party function and return to Ottawa. But not this particular minister, because he knew that a group of Indians were having trouble from erosion of the St. Clair River banks caused by ships going up and down the St. Clair. The minister made an on-site inspection and took notes. On his return to Ottawa he took up the matter with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) and as a result a portion of a seawall has been built in the most affected area. There is something to be said for maturity in cabinet ministers, just as there is something to be said for maturity in Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I notice the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is clapping loud and long at that remark, but I think he had better look behind him because his colleague from Broadview does not seem to share that opinion. However, I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and I may be able to convince him that there is a place for mature members of this establishment.
I had not intended to participate in this debate because I knew that the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. LeBlanc) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), who preceded me, would give the hon. member for Broadview all the reasons and answers he needed. However, I was a little surprised at the unkind comments of the hon. member for Thunder Bay about government in general, because there is a tendency to be parochial and to feel that decisions such as the one made by the Minister of Public Works in this instance might not fit in with the Drucker theories. It is a bit unkind to condemn all governments. Governments have a responsibility to the people, and they have to operate within the ground rules that are established. I think the present government has endeavoured to do all it can, with a somewhat unwieldy machine, to give this country the best government it has ever had.
This is not an opinion that will always be shared by the opposition, but by and large I would say we have had pretty good leadership from the government and this party, bearing in mind that over the past 100 years it has been leading our country to the point where people who want to maintain Canadiana and Canada as we understand it today would see fit to change the way in which the ground rules are established.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay saw fit to attack one of our Crown corporations. I think the CBC is probably everybody's favourite whipping-boy. There are some things in Crown corporations that warrant attack. I happen to be privileged in that Polymer, one of the jewels of Crown corporations, is in my riding and is carrying out its duties exceedingly well. This morning at

March 18, 1971
Government Organization
a meeting of the Public Accounts Committee we had the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications group appearing. This is another Crown corporation that is doing a good job, probably as good as any private industry would do it.
There will come a time when the Minister of Public Works will have to decide whether there are areas in public works that could be better handled by Crown corporations or whether they should remain under the ministry as is now the case. For that reason, all kinds of studies are made and all kinds of suggestions will be made to him in his capacity as minister. If an individual is making a recommendation to the ministry, he should have the protection of the privilege that he quite rightly would expect to be attached to it, namely, that it will not be made a public document unless it is considered in concert with all other documents.
Mr. Speaker, I understand that another of my colleagues wishes to speak on this motion, so I shall not talk until six o'clock.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for giving me about a minute and a half. When I talk about the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and his Socialist party, I have so much to say that I will say it in English, because that way I will go a little faster. When I read this Socialist party motion-


John Gilbert: New Democratic Party.


Prosper Boulanger: I would rather call you Socialist because I do not know whether you are of the very far left or only half left. When I see a motion like this I know that the hon. member is still playing politics in this House, just as he does in his riding. He will never be in power in this House and therefore he need not be disappointed whether or not we pass this motion. But I doubt that we will pass it.
In his remarks the hon. member for Broadview talked about patronage, which he claimed was pretty high, but then he came down a little. However, Mr. Speaker, he forgot to mention how they get their money and how they make it-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair.

I am sure that some hon. members who read this debate will feel that they should have been present with us. I would like to make one comment. This has been the twenty-sixth hour of private members' business in this session. I have listened to every debate during private members' hours, and all have been attended by a small number of members. I do not want to comment on the sum total of accomplishments during these 26 hours, which are the equivalent of 1J weeks of government business, except to suggest that it might be worth while for some hon. members to get together to revise the rules.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I tried to rebut the amendment presented by the charming but sometimes bellicose hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The amendment implies that the hon. member does not agree with the contents of clause 26 which amends the Export and Import Permits Act and provides that unilateral action to control imports taken with regard to textiles and clothing goods might also extend to other goods.


Gerald William Baldwin: I admire the minister's perspicacity.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Thank you very much. As I said this afternoon, we are not trying to hide anything. The title of the bill indicates that. I alluded to that on a number of occasions in my speeches in the House and in my answers to the committee. I was surprised that the opposition members of the committee did not give it more importance. Basing myself on comments that were made previously by members of the opposition, I assumed that this was acceptable and that they had no intention of opposing it. I think that was a logical conclusion.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: It could have been raised by your own members.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed. The principle that one should not amend other bills in a bill is new to me. Possibly the hon. member has some learned references to offer in support of his contention. As far as I know, it has been done before. It has been done in the present instance for everyone to see. I suggest it will also be done in the future. I cannot see how a major taxation bill, for example, could be introduced without making amendments to other existing bills. The practice seemed to be quite acceptable previously. I suggest that the amendment should be defeated, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On this point, Mr. Speaker, I can understand why my colleague, the ion. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has raised
March 18, 1971

this point. The minister will readily understand. I think one has to say, in defence of the report, that it is available to hon. members. I think the minister is forgetting that. Because of the way the committee system functions it is not possible for all hon. members to attend the deliberations in committee with regard to any particular bill. On the basis of the evidence that is presented, they too have a right. A committee does not have the exclusive right to determine any particular provision of a bill referred to them. It is the House that makes the final determination. That is why a bill is brought back at the report stage. I share part of the concern of hon. members with regard to these sections. That is their right.
If members of the opposition raise points not previously raised by members of the committee, the minister should not point the finger. Today government members were tossing the ball back and forth, not quite in keeping with the position of the government.


Mr. Bechard:: Freedom.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bechard) says "Freedom". Let's attribute that freedom to the opposition as well as to members on the government side. I wish to ask the minister one question. Unfortunately, I do not have the Customs Act before me. Can the minister state whether action under clause 26(2)(a) of the bill is subject to further review by Parliament? Last summer the government took action with regard to certain types of textiles. Within six months the government must come to Parliament for a resolution of this House to have it confirmed or extended, or it dies. The action taken could be done under the powers granted by this amended section.
Will there be a review by Parliament within a specific period, or are we giving the Governor in Council the power carte blanche to act as they see fit, without Parliament having the right to discuss within a stated period the action taken following executive decision? This is the point I want to raise.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is referring to the surtax. In the case of a surtax, after 180 days I have to come to Parliament for approval of a resolution for an extension of that surtax for a period of time. We did that recently.


Gerald William Baldwin: You may not be here in 180 days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: No one may be here in 180 days.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is that an indication?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, just a spiritual reflection. The inclusion of a certain item, textile or other, on the list of controls under the Import and Export Permits Act is something we will have to justify while it continues. This is contained in clause 26. As far as I know, it is not the subject of a resolution presented to the House if the minister wants to extend it in the same way as the surtax.
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am wondering how the minister can justify this particular action, because in this amendment at line 31 on page 12 of the bill there is the following phraseology:
-"or otherwise regulate the entry of goods to which the arrangement or commitment between Canada and that country relates."
Surely a surtax is a means of regulating the entry of goods.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, a surtax is imposed through another bill; it is not imposed under the bill presently under discussion. I fail to understand the argument. Is the hon. member saying that in this bill as in the case of a surtax, after 180 days we should bring the decision to include a commodity listed on the Export and Import Permits Act back to the House? Is that what he is suggesting? If so, I will answer in the following way: In order to put it there I have to go through all the formalities described in the present bill. Under clause 26, in respect of the Export and Import Permits Act I have to report to the House at the end of the year that the commodity has been added to the list. I presumably have to constantly defend in debate in the House or in the question period why a particular commodity is maintained on the list. I suggest there is no provision here similar to what exists with respect to the surtax.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order. With the greatest deference to the minister, clause 27 is not an amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act but is an amendment to the Customs Act. It is under the Customs Act that the minister has authority to impose a surtax.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I suggest the hon. member is dealing with the next amendment. We are now talking about the first amendment of the hon. member for Peace River, an amendment to clause 26, not 27.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am on clause 27.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on motion No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Gerald William Baldwin: motion No. 7:
That Bill C-215, an act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting clause 27 thereof at page 12.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker. I would have been ready for the question had I not observed a slight measure of doubt over there. I hope I may be articulate enough to persuade hon. members on the other side of the House to accept this motion. However, that remains to be seen.
This motion follows the one which has already been put to the House, except for some differences. It does enable me to rebut the weak and specious arguments put forward by the minister. The first argument he used is one he will no doubt try to apply to this motion and I intend to anticipate it now. My objection is not one as to legality; it is an objection as to morality. It is not a very moral system which enables the government to try to persuade the House that it is dealing only with textiles and clothing and then to bring in by subterfuge-yes, I will use that word-and certainly without notice being given, clauses which deal with a great variety of goods.
The minister defends himself, as I suppose he will defend himself against my proper criticism now, by saying that the title covers such action. Read the title- "An act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof." That is, in consequence of establishing the textile and clothing board. For the minister to bring in legislation which in effect varies and amends to a substantial degree other legislation on such a pretext amounts, in my opinion, to legislative immorality and I have no hesitation in designating it as such.
What does clause 27, to which I am objecting, attempt to do? It is an attempt on the part of the government to change the Customs Act by providing as follows, and I am reading from clause 27(2a):
Notwithstanding subsection (1), where it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council on a report from the minister that the goods-
This clause refers to "goods", and under the Customs Act the definition is wide enough to include any goods at all-oranges, elephants, potatoes, what have you.


Mr. Howe:: Orang-outangs?


Gerald William Baldwin: ___where it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council on a report from the minister that the goods, the export of which from any country is the subject of an arrangement or commitment between the government of Canada and the government of that country, are being imported into Canada in a manner which circumvents such arrangement or commitment-
It goes on to say that the Governor in Council may by regulation prohibit the entry of those goods. Mr. Speaker, there is no more connection between that clause and the
inherent principles of the bill we are dealing with than there is between rapeseed and immorality, and you should know that.
On second reading of this bill we directed our attention to textiles and clothing and this House, after a very good debate, gave its approval on the question of principle to the extent to which principle is still an element in second reading. Hon. members approved the bill as far as it dealt with textiles and clothing. There was a further discussion during the committee stage and some amendments were proposed at that time, as amendments have been proposed now. Those amendments did not go to the root of the bill itself; they dealt with procedure. We directed our attention in this House to the question of textiles and clothing, and now we find that all along this was a very small part of the bill. What we are being asked to do by clauses 26 and 27 is give authority to the government with respect to goods of any description to prohibit or restrict their entry into this country.
The minister may have a good case; the government may have a good case. The government may find it necessary for the purpose of protecting people and industries to say, all right we are going to deal with potatoes, we are going to deal with electric razors, we are going to deal with other commodities and we will ask the House to pass legislation which is comparable to the bill we are now dealing with, Bill C-215 having to do with textiles and clothing. And if Parliament is of the opinion that the minister has made a good case, as he obviously did in connection with this bill, it will pass that legislation. But here, under the guise of dealing with textiles and clothing the minister is asking us to give blanket approval to changes which would permit the government, a government which likes to exercise arbitrary authority and which exercises it improperly over and over again, without providing opportunity for debate on this issue to restrict the importation of any kind of goods it pleases.
The minister talks about principle. We talk about principle on second reading. What is the principle to which we agreed on second reading of this bill? Was it with regard to textiles and clothing? Was it with regard to any other variety of goods under the Customs Act? Was it in regard to the right of the government to establish by Order in Council an import control list which might include any articles at all? Three entirely different principles are involved there. We have given our approval in principle to a board. We have agreed to give that board and the Governor in Council certain powers. We have accepted this principle without objection.
The minister himself is a very honourable man and I know he would not do this on his own. But in a political sense it is a dubious strategy to invest the government with authority which it is not entitled to possess unless and until it has brought down specific legislation, debated the issue, taken it to committee, and so on. This is the basis for my objection. I only hope I shall be supported by all those who believe that parliamentary government should proceed along well conducted and orderly lines.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to put into their proper place the remarks I made

March 18, 1971

when we were considering the previous amendment. I shall not repeat them, but I feel this is the first question 1 must raise with regard to clause 27.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member kindly repeat the argument he made previously? I was searching my mind in an effort to understand it and became somewhat confused in the process before finding out that he was speaking on the wrong amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well. Briefly it is this. We are dealing with clause 27, an amendment to the Customs Act. It allows the government to take certain action to exclude from the country or, shall we say, by regulation prohibit or otherwise regulate the entry of goods to which an arrangement or commitment between Canada and any country relates.
I was asking whether the power given by this proposed amendment would be subject to parliamentary review, say in a period of 180 days as was the case in respect of the surtax applied by the minister under the authority of the Customs Act, which says that unless the Order in Council is confirmed by the House, it shall expire. In other words, executive action taken by the Governor in Council is subject to review by Parliament.
I was asking whether the action envisaged in this clause is subject to such a review. That is my first question. Secondly, I wish to reinforce the arguments made by my colleague from Peace River. I would ask all members of the finance committee, with the exception of the minister's parliamentary secretary, whether their attention was directed to the fact that this amendment touched goods other than textiles. As recorded at page 15:6 of issue No. 15 of the proceedings of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the parliamentary secretary made this statement:
Mr. Chairman, in addition to these principal points with which I have dealt, there are a number of consequential amendments necessary which I believe we will deal with in our detailed discussions of the bill.
Up to this point the parliamentary secretary had been dealing with textiles. There is very cursory mention of clause 27 dealing with textiles. I am sorry the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) is not here, because he is one member on the government side who has been most penetrating in his examination and frankly critical of many of the features of this bill. I am sure he would share the opinion of the rest of the members of the committee that they were dealing with textiles.
My colleague from Peace River, who on perhaps more mature reflection has examined the exact wording of this consequential amendment, sees that it goes from apples to peanuts to zebras in respect of what commodities may be excluded. It goes far beyond textiles. It is one thing for the government to advance arguments, through the statements of the minister and his parliamentary secretary in the House and in the committee, concerning the need to give formal approval to a textile advisory board, but then it comes in with an amendment to the Customs
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Act which says that if there is an agreement of any kind covering any type of goods, the government can propose a further amendment to the Customs Act and there can be action to either prohibit or otherwise regulate the entry into the country of any commodity.
It is at this point that I say I do not think the government has come forward with clean hands. I do not believe it has necessarily actively suppressed any item, but nowhere is there an indication why the government wants additional power to limit the import of all types of commodities or goods which, incidentally, unless the minister can give an affirmative answer to my first question, means the Governor in Council can do it and it is not subject to review by anyone. One cannot within a statutory instrument merely change what it covers. It can merely say whether it affects the rights of individuals or is retroactive or deficient in itself-but not within the ambit of the power that is being asked in this amendment. Even at this late date I join my colleague from Peace River and say this clause goes far beyond the power that the government indicated to the House it was asking us to give.


Cliff Downey: Mr. Speaker, the amendment before us, which proposes to delete clause 27, is very significant. This provision pertains specifically to the Customs Act. As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) said, there is in this clause wide power to use the legislation to prohibit any and all manner of imports into Canada. When one sees the many areas covered by the bill and the protection it affords one specific industry, as well as the powers granted under it in respect of other areas of imports, one understands the troubles it could create in respect of our trading relations with other countries.
One of the briefs submitted to the committee by, I believe, the Canadian Importers' Association pointed out the difficult situation that could arise in respect of trading relations and so far as importers are concerned. I believe we must look at the far reaching effects of this legislation as it applies to international trade in general.
As I pointed out earlier today, we have had good trading relations with the Pacific rim countries. Trade relations and trade prospects there are very difficult to assess. It is difficult to assess the scope of these trade relations and the business that may accrue from them in the future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You said all that this afternoon.


Cliff Downey: It would seem that with the European Common Market countries tending to become dependent upon each other and to be more restricted to that area, it becomes imperative that the general attitude which we present to our trading partners in the Pacific rim grow in importance as the years go by. There was an article in one of the newspapers recently about the possibility of trading relations between Pacific rim countries and the United States breaking down where they have been able to establish voluntary quotas.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: What papers do you read?


Cliff Downey: Controls may now become mandatory, and I suggest that we must at all times maintain a strong trading relationship with these countries. With regard to clause 27 of the bill and the import controls which could be exercised under it, I can only say that it has nothing to do with the textile board or protection of the textile industry. In fact, the textile industry could be specifically named. I do not believe in the type of restriction that is imposed here with regard to imports. I say they should be more specific, that it is almost impossible to accept a clause with such a broad range.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) should be the first to understand the implications of a clause of this nature. We had before the committee Mr. Dixon of the Canadian Importers' Association. I would like to read a section of their brief in which he tried to make a point in regard to the statements I have just made. In his brief, presented to the committee on February 16, he said that the tragedy of the proposed legislation is that it will seriously offend the majority of Canada's overseas customers. He said that all Canadian agricultural producers, primary resource producers, exporters of Canadian manufactured merchandise and, above all, the Canadian consumer will be affected.
The Consumers' Association of Canada was before the committee and expressed their fears that they would have to pay a higher price for textile commodities that are normally imported into Canada. They said this could tend to drive up the price of goods in other areas as our relationship with other countries deteriorated. As trade relationships with other countries deteriorate, we will find them cutting off Canadian imports; and I would point out that many of these countries are importers of Canadian raw materials. Again I state that we must look at this question from the western point of view and we might run into a situation where retaliation may come in the form of cutting off the importation of our raw materials, many of which come from western Canada.
I say to the minister again that I hope he appreciates the importance of maintaining good will in the area of international trade, and I hope he will take these matters into consideration before opposing the amendment before us.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I should like to comment on one or two of the points that have been made, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would address the Chair from his seat in the House. He realizes that we are not in committee and that he should address the House from his seat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He will have to speak without the help of your minister's knowledge.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: In my enthusiasm to enlighten the House, I rose in the wrong place.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It is not the first time.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I want to say a word or two, first of all, about the concern that has been expressed by some hon. members this evening which implies that a reference to other goods was somehow slipped into this bill so that hon. members would not be aware of it; that their attention was not drawn to it and that they were ignorant of the fact. There was no reason for them to be ignorant of the fact.
Perhaps the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who was not present in the committee, would not have had an opportunity to take part in all the discussions, but other hon. members who have spoken this evening were present at a number of the committee's sessions when we went over each clause carefully and discussed all aspects of the bill. I would have thought they would have picked up that point somewhere along the way. If they did not, the minister in a speech on second reading of the bill mentioned this point specifically. I will quote it to remind hon. members of what was said at the time. The following is a short section from that speech:
The new textile policy envisages the application of a unilateral measure including import quotas, in cases where a negotiated solution, such as a restraint agreement, cannot be reached... The amendment in the bill would enable the government to do this. However, the new subclause could be invoked only after a formal determination of injury by the textile and clothing board in the case of textiles and clothing and by the anti-dumping tribunal in the case of all other goods.
I repeat, "in the case of all other goods".


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Oh, oh!


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: This was said by the minister in his speech on second reading. Mr. Speaker, I feel that if members of the Official Opposition, who apparently are opposing the bill this evening-


Gerald William Baldwin: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has no right to say that we are opposing it. We are opposing certain very bad, repugnant provisions in the bill, not the bill itself.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: It is very difficult to tell that from the comments made by a number of hon. members. I was under the impression that many of them were opposing the bill quite strenuously. Perhaps they are not too sure of their own position on this matter. I want to comment on the statements made by the hon. member for Peace River concerning clause 27. I point out that this clause deals very specifically with the purpose of the bill. I shall read some of the comments made during second reading. In his opening remarks on second reading the minister referred specifically to this section in the Customs Act and said:
There have been cases In the past where countries agreed to restrain their exports in order to prevent a serious disruption of the Canadian market but were unable to do so effectively .. . the new policy envisages continued reliance on negotiated restraint as the principal means of protecting against disruptive imports. However, such an approach can only work if the agreed restraint levels are effectively enforced. The proposed amendment to the Customs Act will enable the government to assist the exporting countries in fulfilling their commitments.
March 18, 1971

Cases have arisen in the past where exporting countries which made commitments to restrain exports of a certain nature to certain quantities were unable to do so because they found they did not have the means with which to accomplish this objective. So if the policy is to be enforced at all it will have to be enforced by this government in Canada, and the Customs Act is the means by which these objectives can be brought about.
I mentioned earlier that the new policy envisages continued reliance on negotiated restraints as the principal means of protection against disruptive imports. We do not need to change from that policy, but it has to be effectively enforced. That is the reason for including this clause in the bill, to ensure that if necessary, and when necessary, it is possible to invoke the Customs Act in order that voluntary restraints may be effected. Many countries are not too happy about voluntary restraints, but they accept them and are happy to have our assistance in enforcing them. In fact, there have been instances where such countries have come to us and asked us to invoke the powers we have under the Customs Act. That is all I shall say on the clause that is before the House. I believe the minister wants to make some additional comments in regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)/
fTranslation]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): The hon. member is wondering whether, in the case of action taken by the government by order in council published in the Canada Gazette, as my Parliamentary Secretary has just explained, the government would be obliged as in the case of a surtax, to ask the House for agreement to take or extend such action. The answer is no, Mr. Speaker.
But, as explained by my Parliamentary Secretary, it is clear that clause 27 will be applied only after consultation with the country which has agreed to voluntarily restraints of its exports, after full exploration of all possible and available means to have the voluntary agreement enforced by that country itself.
I would like to emphasize that it would be rather dishonest on the part of the government of Canada to allow a country which has accepted to limit its exports to violate its own agreements and to export more than its quotas to Canada while other countries which have accepted voluntary restraints would respect their commitments.
I think it is good policy not to make any exception for those that do not accept to fulfill their commitments or cannot do so. Therefore, I do not see why, to reply to the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the government should come back to the House to seek authority to do what is, after all, quite normal and desirable.


John Stratford Burton: I want to speak on this clause for only a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker. I really want to deal with some of the implications, as I see them, of the last two clauses and the amendments thereto
Textile and Clothing Board Act which we have been discussing. Before doing so I would like to note that it would considerably facilitate discussion of these bills, whether in the House or in committee, if relevant references were included in bills' explanatory notes. There is an increasing tendency by the government to omit explanatory notes completely. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that when an amendment refers to another section of an act now in force, it should be included in the explanatory notes.
It would seem that there are serious implications in the provisions of clauses 26 and 27. It would appear that through these clauses the government is arming itself with extra weapons with which to carry on its trading relationships throughout the world. Perhaps these powers are needed by the government. There are indications that from time to time they will be needed in carrying on our trading relations. At the same time, I am sure it would be acknowledged by the government that they are restrictive in nature and, as such, carry ominous portents in terms of what may be coming in our trading relations. I only hope that the passage of clauses such as these will not contribute to a trend toward restrictive trading practices throughout the world.
We have some serious problems in our trading relations, but I hope everything possible will be done to prevent clauses such as these being interpreted in a way which would indicate that Canada may be contributing to a more restrictive and protective pattern of trading practices throughout the world. As I said, the powers which are contained in these clauses may indeed be needed by the government in dealing with certain situations. Their wording is quite clear. Nevertheless, a word of caution should be sounded that this is not the type of trend we want to see in our trading relations. It would be contrary to Canada's interests if it were found necessary to proceed in this direction.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On this point, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already spoken and can reply to the hon. member only with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This will take just one minute. First of all, there is an explanatory note in the original version of the bill which was used in the committee study. Secondly, I have listened to hon. members on the opposite side cautioning me against protectionism and, since I have the memory of an elephant, I can remember some of the things that were said on the subject of the use of the Export and Import Permits Act. As recorded at page 5320 of Hansard for February 10, 1969, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) said:
Speaking for this party I would say we are not only in favour of this legislation-
That is the Export and Import Permits Act
-being renewed but that we are strongly in favour of it being used more effectively than has been the case in the past several years.

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
We heard from the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), and he seemed to contradict the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). I know all hon. members speak independently; nevertheless, when a member speaks on behalf of his party, that should mean something. The hon. member for Waterloo said, as reported at page 5329 of Hansard for February 10, 1969:
This is very important. But on occasion some of our major industries that are large employers of labour are seriously jeopardized, and I can foresee the necessity for the government to take immediate action.
How can you take immediate action if there is not the legislation which will permit you to do so? He went on to say:
When such an occasion arises is not the time to start thinking about legislation. The legislation should be in existence and ready for implementation. Therefore we would like to see such blanket powers included in this bill.
Either they were joking or they meant it. I thought they meant it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question? Does he not realize, as is quite obvious from what was read, that hon. members were referring to the use of this legislation with regard to textiles and clothing. That is what they had in mind. The minister knows that and he cannot deceive us in that way. Will the minister not agree with me when I put that proposition to him?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand the point raised by the hon. member and I am not without sympathy. I said a moment ago that this has been done in the past and, I suggest, it will be done in the future. The hon. member stands on legalistic virginity. That is his right. But I live here, in the world and in Canada in 1971 and I must try to cope with the instruments at hand. The hon. member will see the quotations that I have read into the record; he will read them tomorrow. The quotations are there and they show that hon. members on the opposition side have requested us to open up this legislation with regard to control on disruptive imports.


An hon. Member:: No.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I submit that they have clearly said that, and the record will demonstrate it.


Gerald William Baldwin: They were only dealing with the clothing and textile industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) seeking the floor to ask a question?


John Stratford Burton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he listened to my remarks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did.


John Stratford Burton: If he listened, he would know very well that I indicated that those powers might very well be necessary. I simply entered a word of caution about their
use. My words in no way contradicted what was put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman).


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am pleased to receive that caution, although there is a limit as to how other hon. members may repeat what we heard earlier. Some hon. members are repeating the speeches they made this afternoon, cautioning the government against protectionism. However, I was very impressed when they told us a few months ago, on another occasion, not to be as cautious as we have been in the past. That was the point I was trying to raise and I think it is well to recall today what was said at that time.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a moment or two-


An hon. Member:: Or three or four.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -on the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) which seek to amend clause 26 and delete clause 27. If one examines clauses 26 and 27 one can readily understand why the title of the bill, "An act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof", takes on a very potent meaning. When I spoke on the bill this afternoon I commented on some remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which dealt with this whole matter. In committee proceedings No. 15, at page 5 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce used words which are very important because they pertain to the broad aspect of the amendments in clauses 26 and 27.
Speaking about the bill, he said that it heralds a marked change in Canada's assistance to manufacturing industry.
I will be the first to admit that I did not quote him verbatim this afternoon; I recalled what he said from memory. If one checks Hansard for this afternoon and compares it with what I have said this evening, one will readily see that clauses 26 and 27 broaden the scope of a textile and clothing board. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary said that this measure marks a change in Canada's assistance to manufacturing industry and it heralds a marked change. To me, this means that this measure constitutes a marked change toward protectionism, a concept that has long plagued the Liberal party.
Ever since the 1911 election the Liberal party has advocated free trade. In the provinces of western Canada particularly, they have repeatedly said that their party stands for free trade. That is why the amendments put forward by the hon. member for Peace River are very important. Clause 26 refers to "any goods" and clause 27 provides that any goods may be protected if that protection is justified. It is ironic that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, who comes from the apple industry area of British Columbia which long has lacked protection, should attempt to pilot this legislation through the committee and the House. It is ironic because the bill and

March 18, 1971

the amendment to clause 27 deals specifically with manufactured goods. Would processed apples that are used in making apple juice qualify as manufactured goods? I do not think they would.
I point out that this federal government offered the British Columbia Fruit Growers' Association, which is a co-operative growers association, something like $400,000 if they would just forget certain of their problems. That offer would have cost the organization money. The B.C. Fruit Growers' Association stated that they could not accept the offer because it would have cost them $700,000. It is ironic, also, that the minister who ought to pilot this bill through the House has left the Chamber.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am here.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I apologize to the minister. He has seen fit to sit with an hon. member on this side of the House, and I overlooked him.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thought the hon. member would see the light and join a free trade party in the right sense, a party determined to forward Canadian interests, which would lead him to improving our society economics. However, we are blindly asked to protect whatever manufacturing industry might foreseeably need protection in the future.
I grew up in the west. Throughout the years farm organizations have stated that periodically they have to protect the large manufacturing industries in the east without receiving any protection themselves. On every occasion when manufacturing industries have put forward their case it has been made public. However, under clauses 26 and 27 of this bill it does not have to be made public. The minister is nodding his head in the affirmative. I take it he agrees that this protection does not have to be made public. That is not right.
Bill C-215 is entitled "An act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board". Tied on as a rider is the following:
-and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof
Is the shoe industry "in consequence thereof"? Is a whole host of other industry "in consequence thereof" and may it be brought in under clauses 26 and 27 unknown to the public, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River? That is not correct, Mr. Speaker. It may be correct in a legalistic and Parliamentary sense. However, in a country that is striving to protect our solidity and forces are working to unite us, it is not correct. If unity is the question, it is not morally correct.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You made that speech this afternoon.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear some comments from the minister. I appreciate them. I do not care how many times I make the speech. What is important is how many times the speech registers in the mind of the minister.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It obviously has, if I can recall it.
Textile and Clothing Board Act


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says it obviously has. In addition to registering in the mind of the minister, I want it to register in the minds of the Canadian public.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are all as intelligent as I am.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe in democracy. The Canadian people must know what their government is doing. If the government is dealing in secret or unknown to the public, there is no difference between that kind of government and a dictatorship. By including everything within the scope of clause 27 the government is attempting to hide something from the public. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary sits here without commenting. He said in committee that this heralds a marked change. He acknowledges the fact that this heralds a marked change in Canada's assistance to manufacturing industries.
Where are we going, Mr. Speaker? Are we going to create a climate in which the manufacturing industry in central Canada will have more protection than the part of the country which is rich in raw materials? The country is regionally divided so that some areas have little or limited manufacturing industry. Are we prepared to sacrifice the raw materials in those areas for the manufacturing industries of other areas? The minister is making light of this argument.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am admiring your histrionics.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister is making light of this.


An hon. Member:: It is too big a word for him.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Histrionics is not too big a word for me. I heard it but I paid no attention to it. The minister made light of the argument I was putting forward. That will not endear him to western Canada. The regions of this country are divided. Western Canada is rich in raw materials and eastern Canada is rich in manufactured goods. As a representative of western Canada, I say that clause 27 will provide protection for any and all manufactured goods.
The minister went to great lengths this afternoon to explain the textile board. He is not necessarily knowledgeable on textiles and many other things. After the full explanation on all aspects of the bill, clauses 26 and 27-in particular, by the hon. member for Peace River, I know why there will be the appointment of three persons who are not necessarily knowledgeable on textiles but are knowledgeable on all manfactured goods. This is a radical change in the Liberal party. Up until this time the Liberal party has been able to successfully advocate in western Canada that they are the party of free trade. After the passage of this bill, the government will never be able to convince me or anyone within the sound of my voice-*


An hon. Member:: That is quite a distance.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -that they are the party of free trade. No member of the Liberal party can successfully argue that clause 27 should include all goods other than textiles and clothing. No person can successfully argue that point

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act unless he is prepared to say that manufactured goods need more protection.


Mr. Francis:: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Numerous ministers, including the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), have stated in this House that our trade balance is good. If one studied the level of exports he would be proud of the growth of the export of manufactured goods in recent years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Hees says the opposite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend from Prince Edward-Has-tings (Mr. Hees) is talking about total trade.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am talking about manufacturing industries. We can be proud of the increase-


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will show him your speech tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We can be proud of the increase in manufactured goods that we have exported in the last ten years. I see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce nodding his head in approval. I appreciate his nodding because it shows he follows my line of argument and agrees with it. Why, in these circumstances, is it necesary to include in this bill a mechanism which would give the government power, unknown to the public in the majority of cases, to cut off imports which a great many people might find desirable? If we look at the record of the textile industry we find that between 1965 and 1970 it grew at the rate of 3 per cent a year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I have to interrupt the hon. member to bring to his attention the fact that his time has expired. He can continue only with the consent of the House.


An hon. Member:: One minute.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me additional time. The point I am attempting to make is that in the past 10 years growth of employment in Canada has been largely in the service industries. Growth in employment in the manufacturing industries has been limited. By comparison with other industries, the textile industry has grown favourably and at a comparable rate. If one analyses the industry one finds that changes have been made within it. The industry has seen a marked growth in employment, in the dollar value of its sales, in the value of its products and in its efficiency, that is to say, the number of people employed in the industry in relation to the value of production.
While there has been a diminished return to the cotton section of the textile industry, there has been rapid growth in the man-made fibres section. Thus overall the textile industry has enjoyed a relatively good rate of growth by comparison with other manufacturing industries, and from this standpoint legislation of the kind

now before us can only have the effect of narrowing the horizon for all those who want greater opportunities to exist within Canada.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary has, of course, already spoken. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are not now in committee and hon. members cannot speak more than once without the unanimous consent of the House. I suggest, too, that if ministers and parliamentary secretaries speak more than once, the debate might well continue for quite a while.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75(11), the recorded vote on motion No. 7 stands deferred.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: motion No. 2:
That Bill C-215, an act to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be amended by renumbering clause 8 in line 11 at page 4 as subclause 8(1) and by adding immediately after line 20 thereof the following:
"(2) The board, on receiving notice of a complaint, shall immediately notify the person or persons involved in the importation of the alleged textile and clothing goods so that the person or persons could put forward reasons as to why the importation was not injurious to Canadian production."
He said: Mr. Speaker, in support of my amendment to clause 8,1 should like to point out that in my view we are dealing here with the crux of democracy.


An hon. Member:: Ah!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I heard some sad moans. I hope they did not come from the minister, because be holds a responsible position and as a member of a responsible government he must be prepared to adhere to the principles of democracy. Clause 8 sets out the duties of the board and relates to the filing of petitions by those whom imports affect. I attended as many of the committee proceedings as I could and I was especially concerned about the proceedings which are the subject of report No. 19. I heard evidence on that occasion which convinced me that this bill creates more uncertainty within importing industries in Canada than is now the case with a country such as Russia.
I do not intend to quote from the committee report because I am hypersensitive to charges of holding up legislation around this House, particularly today. Therefore, I shall not quote from committee proceedings No. 19. But witnesses did state that because of this bill they
March 18, 1971

would be better oft if they were in the importing business in a country such as Russia, because they would know exactly what goods they could import and what goods they could not import. Within Canada, after this bill passes, they stated they would not know with any certainly what goods they could or could not import. They say this bill would give the textile board the power to convince the minister that importation embargos should be placed on the importation of any goods which under section 8 could be said to be injurious to Canadian manufacturing industry.
From reading the committee proceedings one could convince oneself about the length of time for which goods could be curtailed from importation. In Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 15 the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) asked a number of questions about the meaning of the word "duration". On the same page the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) said that the policy is not to spell out a specific period of time and that clause 18 (d) deals with prospects for the industry to become internationally competitive. We return to the argument I made this afternoon which has not been disputed by the minister or by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. At this point the chairman interjected and asked whether the question was in respect of clause 17 (3) and the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin said:
It is clause 17 (3) that I am questioning on, Mr. Chairman. The word "duration" is there: "the board ... shall specify the recommended scope and duration."
I shall omit a few words of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary which are inconsequential at this point. Then Mr. Drahotsky, general director, office of industrial policy, stated:
The intention, really, is to leave this to the discretion of the board. In some instances, it might indeed specify a definite period; in other cases, it may simply recommend that the situation be reviewed from time to time.
These are the words I want to emphasize-that the situation may be revised from time to time. In other words, if a person feels he is being injured under clause 8, of this bill he may file a complaint and a board of inquiry could be held which might recommend to the minister that importation of a commodity be cut off until the inquiry was completed or until the injurious effect of the importation had in fact ended. Mr. Drahotsky at page 8 states that it may simply recommend that the situation be reviewed from time to time.
We have seen governments which have the ability to stall the most normal things from time to time, but here we have a situation in which an importer may have a number of dollars worth of imported goods on the high seas or he may have made a purchase in a foreign country; the importer need not be notified, under clause 8, that the board has received a complaint which has been filed in respect of the importation of those goods. Then suddenly the importer learns that his goods will not be allowed into Canada, he is out "X" number of
Textile and Clothing Board Act dollars and Canadians will be deprived of whatever it was that the importer thought he could sell on this market.
My amendment specifically asks for a democratic right in a democratic country. If the government is about to take action in respect of a specific imported commodity, the importer should be notified and have an opportunity to present evidence. We have the Bill of Rights which spells out that no man shall be judged without having his day in court. This bill, however, in essence provides that an importer may be tried without being notified.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Read clause 12. It is all there.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests that I read clause 12. I suggest that the minister read committee proceedings No. 19. He was not present at those hearings. At those hearings the importers clearly stated there is no provision in the bill that the board would have to notify the importer that his goods were subject to an inquiry because they were considered to be injurious to the products of an established company producing similar or like goods.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Answers were provided.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says answers were provided. I would inform him that when I attended the meetings of the committee on that particular occasion the answers were not provided to my satisfaction or to the satisfaction of the importers. The minister refers to clause 12, but that clause does not specifically apply in this case. It applies only once the decision is made by the board.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister says no.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The decision to hold.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have listened patiently to the minister. Clause 12 specifically spells out that the board may in a manner specified by its rules receive evidence submitted to it by interested parties. It does not say the board shall notify the interested parties and that the interested parties shall have the opportunity to submit evidence whenever a complaint is made against the importation of a particular product. If the minister would like me to move an amendment-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, no.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -or if I could have the unanimous consent of the House, I would move an amendment that under clause 12 "may" be changed to "shall", so that it would read, "the board shall, in the manner specified by its rules" receive evidence. The minister nods his head in approval of the suggestion I am making. I appreciate his acknowledgement of the point I am making. The amendment which I am proposing is that the board, on receiving notice of a complaint, shall notify the person or persons involved in the importation of the textile and clothing goods. Knowing now, as I do, the full import of

March 18, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act clauses 26 and 27, I should have added after "'textile and clothing goods" ''and other goods", so that the importers could put forward reasons why the importation was not injurious to Canadian production.
The only criticism I have of the amendment is that owing to my busy schedule I did not fully realize the importance of clause 27 and I should have added after the words "clothing goods" "and other goods". But not having done that, the amendment stands as it is. Clause 12 clearly states that the board may receive evidence if it so decides. If they want to rule autocratically and bureaucratically they may decide that they do not want to hear any further evidence. We must bear in mind that this is a protectionist bill. The Liberal party has become a protectionist party for the Canadian manufacturing industry. They have cast western Canada and its free trade aspirations to the wolves.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Try to import wheat into Canada.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister suggests we should import wheat into Canada. I have always felt that that is the true feeling of the Canadian government. They do not want to sell wheat; they want to import it. But we have a surplus of wheat in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Louder.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: What kind of poppycock is this? Of all the nonsensical positions that they may take, this is the most nonsensical. I have established this afternoon that the main purpose of this bill is to rationalize the textile industry. To this I have no objection. The rationalization of the textile industry first of all establishes the principle that we shall not build the textile industry solely for the Canadian market but that we should do so for the international market. The minister has admitted that in building the textile industry for the international market we must compete in sophisticated textile goods. He also said that we must protect the industry. This is where his rationalization and his logic fall down.
The minister said we must protect existing textile industries from low-cost production areas of the world such as the Pacific rim countries, which are our greatest customers. One of those countries is Korea. The Speaker of the parliament of Korea was present in the House. A reception was held in his honour. It is interesting to note that we export around $18 million worth of goods to that small country and we buy $15 million worth of goods from them. Most of the goods we buy are of low standard so far as the textile industry is concerned. We cannot compete with their price in the international market. But most of the goods which we sell to Korea come from western Canada.
It is interesting to note that so far as the rationalization program is concerned, the minister's logic falls down because we cannot build a viable textile industry within Canada to compete with low-cost textile producing areas. We can compete best with highly sophisticated textiles of countries such as Great Britain and the United States. It is also interesting to note that in our production of highly sophisticated textile goods we require more man-made
fibres. The most rapid growth in the Canadian textile industry has been with man-made fibres. In fact, 46 per cent of the textile industry in Canada is concerned with man-made fibres. Supposedly, this bill protects the industry, but clause 8 of the bill rules out the hearing of any person who may be injured by the actions of the board.
It is interesting to note that in Canada, where many people are concerned about buying back Canadian industry, we find the Canadian government prepared to protect an industry which is completely foreign-owned. The section of the textile industry involved with man-made fibres is completely foreign-owned. It is owned by five foreign companies-and that section of the industry has the greatest growth potential. Let us consider the rapid growth of the carpet industry alone. The market for carpets in Canada has rapidly increased; carpets are being used in schools, municipal buildings and many other places.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mostly red carpets!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not understand the purport of the minister's comment. If there is any significance in the colour red, I would like him to know that I like red cattle. I do not know what he means by red carpets. Maybe he means Red China. Perhaps he is referring to Tories who call themselves red Tories. I have no appreciation of red Tories. I like red cattle. In any case, the point I am making is that when one looks at the growth potential of the textile industry in Canada one cannot exclude the rapid growth of the man-made fibres sector of the industry.
In 1950 man-made fibres constituted about 19 per cent of the textile industry in Canada. By 1970 or 1971 manmade fibres accounted for 46 per cent of the textile industry. The carpet sector is growing by leaps and bounds and the last five years have seen an increase of 25 per cent in this area of the industry. The prospects for this sector of the industry are unlimited. If the purport of this bill is protection for a viable industry, one able to compete in the international market, there must first be a high degree of sophistication, which automatically requires a high degree of man-made fibres.
The government makes great claims about Canadian ownership. It has made the bold boast that it will buy Home Oil purely for the sake of Canadian ownership. But now it introduces a protectionist piece of legislation. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, openly and perhaps proudly-I did not attend the committee that day so I cannot say how proud he was-stated that this new legislation heralded a marked change in Canadian assistance to manufacturing industries. I say that the manmade fibre sector of the textile industry has great potential, but in Canada it is completely foreign-owned. If the minister or his parliamentary secretary would like me to read the evidence which supports that claim, I will do so. During the committee proceedings the parliamentary secretary said that basically five companies own it all. Mr. Speaker, it is completely foreign-owned.

March 18, 1971

This is a protectionist piece of legislation. It may well be passed at the expense of those regions of Canada which produce raw materials. This minister purports to be a minister of trade and commerce. I say he is a minister of protectionism. If I were to use an old western expression, I would say he is a minister of protectionism of the first water. We in western Canada ever since the turn of the century have advocated that free trade is the essence of growth. I would like to quote a former Prime Minister's verbiage in this House when he said that the Liberal Party stands for free trade. That Prime Minister's parliamentary secretary, the former member for Leeds who was later appointed a judge, stated in this House that protectionism would lead us to stagnation.
Where does the Liberal party lead us with this bill? They lead us to an undemocratic situation, because under clause 8 the accused is not given the right to be heard. I know the minister points to clause 12, but clause 12 says that the board "may receive evidence." I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes I have wished that I had become a lawyer and sometimes I am thankful that I did not. But I do know the meaning of the words "shall" and "may". "May" means that discretion lies with the board; it "may" decide to hear evidence from a person accused of importing textiles or other goods that are injurious to a Canadian manufacturing company.
If this board were set up as the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) suggested, with every region represented, I would put some faith in it. I think there would always be one or two of its members who would advocate that the accused be heard, that he be given his day in court. My amendment clearly provides:
The board, on receiving notice of a complaint, shall-
I emphasize the word "shall".
-immediately notify the person or persons involved in the importation of the alleged textile and clothing goods-
I emphasize again that I should have included the words "and other goods." All members of this House must believe in democracy. They must believed that an accused is entitled to his day in court. But the word used in clause 12 is "may." I say that if we truly believe in democracy we should stipulate that the accused shall have his day in court. On that point I rest my argument.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I asked permission to discuss this matter tonight in order to find out from the responsible minister when it is proposed to make payment of the funds which the government has decided to make available to western grain growers, and to stress the urgency of the matter. I point out to the minister that in his statement on "Proposals
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
for a production and grain receipts policy for the western grains industry" he said that Prairie farm cash receipts from the six major grains, wheat, oats, barley, rapeseed, flaxseed and rye were $878 million in the 1969-70 crop year, down $270 million from the figure of $1,148 million for the preceding five years.
I think the minister himself established beyond question the urgency of the income situation in western Canada. It was this that led me to ask, on February 22, when the payments would be made. Answering my question, the minister said-and he was referring to whether payments would be made before seeding time, or June 1:
I would envisage that it would depend on the specific provisions of the legislation, which of course is not yet before the House. Therefore I doubt that there would be any possibility of this happening before seeding.
Earlier, on February 10, 1971, I had again asked the minister how soon that legislation would be brought forward. In part he replied:
We are conscious, of course, of the desirability of having this money in the hands of the grain producers as soon as possible, and I hope that as the legislation comes forward it may secure speedy passage so that this can be accomplished.
I emphasize the minister's saying that it is desirable that this be done as soon as possible. The point I wish to make tonight is this. Following certain decisions the minister has made, it is no longer necessary for him to wait until the legislation is brought down to take action on the distribution of these moneys. He has decided on the method. He has said that it is to be an acreage payment. He has stated the amounts, approximately, that will be paid on each acre and the total acreage upon which the payments will be made.
The method is not in any way tied to the details of the plan he has set out, because under the stabilization plan the idea was that the payments would be made out of funds to be raised under the plan and they were tied to payments that would be made on the grains as they were marketed in current crop years. I would point out to the minister that the legislation which he proposes to introduce will probably be discussed in committee and in the House. In that connection I wish to read a paragraph from the March 16, 1971, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool News:
The pool's board of directors also contended that two per cent of gross receipts producers are being asked to contribute is too high in relation to the plan's benefits. Also it said the plan should include features to take care of steadily rising costs of operation.
I urge the minister, since the plan has been made and since this matter is not tied in specifically any more to deductions under the plan, in the interests of the farmers to take action, to release this money and to put the machinery in motion for paying it out. I urge him to proceed as soon as possible, bearing in mind the short fall in income which I have described and the need of the farmers in the area. I am sure he has received letters similar to those I have received, setting out the extreme hardships which many farmers are facing at this time of

March 18, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion year, and now the costs ol putting in a crop will be added to their ordinary living costs. That is why I asked the minister when he would make these payments and that is why tonight I urge him to take action as soon as possible.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, from the earlier discussions to which the hon. member referred it was clearly part of our thinking that it might be possible to secure somewhat earlier payment than had originally been intended, if the payment was not tied to the calculation of receipts for the crop year. This has now been determined, both in order to allow a somewhat earlier payment and also because the base for payment would have been a little difficult in this particular year if crop receipts had been the guide. The plan of payment is none the less very much tied to the whole series of proposals.
The hon. member referred to a number of things which were said when the plan was announced the other day. He did not mention that it was specifically indicated that this was in the nature of a transitional payment, recognizing the proposed phase-out of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the fact that the stabilization plan in its more formal fashion will begin a year from now. This is very much a fact. While we have done certain things, such as the $10 million market development every year and the announcement of the $40 million market forage program, this is a group of things that would be best dealt with together. I will be seeking the hon. member's co-operation in moving the legislation speedily forward so that payments can be made. I know how much it will be welcomed in the Prairie region.
The money is important. It is also important-I think the hon. member appreciates this-that we should not mislead eastern or central Canada into thinking this is some kind of handout, which could happen if it were separated from the rest of the proposals in the plan. It is very much a part of the over-all stabilization plan and a phase-out of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act. It is important that it be kept as one package. There is already far too much misunderstanding in parts of the country about the needs and justice of the case of the prairie farmer for this kind of assistance.



FISHERIES-CONVENING OF INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CONSERVATION OF MARINE RESOURCES

Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, on February 23 I directed a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) inquiring what action had been taken by his department to convene an international conference on the conservation of our marine resources. The minister replied that the fisheries of the north Atlantic came under the scrutiny of the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries which would be meeting in Halifax in June.
My colleagues agree that the government has a very serious obligation to take the necessary initiatives to convene an international conference of the fishing nations of the world for the specific purpose of reaching agreement on an effective method to conserve and manage our marine resources. We believe that this matter is important and urgent enough to demand, if agreement among all nations is impossible, this government to take unilateral action to protect and conserve this vital resource.
Canada has become the laughing stock of the fishing nations of the world. It has adopted a jellyfish-type policy. While the minister and the government sit around and play the traditional role of being nice fellows, the Russians, East Germans and other foreign fishing countries are plundering our marine resource right under our noses. We are being raped without even as much as a mild protest. Our inshore fishermen in Newfoundland have had their catches reduced to half what they were ten years ago. In the same period, the total catch in the northwest Atlantic by member nations of the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fishery has increased from two million tons to four million tons. The catch of the Soviet Union in that area in the same period has increased from 117,000 tons to 741,000 tons. What more evidence does this government require to recognize the serious danger of depletion that is facing the fishing industry in eastern Canada?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is too concerned about upsetting the cocktail circuit in Europe. He does not want to upset the cocktail circuit by imposing regulations which might cause some offence. He would prefer to see our fishermen lose their nets and continue to be at the mercy of foreign trawlers and draggers than take action along with the Minister of Fisheries to put an end to this plunder.
There are a number of difficulties facing the east coast fisheries, not the least of which is the question of the 12-mile limit. I recognize it might be impossible at this point to enforce regulations beyond the 12-mile limit but I contend that the government has a serious obligation to proclaim a 12-mile limit right around the coast. I know they have done so to an extent, after a great deal of urging on the part of my hon. friends and myself. The 12-mile limit has been proclaimed around part of the coast of Newfoundland, but I maintain that all our coast should be protected.
How would any hon. member feel if he were to go into his driveway and find, two or three times a year, that his car had been demolished or damaged by an outsider and that he was unable to do anything about it? How would any hon. member feel if his home were damaged or his lawn destroyed by an outside force? The fishing nets and other gear of fishermen on our east coast are being destroyed almost daily by foreign ships which move in and play havoc without regard for other people's property. When a fisherman tries to prove that they have a responsibility for the damage they have done, they laugh and treat it as a big joke. Canada is becoming a laughing stock among the fishing nations of the world and the captains of the foreign fishing vessels.
I urge the government, the Minister of Fisheries and in particular the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to
[Mr. Gleave.I
March 18, 1971

take action to convene an international conference on fish conservation. Second, I urge them to give protection to the other parts of the coast of Newfoundland by proclaiming the 12-mile limit in parts of my riding including Placentia Bay, the southern shore and St. John's where almost weekly fishermen are subjected to the depradation of foreign ships which destroy their gear without regard for its cost or anything else.
I hope the parliamentary secretary, who I understand will be replying to me, will impress upon his minister the extent of the problem facing east coast fishermen and the need for the speedy imposition of regulations which will give our fishermen the protection they deserve.
tTranslation]


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, we, on the
government side, readily accept the challenge offered by the late show to explain the position of the government on such a pertinent and important matter as that of the conservation of our marine resources which, by the way, has given rise to many questions since the beginning of the current session, both from the hon. member and from his colleagues.

However, the conservation and better management of our marine resources is also one of the top priorities of the Minister of Fisheries and of the government. The Minister of Fisheries has stated in the House on a number of occasions that in order to exercise proper conservation measures Canada must manage the fisheries resource not only in our own exclusive inshore zone but over our large continental shelf. The government of Canada has established exclusive fishing zones and has also established exclusive management responsibilities over wider areas. This is a fact.
I believe the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) through various efforts has made significant progress in a little over two years. This has been widely recognized and acknowledged by many members opposite. Only recently, on March 5, he announced the phasing out of foreign fishing operations on Canada's east coast. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) referred to the announcement as a very specific move. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) on that occasion urged hon. members to support the action taken by the government. This is good, but we are not satisfied with this. My minister is hopeful that continued and greater advances will be accomplished within the next few years if not within the coming months. In order to more effectively secure international co-operation on the conservation of marine resources, Canada participates in nine international fisheries commissions.
One of the most important and most successful commissions has been the International Commission for Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. All countries fishing in the northwest Atlantic are members of this commission. Canada will continue to exert every effort within the commission toward better conservation and management
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of our east coast fishing resources. The next annual meeting of the commission will be held in Halifax from May 27 to June 5 next, at which time we will again press for multilateral agreement on a number of Canadian proposals on the conservation of our Atlantic fishing resource.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF CANEX STORE AT KINGSTON BASE-EFFECT ON MERCHANTS

Mr. Desmond Code (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, on March 16th, I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) whether or not his department was planning to establish Canex stores in the Kingston area for the use of armed forces personnel and their dependents, and in direct competition with civilian merchants in the area. At that time the Chair ruled that my question might be considered in the adjournment debate.
I welcome this opportunity to point up the seriousness and the urgency of my inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and to provide hom. members with some background on the Canex system. It is not my intention to question Canex as a concept or to suggest that our armed forces are not entitled to such services. My intention is simply to question the wisdom and the ethics of establishing Canex stores in the areas where military installations are adequately served by civilian merchants and tradespeople.
Canex is an acronym for Canadian Armed Forces Exchange System and, as the name implies, this service is designed to provide armed forces installations with shopping facilities. The range of services provided is very broad and includes such things as groceries, dry goods, clothing, luxury items and other commodities designed to improve the living conditions of military personnel and their families. Mr. Speaker, if it were not for Canex the military personnel serving in remote areas of the country would be denied goods and services to which they are entitled, and their lives would be considerably less interesting and less bearable.
There is another aspect of the Canex system that is worthy of note, Mr. Speaker, and that is the service that the system provides for our military personnel and families serving in foreign countries such as Germany and Cyprus. In such situations our people are able to purchase foods and other goods that are common to their own country, goods that are in many cases unavailable in the markets of the countries in which they are serving. This is a good thing, Mr. Speaker, and I commend those who designed the system initially and also those presently employed in the Canex system. They are doing a very worthwhile job.
However, Mr. Speaker, I return to my original question as to whether Kingston, Ontario, qualifies as either a foreign installation or a remote station where foods, dry goods and comfort items are not readily available. I think we can all agree that exactly the opposite is the case. Kingston has been a military area of some consequence since long before confederation. The people and the merchants of the area long ago became accustomed to living and working with military personnel and families and

March 18, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion serving their needs. Our armed forces are justifiably proud of the contributions they have made to Kingston's social and economic communities and the citizens of the area have done much to integrate the lives of the military people with their own. In short, there is not a situation in Kingston that would justify the armed forces taking extreme measures to provide basic shopping services to the military personnel in the area.
One might argue that the lower prices involved would justify the establishment of Canex stores in the vicinity of any armed forces station in view of the fact that our military personnel are poorly paid. This might have been an argument a few years ago when military salaries started at about $45 or $50 a month, but that has changed drastically in recent years. Now our armed forces are among the highest paid in the world, and while they might feel that they deserve more at least they are making a good living.
There is one more aspect of the Canex question that deserves our full attention, and that is the aspect of unfair competition to the established merchants in Kingston if a Canex store should be established in or near the community. The merchants of Kingston, like merchants in any other community, have invested in businesses to the extent of the local requirement. In the case of Kingston this has meant investing in facilities that would serve the needs of military as well as civilian clientele. If you take the traditional military customers away from Kingston businesses, it is obvious that the loss would be quite considerable and in many cases it would be sufficient to destroy businesses in the city and vicinity.
Needless to say, merchants, merchants' associations and city officials have all joined forces in protest against the planned establishment of Canex stores in Kingston. It may well be that the Kingston situation will establish guidelines for the government with regard to opening Canex stores in other areas across Canada. If they do succeed in opening a Canex store in Kingston, the door will be opened to similar installations in towns where the financial loss to local merchants could be disastrous.
I urge the Minister of National Defence to consult with city officials and merchants' associations in Kingston before the Canex store is approved. There are both short-range and long-range implications in such a policy that should not, and must not, be ignored.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member had come here to bury Canex, but instead he appears to have come to praise it. However, I am glad to have the opportunity to put on the record certain facts to inform both the hon. member and the Kingston area about the operation of the Canex system.
The policy of the Department of National Defence is to provide through non-public funds, that is to say non-tax funds, resale outlets on all defence establishments whether they be located in urban areas, in remote areas or overseas. The purpose of this policy is twofold: first, to provide a convenience and benefit to the members of the forces no matter where they are directed to serve and, second, to generate the profits required to permit recreational, welfare and morale programs to be maintained at optimum levels.
The hon. member said that there should not be such stores in more settled areas. But I think it must be quite clear that without the inclusion of resale activities at large defence installations within the exchange system, such as those at Canadian Forces Base Kingston or Petawawa, it is doubtful that support could be provided to our remote and overseas installations such as at Inuvik, Chibougamau or Lahr.
I should point out to the hon. member and to Kingston residents that the exchange system is subject to all federal and provincial sales taxes on goods offered for resale. In addition, overhead costs of heat and electricity are gradually being assumed by the exchange system. Insurance on plant and inventory is a responsibility of the exchange system and not the Crown, and I emphasize again that these are not public funds. Except for the base exchange officer, that is to say one employee, all payroll expenses are met by the exchange system. I would argue that the Canex system is not unfair competition with local merchants. In particular, it caters to authorized patrons only, that is, to service families and to civilians employed on the base, while local merchants have the entire population to serve. On the contrary, I would suggest that the increase in population that comes along with a Canadian Forces Base is very much to the benefit of local merchants.
But perhaps the best argument in favour of Canex is an experience I had at Petawawa during the fall emergency. The residents of Pembroke emphasized to me that because the troops were away from the base, local sales had gone down. What better illustration could one have for the proposition that the establishment of a forces base in an area is good for the local business merchants? I thank the hon. member for providing me the opportunity to put on the record once again the facts of the Canex operation.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, March 19, 1971