1971-05-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Portelance.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to outline a significant extension to my department's drug quality assurance program which I anticipate will be a major step toward the government's goal of reducing the cost of drugs to the public. When operational on a full fiscal year basis, this extended program will cost an additional $2,355,000 per annum. This amount will be in addition to funds currently being expended in the drug quality assurance area.
The drug quality assurance program will be operated by the Food and Drug Directorate of my department, in co-operation with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. This program is being built on four cornerstones: drug analysis; intensive inspection of manufacturing facilities; assessment of the effectiveness of drugs on the Canadian market; and provision of information concerning results, along with information on comparative prices, to the health professions, provincial drug purchasing agencies, and the general public.
Provision of information on drug quality and comparative prices will allow physicians and pharmacists to prescribe and dispense lowest-priced drug products of assured high quality. It should also encourage the general public, and other drug purchasers including the provinces, to buy lowest-priced drug products of assured quality, by comparative shopping.
I will not attempt at this time to say more about the program. However, because of the interest of the House in this subject, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in both official languages a document which outlines the program in more detail.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition welcomes the announcement of a federal government program aimed at reducing drug costs to Canadians by guaranteeing the effectiveness of lower-cost brand name and generic drugs. There are certain aspects
of the extended federal drug quality assurance program just announced that are of merit. For example, the provision of comparative information on drug quality and prices will be important.
However, the program is inadequate in two ways. It is inadequate to deal with the costs of drugs in the present and the immediate future, and it is inadequate to deal with the larger problems of prescription drugs.
First of all, let us look at the problem of when the impact of the program will be felt. The time frame during which this program is to become fully operational is worrisome. For example, the annual inspection of manufacturing and distributing firms will not commence until 1973. The inevitable lag in publishing results of such inspections means that the information gained from this part of the program alone will not reach the Canadian consumer for several years. Therefore the reduction of drug costs is not an immediate prospect but merely a long-term possibility.
The timing and amount of the financial resources to be expended on this extended program also point to its inadequacy. Only slightly more than 2 million dollars is to be added to the annual budget for the extension of the program, a drop in the bucket compared to the 271 million spent by Canadians buying retail prescription drugs in 1970. The additional allocation will not be fully used until the program is in full operation. The minister does not state when that will be, although my estimate from reading this document is that the full amount will not be utilized at least until 1973 and perhaps later.
For the immediate future, then, the additional funds to be spent can hardly be termed significant for accomplishing the minister's stated aim of reducing drug costs to the public. Many Canadians need a reduction in drug costs now, not in 1975 or 1977. As I stated in the House on March 15, 1971:
-the government should give immediate consideration to the provision of free drugs for all persons in receipt of social services and for graded payments for those on limited incomes who are now covered by medicare.
As I stated then, certain disadvantaged persons such as welfare recipients and old age pensioners suffer most from present high drug costs. Older people have limited incomes but are subject to more medical and drug costs at that time of life than younger age groups.
The second major inadequacy of the proposed extended drug quality scheme is the failure of the government to include this proposal in a larger program to attack the problems of prescription drugs. The government is introducing reforms on a piecemeal basis. As the minister and the government well know, this was part and parcel of the national health plan. As Emmett Hall said when he

May 26, 1971
Drug Quality Program
brought in his report, this must be included and be complementary to the plan.
The Progressive Conservatives have long advocated the need for paramedical staff to supplement the offices of the nation's physicians. Such staff could reduce the workload of doctors and allow them to treat more thoroughly patients requiring attention for problems now being treated by an excessive reliance on mood-modifying drugs or tranquilizers. According to the Canadian Medical Association, one-third of all prescriptions issued by Canadian physicians during a recent survey were for mood-modifying drugs such as amphetamines, barbitu-ates, tranquilizers and anti-depressants, and over half of such prescriptions for mood-modifying drugs were repeat prescriptions.
To deal with the cost of these drugs is tangential to the major issue, I submit, Mr. Speaker. What is needed is a policy to increase paramedical aid to physicians so that they can deal more thoroughly with their patients, thereby reducing the degree to which mood-modifying drugs are needed as treatment in such cases. To eliminate the need for costly drugs is better than to merely reduce drug costs.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will act shortly to give free drugs to the disadvantaged Canadians and to institute a program of paramedical aid for doctors. Such measures are necessary to fill the gap left by the extended drug quality assurance program he announced today. Only then can the federal government hope to achieve its stated aim of reducing the cost of drugs to the public.
I hope that the minister is not setting up guidelines that later can be used in a compulsive way to make the doctor prescribe only drugs which appear on the Food and Drug Directorate's list.
Again, I appreciate the minister's motive for taking a very timid step. I note that the minister speaks about the clinical efficacy of drugs. I am sure that his department realizes that the therapeutic equivalency of a drug is much more difficult to determine than the analysis or inspection of manufacturing facilities.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada have been concerned about the price of prescription drugs for a dozen or more years. They have been calling on governments, federal and provincial, to take action to bring about a sharp reduction in the cost of prescription drugs. From the studies that have been made it is obvious that the substitution of generic drugs could go a long way toward reducing the cost of prescription drugs.
Prescription drugs are unlike any other consumer item; the consumer has no choice as to the prescription he gets. Almost exclusively it is the doctor who decides what particular drug shall be used. Doctors have felt, with a good deal of justification, that they could not take a chance on substituting a generic drug for a well known brand name drug because they had no assurance that the substitute drug would be as safe and as useful as the brand name product.
When the special committee set up to examine this question met five or six years ago, we suggested that unless the federal government would implement a system of widespread testing and communicate the results to the doctors and the pharmacists, it would be impossible to reduce substantially the price of prescription drugs to consumers. Events have proven that we were right. Therefore we welcome this move by the government to set up a testing organization and information service so that doctors will be in a position to know, when they prescribe a generic product costing perhaps one-half or even one-fifth as much as the brand name drug would cost the patient, that the patient is getting a prescription which is equally efficient in doing the job it is intended to do. We welcome this move. We are sorry it has taken so long and that it will take another two years to get into operation. I still do not believe this program will do the whole job which is required to bring the cost of prescription drugs down.
I still believe we shall reach a point in the not too distant future when the federal government will see the necessity for setting up a Crown corporation to manufacture certain small percentages of the most important and frequently used drugs, so that a reliable price yardstick can be established enabling doctors and patients to know what the price should really be instead of what they are having to pay at the present time.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the drug quality assurance program the minister has just announced deserves special attention, and I trust it will allow the achievement of its objectives, namely the sustained quality of drugs and lower prices for the general public.
Those are worthy objectives. The Canadian people are certainly entitled to drugs of the best possible quality at a reasonable cost.
The program rests on four points; to my mind, it is a start, and should receive much more attention on the part of the department.
The minister mentioned the fact that retail sales of prescription drugs amounted to over $271 million in 1970. The volume of sales itself indicates the great importance of adequate surveillance by the Food and Drug Directorate and the Department of National Health and Welfare so that the Canadian people may be well protected.
I am amazed to hear that the Food and Drug Directorate does not inspect the 104 firms more than once every three years and that it will only be from 1973 on that the inspections will be made once a year. This demonstrates without any doubt the inefficiency of the inspection department. This failure could have been corrected a long time ago. Having noted this failure, the minister states that inspections will be carried out once a year, from 1973 on. Here is another proof of the inefficiency of certain departments which seem lost, unable to correct an unbearable situation. Where a decison has been made to improve the situation, they only proceed at turtle pace.

May 26, 1971

The minister also mentions the necessity of reassessing some of the products which have been available to the public for a number of years. This, to me, is a superfluous statement since the Food and Drug Directorate has the responsibility of controlling the different drugs made available to the public. It would mean that the directorate was not regularly performing its surveillance task.
It is highly necessary that the results of the drug quality control program be made available to health specialists.
The population has long been calling for a reduction of the price of drugs which, unfortunately, has recently increased again in some areas.
I therefore trust the new program will indirectly contribute to the reduction of costs of drugs to Canadians.
[English]
* *
*



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing necessity and of immediate concern to every Canadian. I am referring to the announcement today of the substantial and alarming increase in the price of 80 per cent of Canada's rolled steel products which will have widespread and extremely damaging effects on the level of prices for consumers and on the confidence and growth of the Canadian economy at this most critical time.
Therefore, with unanimous consent I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski): That this House urges the government immediately to outline the government's inflation and unemployment projections and goals for 1971; and that the government make a clear, definitive statement on the consequences and causes of this increase, as well as on what action the government plans to take in the remedial sense.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. The motion is moved under the terms of Standing Order 43 and therefore requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put at this time.



TELESAT CANADA


Mr. James Hugh Faulkner (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table copies, in English and in French, of the Telesat annual report for 1970. 24107-37
Questions



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	On what date or dates did the Governor in Council, or any authority designated by the Governor in Council, order the Blue Water Bridge Authority to make its cost records and its cash receipt and disbursement records available, pursuant to section 19(1) of the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act which was enacted 21st May 1964?
2.	On what date or dates did the Blue Water Bridge Authority provide the Governor in Council, or his designee with itemized, detailed and verified reports of the Authority's receipts and disbursements under section 19(2) (a) of the Act?
3.	Commencing with 1964, in what year or years were the accounts of the Blue Water Bridge Authority audited by persons designated by the Governor in Council, or his designee, under section 19(2) (b) of the Act?
4.	Has the Auditor General recently required from the appropriate department information, reports and explanations concerning the operations of the Blue Water Bridge Authority?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. In accordance with the requirements and responsibilities of the Canadian Government, certain financial information, mainly with respect to tolls, has been submitted to the government by the Blue Water Bridge Authority under the provision of the Railway Act. No additional request for financial information has been made to date under the enabling authority contained in the Blue Water Bridge Authority Act, section 19 (1) (a).
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No persons have been so designated.
4.	No.


STEPS TAKEN TO OBTAIN ESTIMATES OF NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO HAD NOT BECOME CANADIAN CITIZENS BY JANUARY 1, 1970
Mr. Nowlan: With respect to the answer to Question Number 1 on October 26, 1970, what steps has the Department of the Secretary of State taken to obtain estimates of the number of individuals, by country of citizenship, normally resident in Canada who had not become Canadian citizens by January 1, 1970, of an accuracy sufficient to permit the intelligent planning of government activities and programs relating to those individuals.


Hon. Robert Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Estimates of the number of individuals, by country of citizenship, normally resident in Canada who had not become Canadian citizens by January 1, 1970, are impossible to obtain with any degree of accuracy short of requiring the non-citizen immigrant population to register. Such a requirement would single out a particular group of residents and impose a special burden on them quite apart from the administrative costs to government. Intelligent planning of government activities and programs relating to these individuals is based upon sufficient and satisfactory data drawn from a combination of alternative sources such as the Department of Man-

May 26, 1971
Questions
power and Immigration, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, existing citizenship registration statistics, etc.


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT-MOVEMENT OF PRESENT QUARTERS TO PLACE DE VILLE TOWER &quot;C&quot;
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the Department of Transport to move from its present quarters to new quarters at Tower "C", Place de Ville and 330 River Road, Vanier and, if so (a) on what date will such moves take place (b) for what reason?
2.	(a) What sections of the Department of Transport will be located at Tower "C", Place de Ville and what sections will be located at 330 River Road, Vanier (b) for what reason were the services of the Department separated?
3.	How much floor space is to be leased in each of the buildings (a) from whom (b) for what period of time (c) what is the dollar value annually for each of the leases?
4.	Will new furnishings be provided in the new quarters and, if so, (a) on what basis will these furnishings be provided (b) at what cost (c) what action will be taken to dispose of the office furnishings that are presently in use by the personnel of the Department of Transport?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the departments of Public Works and Transport as follows: 1. The Ministry of Transport will move to Tower "C", Place de Ville but no elements of the Ministry will move to 330 River Road, Vanier. (a) September 1971. (b) to provide the Ministry of Transport with more suitable accommodation in a single location.
2.	(a) and (b) It is planned to locate the Ministry Headquarters; the Canadian Air Transportation Administration; the Canadian Marine Transportation Administration, including the headquarters of the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority; and the Canadian Surface Transportation Administration in Tower "C", Place de Ville.
3.	Place de Ville, Tower "C", 467,581 square feet (approximately), (a) Campeau Corporation Limited; (b) Ten years with a five year option; (c) $2,656,472.37.
4.	(a) and (b) It is intended to equip the new quarters with new office furnishings to the extent existing furnishings need to be replaced because of condition, obsoleteness and incompatibility with modern office arrangements. Extensive use will be made of Canadian Government designed modular type furniture. Cost of the new office furnishings is estimated at approximately $1,000,000. (c) Normal disposal action will be taken through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


TRADE COMMISSIONER SERVICE-ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN FIRMS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many private firms in Canada required the assistance of the Trade Commissioners in finding markets or sources of supply in other countries for the years 1968 and 1969?
2.	In each of those years, how many succeeded in finding a market abroad to export their commodities or services?
3.	In what countries did they succeed in selling their products?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secreiary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1 and 2. Available information indicates that in both 1968 and 1969 the Trade Commissioner Services Posts around the world handled over 20,000 export enquiries from Canadian firms. This total includes cases where firms have addressed the same enquiry to a number of posts abroad. A registry of individual firms making such enquiries is not maintained. In 1968 the Trade Commissioner Service assisted in the establishment abroad of 1,400 new buying connections and 650 new sales agencies connections. In 1969 these figures were 1,200 new buying connections and 1,400 new sales agencies connections.
3. In 1968 and 1969 Canadian sales rose in all countries where trade offices are maintained.


NARCOTICS CONTROL ACT AND FOOD AND DRUGS ACT-JAIL SENTENCES
Mr. Yewchuk: For the years 1969 and 1970, how many persons between the ages of 16 and 24 received jail sentences under the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act for (a) possession for the purpose of trafficking in drugs (b) the trafficking in these (c) illegal importation or exportation of drugs?


John Carr Munro: 
COMPENSATION TO CANADIANS LIVING ABROAD
Mr. Fortin: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, during each of the past five years, how many Canadians were living abroad?
2.	During the past five years, was the government held responsible for damages sustained by its nationals living abroad and, if so (a) in how many cases (b) what was the total amount of such damges?
3.	How many Canadian technical assistants are living abroad?
4.	Has the government compensated Canadians whose assets were nationalized by foreign governments and, if so, in what
cases?
5.	Does the government provide for compensation to its nationals for damages sustained by them abroad and, if so, in what manner?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of External Affairs and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: 1. This information is not available. There is no annual census or world-wide registration of Canadian citizens resident abroad. In many countries abroad Canadian citizens making a prolonged stay there are invited in their own interests to register with the appropriate diplomatic or consular post; they are, however, under no obligation to do so and experience has shown that many do not register. The total of those who have so registered as of March 1, 1971 is approximately 37,000. This figure does not include any Canadians who are resident in countries where registration records are not maintained, among which are the United States and the United Kingdom.
2.	To our knowledge, no.
3.	1,096, CIDA; 1,157, CUSO.
4.	The Government does not of itself compensate Canadian citizens whose assets have been nationalized by foreign governments. The government has however, concluded claims agreements with foreign governments and has distributed the proceeds received among Canadian citizens whose property has been nationalized by those governments. Particulars of claims agreements concluded are set out hereunder, (a) On June 30, 1966 a claims agreement was signed with the People's Republic of Bulgaria under which the Canadian Government received a payment of $40,000. The payment was in respect of property rights, interests and debts of the Canadian Government, Canadian citizens and Canadian Juridical persons which had been affected directly or indirectly by Bulgarian measures of nationalization, expropriation or other similar measures which had taken effect before the date of agreement. The proceeds of the settlement have been distributed by the appropriate ministers amongst claimants on the recommendation of an adviser on claims, (b) On June 1, 1970 a claims agreement was signed with the Hungarian People's Republic under which the Canadian Government will receive a payment of 1.1 million dollars in five annual equal installments, the first of which has been received. The payment was in respect to the property rights and interests including debts other than bonded debts of the Canadian Government and Canadian citizens affected
24107-37J
Questions
directly or indirectly by Hungarian measures of nationalization, expropriation, state administration and other similar measures arising out of structural changes in the Hungarian economy and regulations made or administrative action taken thereunder which have taken effect before the date of the agreement. The settlement includes debts arising out of contracts of insurance concluded before December 21, 1941, shares in Hungarian banking companies affected by the Hungarian Law XXX of December 1, 1947 which were continuously owned by Canadian citizens, obligations arising out of Articles 24 and 26 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary of February 10, 1947 and obligations arising out of Articles 231 and 232 of the Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920. A Chief Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have been appointed, known by the title of the Foreign Claims Commission, for the purposes of adjudicating the claims and recommending to the appropriate ministers the distribution of the proceeds of the settlement amongst Canadian claimants.
5.	The government does not provide compensation for damages sustained abroad by its nationals by reason of the wrongful acts of persons other than servants or agents of the Crown in the right of Canada.


CNR BONDS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	Who, other than the federal government, hold CNR bonds?
2.	Are the bonds issued by CNR in repayment of loans contracted by the railway?
3.	What are the rates paid on such bonds?
4.	What means are taken to repay them when due?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. As CNR bonds are widely held and negotiated by private and commercial investors, it is not possible to answer specifically the question in the form asked.
2.	and 3. No bond issues have been made by the company since 1960. Details of the outstanding issues may be found on page 40 of the company's printed annual report for the year 1969.
4.	By government loans under authority of the Canadian National Railways Refunding Act 1955 and/or through the Purchase Funds operated under the conditions of each issue. Details of the latter transactions are also shown on page 40 of the company's 1969 annual report.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-LEGAL RESEARCH AND PLANNING SECTION
Mr. Foriin: 1.	On what date and in what manner was the Legal Research, and Planning Section of the Department of Justice established?
2.	How many people are employed in this Section and how many are trained in (a) civil law (b) common law?
3 How hany employees in this Section (a) are bilingual (b)i speak French only (c) speak English only?

May 26, 1971
Questions


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1. The creation of the Legal Research and Planning Section of the Department of Justice was announced on April 28, 1970 before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the appointment of the Director was announced on July 2, 1970.
2.	Twelve persons are employed in the section. One is trained in civil law and six are trained in common law.
3.	Five employees in the section are bilingual; none speak French only; seven speak English only.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-STUDY OF LEGAL AID SYSTEMS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Department of Justice had a study made on legal aid systems and, if so, will the Department publish the report?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to ensure that all persons have access to legal services and, if so, what steps are contemplated?


John Napier Turner: 1. Yes, but the study was not made for the purpose of publishing a report and the notes and other material in relation thereto are not in a suitable form for publication.
2. The Government recognizes the desirability for legal aid to be available to persons in need of it and consideration is currently being given to what the federal role should be in this field.


*CBC-COVERAGE OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY CONVENTION
Mr. Deakon: 1.	How many staff and other personnel were employed by the CBC for coverage of the New Democratic Party Convention?
2 What was the total cost to the CBC for this coverage?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Approximately 150 people were assigned to provide live coverage of the NDP leadership convention in April for the English and French radio and television services; and
2. It has not been customary to require the corporation to disclose individual programming costs.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: It was worth every dollar.


RCMP-PARLIAMENT HILL DETACHMENT
Mr. Peddle: 1.	How many RCMP officers are normally assigned to duty on Parliamentary Hill?
2.	How many of these officers are fluently bilingual?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. Thirty-one.
2. Twenty-five of these are sufficiently competent in both official languages to enable them to efficiently carry out their assigned duties in either language.


NUMBER OF THERAPEUTIC ABORTIONS AND LIVE BIRTHS, 1970
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,329
Mr. Peddle:: 1.	How many therapeutic abortions were performed at hospitals in each province and the Yukon during 1970?
2.	What was the number of live births in each province and the Yukon during 1970?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Statistics
Canada (Dominion Bureau of Statistics) reports that: 1. and 2. The following table shows the number of therapeutic abortions performed in hospitals for the provinces and the Yukon for 1970, and the number of live births for the provinces and the Yukon for 1969. Final figures of live births for the year 1970 are not available yet.
Reporting	Total Therapeutic	Live BirthsProvince/Area	Abortions	Registered(1970)	(1969)All reporting areas	11,200	368,431Newfoundland	25	13,000Prince Edward Island	18	2,009Nova Scotia	263	13,618New Brunswick	72	11,695Quebec	541	95,610Ontario	5,657	130,398Manitoba	248	17,809Saskatchewan	217	17,592Alberta	1,172	30,855British Columbia	2,981	35,383Yukon	6	462


COME-BY-CHANCE, NEWFOUNDLAND-REPAYMENT OF MONEYS EXPENDED ON CONSTRUCTION OF WHARF FACILITIES
Mr. Carter: 1.	Has the federal government requested the Government of Newfoundland, or any of its agencies and Crown corporations, to guarantee repayment to the Government of Canada of moneys to be expended by it in the construction of wharf and dock facilities at Come-by-Chance, Newfoundland and, if so (a) on what date was the request made (b) what has been the response?
2.	Has Mr. John Shaheen, Shaheen Natural Resources Inc. or Newfoundland Refining Company Limited been requested by the Government of Canada to give such a guarantee and, if so, what has been the response?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The
draft agreement now in the hands of the Crown Corporations of the province of Newfoundland requires a repayment to the Federal Government of the full cost of the wharf, plus interest, over a 25-year period. This has been the position of the Federal Government in all negotiations, and is accepted by the Crown Corporations.
2. The ownership of the refinery may not be transferred to the Newfoundland Refining Company Limited unless they assume the obligation to repay the balance owing on the wharf. This, again, is a condition of the agreement. The agreement has not as yet been signed, but the only outstanding issues under discussion are of

May 26, 1971

a technical nature, and have nothing to do with the provision to repay the Federal Government all costs, plus interest.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Nysirom: Are all trainees under the program of Occupational Training for Adults (OTA) referred and encouraged to participate in all occupational training programs available and, if so, how many (a) male (b) female, applicants are enrolled in each of the fields of training offered?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No. Individuals are referred for training in those courses which are best suited to their needs and the needs of the labour market, and which will help them to increase their opportunities for employment or their earning capacity, (a) and (b). Of the persons who were authorized to receive full-time occupational training, approximately 75 per cent were male and 25 per cent female. Of those who were authorized to receive apprentice training during this period 88 per cent were male, 2 per cent female while the gender of the remaining 10 per cent is not recorded in training records.


PUBLIC SERVICE CONCURRENT COMPETITIONS
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With respect to the reply to Question Number 1,104 at page 4990 of Hansard, April 7, 1971, is it customary to have concurrent competitions for the same position in the Public Service and, if so, under what authority?
2.	What distribution was made of the circular for Competition No. 70-430-27?
3.	Were all persons who applied for Competition No. 70-ID-4301 notified that Competition No. 70-430-27 was being held?
4.	How many other concurrent competitions have been held which would permit exclusion of certain applicants?
5.	What selection standards were set for Competitions No. 70-ID-4301 and No. 70-430-27 and, how did they differ?
6.	Would the successful candidate for Competition No. 70-43027 have been eligible for appointment under Competition No. 70-ID-4301?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Section 11(1) of the Public Service Employment Regulations authorizes the responsible staffing officer, where he has reason to believe that there are insufficient number of persons employed in the Public Service who are qualified for appointment to existing or anticipated vacancies, to conduct simultaneously a closed competition and a competition that is open to persons who are not employed in the Public Service.
2.	Canada wide.
3.	Persons who applied in Competition 70-ID-4301 were not personally notified of Competition 70-430-27. However, ten thousand posters were circulated as per (2).
4.	Commission records are maintained in such a manner that this information cannot be extracted.
Questions
5.	Selection Standards for the Economics, Sociology and Statistics Group approved and published by the Public Service Commission with effect from May 1970. Those used in Competitions 70-ID-4301 and 70-430-27 did not differ.
6.	No-because 70-ID-4301 was a closed competition and was restricted to employees of the Public Service.


PUBLIC WORKS-PROJECTS IN CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER NORTH, 1971-72
Mr. Coales: 1.	What projects will the Department of Public Works initiate in Cumberland-Colchester North during the fiscal year 1971-72. in the field of (a) public buildings (b) harbour and wharf improvements ?
2.	What repairs will be effected by the Department of Public Works in Cumberland-Colchester North to existing structures?
3.	In each instance, what is the estimated cost of the proposed work and what is the estimated completion date of either new projects or repairs to existing structures?


Arthur Laing: (a) Location	Project	Completion DateAmherst	New Federal Building	Fall of 1972Pugwash	Extension to Post Office	October 1971Parrsboro	New building for Post Office and Fisheries and Forestry Departments	February 1972(b) Nil.	Note: It is not customary to give estimated cost befoie	contract is	awarded.	Location	Project	Completion DateAmherst	Dominion Public Building-Interior painting	July 1971Truro	Federal Building-Waterproofing-Window	August 1971Coverings	July 1971Brookfield	Post Office Buildings-	Maccan Port Howe Malagash Joggins	Improvements to paving	September 1971Advocate	Wharf repairs	September 1971Malagash	Approach repairs	September 1971Barrachois	Approach repairs	August 1971Port Philip	Wharf repairs	July 1971Parrsboro	Breakwater repairs	September 1971In addition	regular ongoing repairs	and maintenance
to small buildings and marine facilities, involving minor expenditures, will be carried out.
Note: It is not customary to give estimated cost before a contract is awarded.
3. Answered in parts 1 and 2, above.

May 26, 1971
Order for Return


QUEBEC-RENEWAL OF ARDA AGREEMENT
Mr. Rodrigue: Has the ARDA agreement between the Government of Canada nd the Government of the Province of Quebec been renewed and, if not, are discussions under way on the renewal of the agreement?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Discussions are virtually complete and it is expected that a new agreement will be signed shortly.


HUNTING OF POLAR BEARS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each of the past five years, how many licences for hunting of polar bears have been issued to (a) Canadian hunters (b) foreign hunters?
2.	During each year, how many polar bears have been shot by (a) Canadian hunters (b) foreign hunters by country of origin?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 1969-70 (a) six, (b) none. 1970-71 (a) one; (b) nine.
2. 1969-70 (a) six, (b) none. 1970-71 (a) none, (b) three bears taken by foreign hunters with two hunters still in the field. Country of origin of these foreign hunters is United States.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-STUDIES CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS SECTION
Mr. Barnett: With respect to the answer to Question Number 1,221 at page 5519 of Hansard, May 5, 1971, has an analysis been made for any other fiscal year or years subsequent to July 22, 1964 and (a) if so, for which fiscal year or years (b) if not, when will such an analysis be made and for what fiscal year or years?


James Alexander Jerome: Another such analysis has not been undertaken since July, 1964 and it is uncertain when manpower resources could be made available to carry out a similar comprehensive study.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr, Fortin: 1.	What is the value of' the government's real property excluding public lands?
2.	During each of the past five years, what was the value of new investments?
3.	Does the management of real property come exclusively under the Department of Public Works?
4.	Is there a complete inventory of government properties?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 37-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study by Tim Ryan, Port Arthur, Ontario, undertaken for the Department of Manpower and Immigration regarding "Evaluation on the activities of the CNR-ILA Joint Committee at North Sydney, Nova Scotia".
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 37 is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Latulippe: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency, praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all briefs, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Government of Canada and the constituency of Compton (municipalities, individuals and agencies) with respect to the building of post offices or any federal building in the said constituency since January 1, 1963 to date.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 230 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions laid down by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of this House that notice of motion No. 230 be deemed to have been agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the remaining Notices of Motion for Papers be allowed to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motion stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order in respect of Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers Nos. 3 and 7 which have stood in my name on the order paper since October 8, 1970. I should like to inquire as to what progress, if any, is being made in the production of these documents? Surely after this length of time there should be some indication of ability to produce them.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have made a note of the numbers and I will look into them and communicate personally with the hon. member as to our progress in this regard.
May 26, 1971



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in connection with the treaty, misnamed protocol, negotiated by the Prime Minister and the Soviet Union. Is it the intention of the government as a condition precedent to final acceptance to have this document brought before the House for discussion, debate and decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the agreement has not been misnamed; it is a protocol, not a treaty. I have tabled it in the House and so far as I can see it is being debated during the question period.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, will the government take the first opportunity to set aside a government day in order that this document can in fact be considered by the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I recall the situation, Mr. Speaker, there are many opposition days available on which the opposition would have plenty of time, if it wished, to discuss this or any other matter on which we would like to hear their views.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, am I to take it from the Acting Prime Minister that he is inviting the opposition to take the first opportunity on an opposition day to bring forward this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be delighted to hear the views of the opposition, which apparently are opposed to opening consultations with the Soviet Union on matters that have been raised in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that a debate is under way. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the answer he gave to a question yesterday when he said that the United Kingdom and the United States of America have not suspended economic aid to Pakistan, I should like to ask whether the United Kingdom and the United States have ceased to make new commitments for economic aid to Pakistan pending a solution of the crisis in East Pakistan, and what is the Canadian government's attitude toward this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position is that we are not entering into any new commitments but we are carrying on with those that have been made. I understand that this is more or less the general policy of all donor countries.
Inquiries of the Ministry AID FOR REFUGEES FROM EAST PAKISTAN


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he tell us whether the government is making or planning to make any direct donation in respect of the refugees from East Pakistan now in India?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said in answer to a question yesterday, I hope before the week is out to be able to announce the amount of our contribution.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he inform the House whether the government had any prior information in respect of the rolled steel price increases announced today, and can he indicate whether any effort was made a priori to bring about some restraint on this increase which I believe amounts to over 4 per cent?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I was personally not informed and so far as I know my colleagues were not. I would have to check, however, to ascertain whether I can speak for all my colleagues in this regard.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance or some other member of the cabinet can indicate whether any representation has been made as of today by way of a formal response from the government to the companies-I believe three major Canadian companies are involved-concerning whether the increases are justified? Also, has the government taken a position on the announced increases?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the information just came to my attention this morning that there were proposals for increases in July. At present my department is taking a look at the matter, and I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, will also be taking a look at it.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he or the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will make tomorrow or on Friday a statement in the House giving the official response of the government toward these increases?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prices and Incomes Commission has a general responsibility to look at price increases of this kind. I will ascertain from my colleague, when he returns from the consumers' conference he is attending today, whether he would like to supplement the answer that has been given in the House today.

May 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Marlial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he advise the House whether the Justice Minister's trip to London is designed to have the Westminster government accept a Canadian resolution concerning the repatriation of our constitution?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I could answer that question with a simple yes or no, but I can confirm that the Minister of Justice is in London to talk about the procedure which would be followed in bringing the Canadian constitution to Canada, which I hope will be accomplished.



DISPENSING OF VITAMIN PREPARATIONS BY PRESCRIPTION

Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare based upon his statement earlier on motions that his department seeks to reduce the cost of prescription drugs. Are any plans afoot within his department to place vitamin preparations on a prescription basis?


John Carr Munro: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker, but I will
check into it.


Frank Howard: When the minister is checking into that, will he also check to see whether any representations have been made to that end and inform us from whom representations have been received?
* *
*



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE   GRAIN BARLEY-ALLEGED HIGHER PRICE TO EASTERN FARMERS STUDY OF FORMULA TO AMEND CONSTITUTION- UNANIMITY OF PROVINCES

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I wish to direct to the Acting Prime Minister.
Could he tell this House, considering a lack of consensus on the part of the provinces on the new amending formula, whether the federal government has decided to delete from the Victoria conference agenda any consideration of the amending formula, in such a way that the discussions would deal only with the repatriation of the Canadian constitution?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not my understanding that the differences among the provinces and the federal government are such that they would interfere with the accomplishment of a fundamental reform of the constitution. The Canadian government is proceeding on the basis that there is a wish and, indeed, a desire to accomplish this fundamental reform that was discussed at the last meeting.


Mr. Adrien Lamberl (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The Canadian Wheat Board is said to have recently sold for export 100,000 tons of feed barley at a price of 93 cents a bushel, F.O.B. Churchill, and my question is: Why do Eastern Canada cattle farmers always have to buy their feed barley at a price higher than that set by the Canadian Wheat Board for export purposes?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would want to take that question as notice to ascertain the facts. It is not normal to comment on the sale price of a particular sale of barley. Of course, from time to time prices do vary on the basis of different ports and destinations, and transportation costs to the interior of Canada are certainly different from those simply out of Churchill.



POSSIBLE CHANGE IN DATE BECAUSE OF SASKATCHEWAN ELECTION

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, will the announcement that an election is to take place in Saskatchewan on June 23 mean a change in the date of the meeting to discuss constitutional amendment which is scheduled for Victoria on June 14?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I think the conference will proceed as planned.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister become aware, and, if so, has he advised his fellow cabinet members, of the worsening position in the Canadian forest products industry which this year has seen a further decline in profits of some 90 per cent, the

May 26, 1971

position of lumber firms and the chemical industry, and the tremendous decline in Canada's basic industries, all contributing to unemployment?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations from the Canadian forest industry, particularly the pulp and paper industry which is having a very difficult time at present as is the pulp and paper industry thoughout the world. The profits of the United States pulp and paper industry went down by one-third in the first quarter of this year.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, concerning Canadian industry and Canadian employment, is the minister going to take positive measures in his budget to reverse this particular trend?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what action I intend to take in the budget. I can say I have had representations from the pulp and paper industry.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice who has been away a number of days-I make nothing of that-I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Last week I asked a question of the Minister of Justice in reference to an alleged statement by Jacques Sauriol that the Canadian government had knowledge that a ransom was paid for the release of Mr. Cross and that the federal government acquiesced and knew about it but at the same time refused the same kind of remedy in reference to the late Mr. Laporte. I have a letter to that effect and since allegations have been made at a press conference by Mr. Sauriol I would hope the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity of Secretary of State for External Affairs would now set the record straight.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to set the record straight. If the hon. gentleman could let me look at the letter I would endeavour to have an answer for him as soon as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been hanging around for the last six or seven days and I am sure it has been brought to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister. Surely he can answer the question now. Did the government have knowledge that a ransom was paid for the release of Mr. Cross by any power or group of people and the same action was refused on behalf of the late Mr. Laporte?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer to the question is no, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



PAUL MANEY LABORATORIES-ACTION TO PREVENT SALE TO FOREIGN INTERESTS

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It arises from the welcome statement he made today about the availability of generic drugs in Canada. In view of the minister's program and the need to maintain a viable, healthy Canadian generic drug industry, is it his intention to look into the situation of Paul Maney Laboratories and prevent its sale to foreign interests?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not consider that aspect of the problem to be a direct responsibility of my department but rather a problem to be looked at by the entire government.


Max Saltsman: Is the minister giving consideration to the establishment of a Crown corporation for the manufacture of drugs in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is addressed to the Postmaster General soon to be. I have given him notice of it. Does the Post Office intend to continue the 3 p.m. pick-up of mail in major cities as the latest hour of daily pick-up, or will this controversial program be dropped?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the time of mail pick-up has been changed in several important cities in order that we may ensure a better delivery service. We are also asking our clients to put their mail in the boxes earlier in order to improve the service.



SUGGESTED LOWER POSTAL RATES FOR CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: should like to ask the minister responsible for the Post Office whether he has received representations and whether he is giving any thought to lowering postage rates for charitable organizations in view of the many representations that have been made in this regard?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I have received only one request on behalf of three different organizations and although we are considering it now, I must say that I am not very optimistic.
6130

May 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It relates to the Newstart program at The Pas, Manitoba. In view of the reported $1 million budget for this project and in view of the fact that little or nothing is being done for lack of a mandate, can the minister say when the board of directors will be appointed and moneys allotted in order that projects can be commenced?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to take at least part of this question as notice and I Will give an answer to the hon. member. It is sufficient for me to say at this time that the Newstart program is also under the jurisdiction of the provincial government and that from now on the latter will have to be requested to make appointments.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


Mr. Henry Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to take any action in order to help the victims of Saint Jean-Vianney, Lac-Saint-Jean, and what will be its contribution?


Mitchell William Sharp: My colleagues have informed me that we are now in touch with the provincial government and discussing how best the federal government can help.



WHEAT-EXPORT POSITION IF GREAT BRITAIN ENTERS EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I would like him to let the farmers of Canada know, particularly the wheat farmers, what the situation is expected to be in reference to the reduction of wheat exports if Great Britain enters the European Common Market?


Otto Emil Lang: Not only is the question a hypothetical one but it is obviously highly speculative as well. The British Minister of Agriculture indicated a year ago in conversation with me that he expected no significant diminution in the requirements of Great Britain for the quality of wheat which is grown by Canada and can be supplied by

Canada and several of its competitors, and therefore our access for that particular grain should be relatively assured. However, the broader question of the implications for coarse grains is quite a different matter since they are available within the Common Market itself on occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: My question is directed to the subject matter of wheat and it is no longer a speculative situation. Has the Wheat Board made any estimate as to the reduction in wheat exports to the United Kingdom should Britain enter the Common Market as is now apparently beyond question?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it will continue to be the Wheat Board's objective to maximize our exports of wheat by maintaining the best of relations with customers such as the United Kingdom and also such as the Soviet Union, if I may mention it in passing.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the minister would give Parliament the information that is apparently available outside. Does he know that Mr. Gibbings, his friend and supporter who is now on the Wheat Board, has said within the last few days that there will be substantial reduction in exports of wheat to the United Kingdom? Has he not told the minister that?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe I have read the same press reports as the right hon. gentleman. I notice that the press reports referred to coarse grains without very much specification.


John George Diefenbaker: I am speaking of wheat. So that there will be no misunderstanding, I am asking about wheat. I am not asking about flaxseed or any other seeds or grains. What about wheat? Let us have an answer from the minister.


Otto Emil Lang: I think it is true that I have answered very fully both with regard to wheat and to other things about which the right hon. gentleman chose not to ask.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister did not answer about wheat. The minister does not know; the Wheat Board does not tell him.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Is it not a fact that if Great Britain enters the European Common Market the tariff on grain going into that country from Canada will be increased from $68 a ton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member has put his question in an argumentative manner when he says "is it not a fact" that such and such will result from an action. I do not think that a question asked in those terms is in order. He might wish to rephrase the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Indeed, I would like to rephrase my question. Will there be an increase in the tariff on grain going into Great Britain if that country joins the European Common Market, and how much will that increase be?
May 26, 1971


Otto Emil Lang: The situation as it may develop in future years is of course not known at this point. The situation at present in so far as it is known at this time was indicated clearly in the statement I made to the House some time ago. I will send the hon. member the page reference in Hansard in a moment.


John George Diefenbaker: He does not know.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: In light of the reply the minister in charge of the Wheat Board made earlier to the right hon. member for Prince Albert about the conversations he had with the British Minister of Agriculture and the assurance that there would be no reduction in high grade wheat exports to the United Kingdom, I should like to ask the minister two things: first, can he get that in writing or has he got it in writing and, second, what if any negotiations or meetings are going on now between the government or the Canadian Wheat Board with the British government in terms of maintaining or protecting not only wheat but all grain sales when Britain joins the Common Market?


Otto Emil Lang: The shortest answer is that two of the commissioners of the Canadian Wheat Board have recently been in London discussing our wheat market with our principal buyers there en route to discussing markets with other people in other places in Europe.



INQUIRY AS TO SALES TO JAPAN

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, can the minister responsible for the Wheat Board tell the House whether Canada was successful in making any sales in response to the bids that Japan opened on May 19?


Otto Emil Lang: I believe that we were in regard to both wheat and barley, although I must say that my recollection of the information may be with regard to a different date and I will want to check that to be certain.



SALE OF LOW-GRADE WHEAT TO UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC

Alfred Pullen Gleave: I should like to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board whether, in view of a report in the Winnipeg Free Press that Canada did not have quantities of low-grade wheat so that it could make sales to the United Arab Republic, a survey was made of the quantities of low-grade wheat on the farms which would justify this statement?


Otto Emil Lang: I can give the flat assurance to the hon. member that no sale to the U.A.R. was lost because of any lack of low-grade wheat, and I can assure the hon. member that that report in the Winnipeg Free Press is about equivalent to the other kinds of reports they are giving these days such as in regard to C-176-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
24107-38i
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AIRCRAFT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROPOSED RATIONALIZATION-POSITION OF DE HAVILLAND COMPANY AND WORKERS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the proposed rationalization of the aircraft industry and its importance to Canada, will the minister consider giving the House a progress report on this subject?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that at the earliest possible moment. Talks are going on now and I hope to undertake others in London and Paris within the next few days. Perhaps upon my return from those I shall be able to say something definitive.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: In view of the unemployment situation in Toronto would the minister give an undertaking that the work force at de Havilland will not be reduced as a result of this proposed rationalization and that the undertaking at de Havilland will not be removed from the province of Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the whole objective of the program and the exercise is to ensure the viability of all elements within the aerospace industry. Certainly my objective is not to have one element of it improve at the expense of another.



HARBOURS


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: My question is for the
Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of some questions raised in the public mind about the future of the port of Montreal I should like to ask the minister whether he could inform the House when a port authority for Montreal will be established?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It is
my intention to consult with the various bodies within the port of Montreal during the next couple of weeks, Mr. Speaker, and to name the port authority for it and for other major ports in Canada hopefully before the end of June.


Ian Watson: I wonder if the minister could also assure the House that the port authority which he announced will be created soon will be empowered to take local initiatives such as a cargo flow study and a land use study for the port of Montreal?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We would propose to give it the maximum amount of autonomy consistent with the act. One of the main objectives for Montreal, as elsewhere, would be not only to undertake forecasts but the promotion of the port to maintain Montreal as one of the most vital elements in our port system.

May 26, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry HEALTH



POSSIBLE DANGER FROM USE OF AEROSOL UNDERARM SPRAYS-ACTION TO BAN PRODUCTS

Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement recently made at a meeting of the American Thoracic Society that the use of aerosol-type sprays as underarm deodorants may cause lung lesions and may be potentially dangerous to patients with cardiac or respiratory diseases, what steps is the government taking to ban the two commercial brands that have been identified by researchers?


John Carr Munro: I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Food and Drug Directorate is looking into this matter and I shall advise the House of the results of the study.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: My question is for the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether, as a result of representations that have been made, any decision has been taken yet on a further extension of service by unemployment insurance offices in southwestern Ontario? If so, could we be furnished with a list of the locations?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his question and would ask that I be permitted to table the answer or perhaps have it printed as an answer to a written question as it is rather detailed. I am prepared to outline all the specific locations across the country.



MONTREAL-OLYMPIC GAMES-DISCUSSION BETWEEN MINISTER AND MAYOR OF MONTREAL

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could he tell us what was the subject of the talks he had yesterday with the mayor of Montreal, Mr. Drapeau? Were there any mention of decisions about the 1976 Olympic Games and what were these decisions?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that no decisions were taken. It was more a question of exploring the avenues of what the mayor and his organizing committee were doing relative to the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976, and how some of these activities would relate to the fitness and amateur sport program, set out in a document which I forwarded to all members some time ago, in terms of the sports activities that the federal government is encouraging.
tTranslation]


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
I would like to ask him, since he intends to intervene in the matter of sports and recreation, whether before taking a decision he has or will ask the advice of the provincial authorities in order not to interfere in a provincial jurisdictional field, while providing some assistance to the City of Montreal as far as the Olympic Games are concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, all the activities undertaken by the fitness and amateur sports directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare are coordinated very well, and have been on an ongoing basis since the program's inception, with the provinces. That co-ordination takes place with the province of Quebec as it does with other provinces.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brefon-Easf Richmond):: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Health and Welfare just spoke of the performance of the physical fitness and amateur sport branch since its inception. Is the minister aware that this program was initiated in 1960, almost 11 years ago and not the two or three years he mentioned yesterday when the administrative centre was being opened?
Hs *	*



POLLUTION


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent relaxation of similar legislation in the United States, is the Canadian law limiting phosphate content to 20 per cent in detergents and household cleaners being strictly enforced to keep products containing above the percentage off the grocery shelves?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this responsibility is now being administered by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, soon to be minister of the environment. To the best of my knowledge the Canadian regulations made effective last August are being strictly enforced, but I undertake to check and if that is not correct I shall let the House know.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I ask the minister what date has been set for the complete- ban from the market in Canada of detergents and household cleaners containing phosphates?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the date was originally January 1, 1972, but I will undertake again to confirm that for the hon. member.

May 26, 1971



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Now that the provincial election has been announced in Saskatchewan, has Premier Thatcher given permission to the federal government to call a by-election in the federal constituency of Assiniboia?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is there any break in the strike at the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company at Flin Flon? Has the Department of Labour a representative on the scene or are they, like the maid at the ball, sitting around waiting to be asked?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: We have had a mediator involved for several months, Mr. Speaker. There is no break in the strike, but I understand that negotiations or discussions are going on at this moment between the various unions involved.
* Hs *



THE CENSUS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since 42,000 persons have been hired for the census, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us how many among them were really unemployed?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister concerned to give some statistics. I think that the question could easily be put on the order paper.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House what action he has taken in response to representations made to his department and the Minister of Transport that the chairman of the Argentia task force be asked to resign on the
Inquiries of the Ministry
basis that he misled the committee and that he has failed to function?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately I did not get the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker.


Walter C. Carter: I will repeat it. I am asking the minister what action he has taken on the representations made to his department and to the Department of Transport requesting that the chairman of the Argentia task force be asked to resign?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have had a chance to digest the very comprehensive Darling report on shipping, will the minister take this opportunity to express his determination to proceed with this very well received report, and what does he envisage as the government's timetable for parts of it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the object in tabling the report was to invite comment. I welcome the opportunity to indicate that I will be glad to hear representations from anyone with an interest in the report. I agree that it is a "Darling" report. We will do our very best to implement as quickly as possible those parts of it which seem to have public favour.


Thomas Miller Bell: As one old dear to another, will the minister say what he is going to do about a federally sponsored marine insurance program, which is mentioned as something the government should proceed with as soon as possible?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of the report and prior to its publication I had already made representations to the insurance industry, particularly in the United Kingdom. One of the alternatives we put before them was the possibility of some form of sponsored insurance in the event that their rates did not become more reasonable. I hope that we will be able to work out one or other of these alternatives.



PROPOSED TANKER ROUTE BETWEEN ALASKA AND STATE OF WASHINGTON-OFFICIAL EXPRESSION OF CANADIAN OPPOSITION

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of

May 26, 1971
Inquiries for the Ministry
information that the United States government will bring down a decision in the near future regarding the trans-Alaska pipeline, will this government take a firm, official stand now and express to the United States government our opposition to any proposed oil tanker route which might be set up off our west coast from Alaska to the state of Washington?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times in the House, officials of the government met with officials of the United States government to express our concern about the ecological dangers of this route. I expect to have another opportunity on June 10 of making the same point to my opposite number in the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to try to flush out the Acting Prime Minister on this question. Would he tell us the reaction of the United States to this submission, and on what studies was his submission based? We have gone into this matter previously. Upon what study was the submission based, and what was the reaction of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we are as expert as anyone else in the world on the ecological dangers of oil spills in the ocean. We have had to clean some up.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if we have to rely on this expert, God help us!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Flush again.



ABNORMAL TURNOVER OF STAFF AT CHARLES CAMSELL


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the interference by the minister and his department in the operation of the Charles Camsell Hospital in Edmonton, is the minister aware that this has caused a wholesale hiring and firing of staff and has reduced the efficiency of qualified personnel in fulfilling their duties?


John Carr Munro: I am not aware, Mr. Speaker, that it has had that type of result at all. In fact, I disagree with many of the conclusions of the hon. member.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Are you disclaiming responsibility for your department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I point out to the hon. member that questions should be addressed to the Chair.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-TIME REQUIRED TO APPROVE PROJECTS

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State.
Following many requests made by young people who submitted projects under the Opportunities for Youth program, may I ask the parliamentary secretary how much time is needed between the submission of a project and its approval?
{English]


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, probably a more relevant piece of information that I might offer to the House is that all projects which are approved will be notified before the end of this week.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As time is of the essence, are the interested parties notified by telegram or by telephone?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, they will get the answer by telegram.
# * *



CURTAILMENT OF SHARED-COST PROGRAM EXPENDITURES

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the federal government be putting forward concrete proposals at the current dominion-provincial health ministers conference designed to curtail the rising costs of shared-cost programs, especially hospitalization and medical care, which in the view of Premier Thatcher are impairing his province's ability to finance other necessary expenditures?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It deals with the provinces going to the United States in order to borrow money. I ask the minister whether he accepts the accusation that federal policies are forcing the provinces to increase their borrowings in

May 26, 1971

United States money markets? If so, is it the policy of the government to encourage further provincial borrowings in the United States?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the question. We are certainly not encouraging the provinces to borrow in the United States.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the concern expressed by the treasurer of Ontario that federal borrowing policies are now leaving little room for the provinces and municipalities to borrow in the Canadian market, is the minister prepared to meet the other two levels of government and agree upon a co-operative use of the Canadian money market?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think the treasurer of Ontario did not fully understand the situation when he made that remark.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the confusion with respect to priorities in this country regarding the constitution or economic policies, would the minister use his influence to flip-flop what the Acting Prime Minister has said in order to make certain that economic policies are dealt with at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference?


An hon. Member:: That is mostly a flop.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.



POST OFFICE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the soon-to-be Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the hon. gentleman say how soon the new postal code system will be extended to other areas in Canada so that those who receive letters from us will not be mystified by the six-character code that we put on our letters?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, we had to start with one city. We started with Ottawa. Studies are being conducted throughout the country and soon all cities will be codified.
* * [DOT]



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Government Organization Act, 1970
Can he say whether the department has any evidence that at the moment a number of Japanese vessels are fishing for salmon off Greenland on the high seas, along with the Danes, and that this is the first evidence of the presence of fishing vessels of Japan in that part of the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. member for the intelligence.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister has acquired some intelligence because he is in dire need of it. Would he take the question under advisement, no matter where the intelligence came from? Would he investigate the probability of the presence of Japanese fishing vessels and seriously and sensibly make an official Canadian response to this very serious and chronic problem?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I always consider very carefully what the hon. gentleman says.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
May 25, 1971-Third reading of Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.-the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Mr. Mackasey, for Mr. Drury, seconded by Mr. Richardson, moves that Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be now read the third time and do pass.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the minister is in the House, why was the motion not moved in his name?


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken. The Chair did not notice the presence of the learned and distinguished minister. Perhaps the record might be amended to indicate that the motion is put in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), seconded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the same point of order, perhaps the record ought to show that the bill stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure hon. members recognize that the bill stands in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and not in the name of the minister moving the motion.
May 26, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970


Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, when the bill was in committee of the whole a number of amendments were moved which resulted in fairly extensive debate. One of these amendments was subsequently withdrawn because the government decided to meet us part way with regard to the clause dealing with the new department of the environment.
We expressed fears that the downgrading of the Department of Fisheries in this manner would have very serious consequences on the fishing industry in Canada, particularly the thousands of Canadians who are dependent upon that industry for their livelihood. To give meaning to our fears we moved a number of amendments, one of which was to set up two deputy ministers under the new department of the environment, one of whom would have responsibility for the fishing industry: he would be designated as the deputy minister of fisheries in the same way as the two deputy ministers in the Department of National Health and Welfare-one is designated as the deputy minister of health and the other is designated as the deputy minister of welfare.
This amendment was rejected by the government and subsequently debated in committee of the whole. However, the government decided to bring in an amendment indicating that the Minister of the Environment shall be the Minister of Fisheries; in other words, designating that there shall continue to be a Minister of Fisheries. A clause to this effect was inserted in the bill by the committee.
At that time I argued, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that if you are to have a Minister of Fisheries it is necessary to have a consequential amendment to clause 4 of the bill to provide for a deputy minister of fisheries. It would be virtually the same amendment. In other words, we would indicate that the deputy minister of the environment would be the deputy minister of fisheries.
I find it difficult to understand why the government would reject this suggestion or why they did not incorporate it in their amendment in the first instance. It seems logical that one follows the other. It would help substantially to alleviate our fears for the future of the fishing industry, particularly with regard to the attention the industry will receive under the new departmental set-up.
We believe the bill now before the House is an improved bill. It is a better bill as a result of the debate which took place in committee of the whole. It is not nearly as repugnant to us in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. We would have liked "Fisheries" incorporated in the title of the department. This is what we set out to do by our amendment. Our amendment sought to change the proposed title from "Department of the Environment" to "Department of Fisheries and the Environment." However, we are reasonably happy that there will continue to be a Minister of Fisheries.
For the same reasons we believe there should continue to be a deputy minister of fisheries. I reject out of hand the argument put forward by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury), that in order for there to be a deputy minister of fisheries there has to be a department of fisheries. This is not so, because the bill which sets up new ministers of state will also set up the equivalent of deputy ministers. They will be called secretaries, but they will be deputy ministers. They will not have the responsibility of presiding over a department of government in the traditional sense. I do not think that argument holds water.
When you examine the new departmental organization of the proposed department of the environment, the idea of having a deputy minister of fisheries makes all the more sense. Under the new departmental set-up the department will be presided over by a minister. Under him will be a deputy minister who will presumably be the deputy minister of the environment. Under him will be a senior assistant deputy minister. Under him will be seven assistant deputy ministers. One of these seven assistant deputy ministers will have responsibility for what will henceforth be known as the fisheries division. He is not even the first among equals.
Under the departmental set-up the first assistant deputy will be the assistant deputy minister in charge of atmospheric environment, then the assistant deputy minister of fisheries, who will be chairman of the fisheries research board, then the assistant deputy minister of lands, forests and wildlife, the assistant deputy minister of water management, the assistant deputy minister of environmental protection, the assistant deputy minister of finance and administration, and the assistant deputy minister of policy planning and research. We do not think that is good enough. We believe that heretofore the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has been a fulltime job. It required the attention of a full-time minister, deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers, the services of approximately 13,000 civil servants and a budget in excess of $200 million.
Surely the government would be the last to suggest that because of this change in organization and the establishment of this new department the importance of the present Department of Fisheries and Forestry will diminish. However, that is what is implied by the refusal of the government to accept our argument that in addition to continuing to have a minister designated as Minister the same argument can be applied to continuing to have a deputy minister of fisheries. It is a simple matter of accepting the same principle. In committee of the whole we accepted and embodied that principle by an amendment to the bill providing that the Minister of the Environment shall be the Minister of Fisheries. It is logical and consequential that the deputy minister of the environment shall be the deputy minister of fisheries.
Why the government refused to accept that suggestion is difficult, if not impossible to understand, especially in

May 26, 1971

light of the importance of this department and the fact that it has existed as a department of government since 1868. As a matter of fact, the department of marine and fisheries, as it was then known, was established on May 22, 1868. It has continued to exist as a vital and important part of government ever since.
It is interesting to reflect that if there had not been a department of marine and fisheries, confederation would probably not have taken place: New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would have been reluctant to join the new federation without grounds for believing that this important industry would be protected by an established department.
There have been a number of occasions on which the department has been changed as a result of organizational bills put forward by governments. Changes were made in the thirties, and during the fifties under the distinguished government of my right hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Changes were made under the government of Mr. Lester Pearson. But none of these changes affected the basic structure of the department, which had as its primary responsibility jurisdiction over the fishing industry in Canada. This has always been implied in the name of the department.
Therefore we feel a sound argument can be put forward in favour of the government accepting the proposition that the deputy minister of the environment should be known as the deputy minister of fisheries, just as hon. members opposite accepted the argument that the Minister of the Environment should also be designated by statute as the Minister of Fisheries. For these reasons I intend to move the following amendment:
That all the words alter "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-207 be not now read a third time but be referred back to committee of the whole with an instruction to amend clause 4 thereof by adding thereto, next after line 3 on page 2 thereof, the following:
"(2) Upon appointment, the deputy minister of the Environment shall be the deputy minister of fisheries."


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in the firm belief that the substance of the amendment should be accepted by those on the government side if they wish to be consistent in their thinking. They have already accepted an amendment that the Minister of the Environment shall also be the Minister of Fisheries, and it seems obvious to me that the deputy minister of the environment should also be the deputy minister of fisheries.
According to a memorandum which was submitted to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the fishing industry will now come under the authority of an assistant deputy minister-one of six assistant deputy ministers responsible to a senior assistant deputy minister and a deputy minister. My hon. friend from St. John's East gave a complete resume of the way in which authority is divided. It is evident to those of us who have studied this memorandum that fisheries problems are
Government Organization Act, 1970
way down the ladder. We are too low on the totem pole. We think the rating now contemplated is not good enough. I submit that the present rating of importance attached to the fishing industry by the government is not in keeping with the importance of the industry to Atlantic Canada and to the nation as a whole.
Some may wonder why we who represent constituencies in Atlantic Canada have taken such a strong position on this matter. The answer is, of course, that our Atlantic and, for that matter, our Pacific coastal areas contain some of the world's most prolific fishing grounds. A significant part of our national development has been associated with fisheries and as a result fisheries considerations have always been important in the formulation of Canada's international and domestic policies. Canada is a party to nine international fisheries conventions aimed at the study and management of various fisheries on both our coasts and in the Great Lakes. In addition, we have signed bilateral agreements with the United States and the U.S.S.R. concerning the fishing activities of those nations off our shores.
Unfortunately, the development of international law has failed to keep pace with the realities of the operations of modem fishing fleets. The prolific fishing grounds which first attracted European settlers to our shores have since proved a magnet for the modern fishing fleets of the world to a point at which some species have been fished beyond their maximum sustainable yield and others are, unfortunately, past the point of recovery. This is the situation on the extensive fishing grounds off our east coast.
Our experience in multination fisheries management has shown that the fewer nations involved in the management of a fishery, the better are the chances of good management. We also know that the fewer nations involved, the better are our chances of meeting the needs of our fishermen and of our fishing industry. It is for these reasons we have advocated that the coastal state should possess jurisdiction over the living resources of the continental shelf. We can support this claim because most of the commercially valuable species are associated with the continental shelf, and because the ownership of resources on and under the seabed of the continental shelf is accepted by international law as residing in the coastal state. So what I propose would be a logical extension of international law.
I realize that jurisdiction over these living resources would carry with it responsibility for management. Whenever these resources were under exploited or not exploited at all by the coastal state, other nations could be permitted to exploit them; but they would always be subject to the conservation regulations of the coastal state. A policy of this type would serve the interests of Canada's fishing industry, with one important exception. This exception involves the anadromous species-those which spend part of their life at sea and part in fresh water. In respect of this species, especially Atlantic and Pacific salmon, we must secure universal agreement on the proposition that salmon, for instance, belong to the nation in whose territory they spend their freshwater

May 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
stage. We must also secure agreement not to fish for salmon on the high seas.
I believe most of these problems can be worked out, especially between Canada and the United States with whom we share similar views in respect to the conservation and ownership of fisheries resources. But these matters call for greater attention from the Canadian government than is presently being given to them. They call for action by the Department of External Affairs, which to date has not shown the required interest in our thorny fishing problems.
In fact, I believe that the international aspect of the fishing industry will in the next few years become more complicated, more demanding of both government and industry, than has been the case in the past.
Canada, for example, puts great stock in the next Law of the Sea conference. I hope-and I know I express the hope of the entire fishing industry of Canada-that this conference will result in agreement that the coastal states should have jurisdiction over and responsibility for the management of the fisheries resources of the continental shelf and slope. I also hope that the conference will produce agreement to ban high seas fishing for salmon.
There will be a considerable time lag between the Law of the Sea conference meetings and the time its decisions will be accepted into international law, and during that time there will be bilateral and multilateral discussions and agreements which will be absolutely necessary in order to deal with the urgent problems of conservation and national interest.
Some of our stocks, as I mentioned previously, are already in trouble-stocks of groundfish such as haddock, herring, hake, yellowtail and redfish. To lose these species due to government delay in implementing conservation measures at the international level is frustrating and frightening to our fishermen. Even more frustrating is the known fact that our salmon stocks are wide open to foreign exploitation on the high seas.
I believe that we must have a thoughtful and coordinated approach to international fisheries matters. I believe this calls for planning, for expertise in fisheries and in carrying out negotiations. I believe these problems call for the full-time attention of an adequate number of highly trained people. At the moment we have a three-man international section in the fisheries department which I understand is fully occupied representing Canada in some of the nine international conventions to which we belong and in handling the day to day paper work relating to international agreements. We have a deputy minister and an assistant deputy minister in that department who devote part of their time to international commissions. The Department of External Affairs has a three-man team in its legal section assigned to fisheries matters, but not all their time is devoted to this subject. Obviously, this is not enough. The field being covered has grown so fast that the limited number of personnel cannot do justice to their work.
It is for these reasons that the hon. member for St. John's East has moved his amendment, and it is for these reasons that I support the amendment. If in the past, the staffs of the fisheries department and the Department of External Affairs have not been able to bring about agreement or to bring to fruition some of the conventions established by the 1958 Law of the Sea conference; they have not been able to establish the regulations drawn up in the 1964 Fishing Zones and Territorial Sea regulations passed by this House. We have been unable to get any action from the existing staffs of the Department of External Affairs and the fisheries department. Therefore, I ask the minister how we can expect to have any action taken at this time, having regard to the law of diminishing returns with which we are faced in this regard. We are seeing less attention given to the fishing industry at a time when its problems are mounting and it requires more, not less, attention.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to give careful consideration to the amendment that has been moved, for I believe that by accepting it this government will be consistent in its thinking on this bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the main remarks that I wish to make on third reading of this bill I prefer to wait until the present amendment has been dealt with. However, since the amendment is before us I should like to indicate our support for it. It may be that what we are requesting is just a bit of tokenism, but sometimes even tokenism can be significant.
The amendment before us asks, in slightly different words, for the same thing that we asked for in our amendment at committee of the whole stage last night. The government has agreed to designate the Minister of the Environment as Minister of Fisheries for Canada. It is understood that there is to be an assistant deputy minister of fisheries. We think there is a missing link and that things ought not to stay that way. We think there ought to be a deputy minister of fisheries and that it is appropriate also to designate the deputy minister of the environment as deputy minister of fisheries. Therefore, when the vote is called on this amendment we shall vote for the amendment.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to support the amendment put forward by my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I support it basically for the same reason as he. The fishing industry is Antal to a large segment of our population. Indeed, in the province of Newfoundland alone, approximately 25 per cent of the population are directly affected by the fishing industry. Therefore I commend my colleague and support his endeavour to have a deputy minister named for the new department.
I realize that a concession has been made in that in the first instance it was not the government's intention to have a Minister of Fisheries in the new department. However, I am not quite satisfied thus far. Like my colleagues, I fear that by passing this bill the fishing industry of Canada, especially of eastern Canada, will lose a lot of its importance in the eyes of the government.


May 26, 1971
The fishing industry of Newfoundland, indeed of eastern Canada, is facing a very severe crisis. Yesterday we had the privilege of listening to an official from the Newfoundland Fish Trade Council who was appearing before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and presenting a report both alarming and frightening, especially to those of us who realize the importance of the fishing industry to this part of Canada. In fact, the fishing industry is in very serious danger of becoming depleted to the point where it will become uneconomic and it will not be a feasible proposition to engage in the industry.
With a full-time minister in the present department a number of blunders have been made that have reflected on the fishermen of eastern Canada; and I am wondering what will happen when the affairs of the fishing industry are administered just by an assistant deputy minister who at the same time will have other responsibilities. I fear that the importance of the industry will be pushed into the background to such an extent that it will be only a matter of time before the fishing industry will not have *too much say in government.
It is for this reason that I support the amendment moved by my colleague. I repeat that the fishing industry is important to Canada, especially to eastern Canada, and we are concerned that a deputy minister of fisheries be appointed to look after the affairs of the industry.


Frank Howard: May 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
The assumption by the minister of the role of determining the function and philosophy of co-operative associations is an indication that he is not really interested in listening to common sense and reason, but only in imposing upon the fishing industry a particular idea and a particular program whether or not it works. This is a minister who believes in change by experimentation rather than by experience He went on to take extracts from the co-operative's letter and distort the meaning. In this way he manifests his arrogance which I suggest is inherent in his letter to the fishermen.
The minister went on to state, in his letter of the 27th, that the association had ignored any reference to the heavy subsidies which individual fishermen received by way of unemployment insurance. Let me point out a few facts about unemployment insurance for fishermen. Unemployment insurance came into effect for fishermen as a Liberal party election gambit a few years ago when Jimmy Sinclair, father of the Prime Minister's wife, was Minister of Fisheries. That minister was attempting to meet the desires of fishermen on the west coast in order to be elected. This was not done with any real purpose of providing unemployment insurance benefits for fishermen that was meaningful or worth-while.
In addition to that, the present Minister of Fisheries is a member of a cabinet which has endorsed this program. The unemployment insurance bill currently before the House contains a provision similar to the earlier provision: it is to be applied to fishermen and continued. There has been no attempt on the part of the government to work out a program which might be successful, reasonable or helpful so far as fishermen are concerned in terms of group insurance, price stability or anything of that sort. The Minister of Fisheries has referred to a sort Oj. inherent fisheries subsidy. Of course, this cannot properly be referred to as such.
There is no need to read further from this correspondence, but the whole tenure of the minister's letter, I submit, casts grave doubt in the minds of many fishermen that he is really concerned about human beings in this program of licence limitation. I point out that the idea and concept of a licence limitation program as conceived by the minister-this is where a great deal of objection and confusion comes in-was never introduced by way of formal regulation by Order in Council; it was instituted and announced to the fishermen a few years ago by a press release of the minister. Then various alterations, refinements and adjustments to the original plan were announced simply by press releases and statements of the minister. Every time the fishermen on the west coast who are engaged in the salmon industry understood what the minister was proposing in terms of a licence limitation program, and began to appreciate what he was trying to get at in order to see whether or not they wanted to fit within it at all, he changed it by another press release.
It is that sort of arrogant, dictatorial attitude which has contributed to the confusion and the problems of the fishermen as well as the concern they have in respect of

their livelihood being tampered and experimented with to suit some concept of the minister. Within the Fisheries Act there is a section-I presume it is the section under which the minister operates, section 7-which provides that the minister in his absolute discretion can issue licences for fisheries for any period not exceeding nine years. I have quickly referred to the provision without reading the whole section. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) has a bill on the Order Paper at the moment to repeal that section and to indicate that the issuance of licences should be done in the normal way by Order in Council, by regulation, so that people in the fishing industry would have an opportunity to get to the government and see that things are done in an orderly fashion, and so that the minister's absolute discretion to issue licences as he sees fit is abolished.
Last session when the Fisheries1 Act was being amended an attempt was made to remove that particular section. The minister objected to this and the government objected to removing this power of the minister to deal with the lives of the fishermen as he decided proper on the basis of some thought in the minister's mind when he arose in the morning, based on whether he had a good or a bad preceding evening. On a number of occasions we have asked that the licence program idea of the minister be referred to the standing committee for examination, so that fishermen could come to the committee and express their views about. The minister, in response to a question in the House, was guilty of a barefaced falsehood when he said, "Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will gladly refer that to the committee". Then he sat down and did nothing more about it, in an attempt to cover up and__


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Morison) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Morison:: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to make personal attacks within parliamentary language, but I submit the hon. member has taken very great latitude in saying that another member has been guilty of a barefaced fabrication of the facts. I respectfully submit that those remarks should be withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to speak to the point of order? If not, the Chair is prepared to rule on it.


Frank Howard: I have no intention of speaking to the point of order. I would not dignify it as such.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would only say, in respect of the point of order, that the hon. member'for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did not, as I understood him, impute any motives to the minister. He did not suggest that the minister had said anything in a deliberate manner. While the words may have been very strong, he did not indicate any deliberateness to convey wrong information to hon. members or to the public.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if it will please the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Morison), I will
May 26, 1971

gladly include the words "deliberate and conscious", because I think that is what it was. In any event, the minister told us he would gladly refer this subject matter to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for examination so that the fishermen could come and present their [DOT] ideas, complaints and objections about the plan. He never carried forward that commitment or did anything about it.
We have on the coast of British Columbia entire communities, many of them small, many of them comprising solely native Indian people, who have a difficult enough time as it is. The people in these communities can see their entire community being wiped out and the sole base of their economy disappearing if these programs-and this particular program-is put into effect. I submit that that sort of activity, coupled with the fact that there is a continuation of the practice of permitting fish-packing companies to engage in and control to a certain extent the fishing industry, militates against the individual fisherman and prevents his being able to prosecute an industry fully and engage in it for purposes of his income and personal satisfaction.
There is no point in reciting the names of many of these communities. I am sure the minister knows which communities they are because he has received communi-cat:ons about them. I believe it behooves us to have serious doubts, and to reflect them here, about establishing a czar of the environment who so far has not done anything in a real sense to attempt to clean up the environment and who has had a pretty dismal record in terms of doing anything worth while and helpful for the fishermen of our nation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very short. I wish to deal primarily with what I suppose really involves the title and power of the minister and deputy minister. It seems to me the purport of the amendment is reasonable. There are many other departments in which there are, shall I say, not joint but separate responsibilities. The Department of National Revenue, for instance, has a deputy minister for customs and excise and a deputy minister for income tax. In the Department of National Health and Welfare there is a deputy minister for health and a deputy minister for welfare.
In this instance there is more than adequate precedent and more than adequate reason, if it is felt there should be a deputy minister in charge of the environment-and that has been the purpose of the exercise in setting up this new ministry-that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the deputy minister of fisheries should not be downgraded. It is not a question of its costing very much, although the salaries of these eminent people are quite considerable. It is only a transition from the proposal to have an assistant deputy minister to the proposal to have a deputy minister. I believe the request is eminently reasonable.
Why should the assistant deputy minister of fisheries, charged with a particular responsibility, have to report through the deputy minister of the environment? I will
Government Organization Act, 1970 not criticize the personality of the deputy minister of the environment who was formerly a construction engineer, an administrator, but whose bent is toward the engineering field; but I presume he was hired for the particular purpose, after his successful career in other places, of dealing with the environment. Now he would be told that he will also have to deal with fisheries. If there is a wrong way to do it, you can trust the so-called slick operators of this government to find it. It seems to me that they are persisting in their error in a stiff-necked manner.
I support the amendment now before the House and ask all government members who want to take a reasonable approach to this matter to also support it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have much to add to the remarks I made yesterday, but I would like to say that the government recognizes the importance to Canada of the fishing industry. To use the words of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) yesterday, it is our feeling that actions speak louder than words. Certainly, the actions taken in the fisheries field under the aegis of the minister-designate of the environment and, incidentally, of the deputy minister-designate of the environment are an impressive recognition not only of the importance but of the need for action in the fisheries field.
There have been representations and arguments put forward that the effect of this bill will be to downgrade in one way or another the fisheries in Canada. I cannot support this thesis at all. I think that grading is a matter of approach and not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) described it, a further example of tokenism. He described the proposed amendment as pure and simple tokenism and thought that perhaps it would be good. I think that fisheries in Canada and its problems are too serious to be dealt with by tokenism.
A case was made some time ago for an amendment to the act to provide for a man in the House of Commons who could respond as Minister of Fisheries to questions relating to fisheries. I think that in terms of communication within the House, in order to enable the question and answer period to be conducted more satisfactorily, a case can be made for appointing someone to be officially designated as Minister of Fisheries, and this amendment has been agreed to. However, when one wishes to extend this down to the deputy minister level, it might give rise to objection.
It is customary-I include in this the Department of National Revenue

to have deputy ministers presiding over a department of the same name. We will not have, as such, a Department of Fisheries and a man described as deputy minister of fisheries would be the chief executive officer of a non-existent department. We have a deputy minister of national revenue, customs and excise, and a deputy minister of national revenue, taxation. But there is no deputy minister of taxation and there is no deputy minister of customs and excise. I suggest that in terms other than purely nonsensical ones, designating a deputy minister of fisheries can only indicate that the

May 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
government is trying to fob off fisheries problems with a bow and a meaningless token. The significance of fisheries to Canada is greater than that.
So, both on the grounds of justice to the fishing industry and in terms of the logic of government organization, I am afraid we will have to go along with the agreement that was reached some time ago by the House leaders, and vote against the amendment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) permit a question? Would he advise the House what will be the status of the present Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry? As the minister is aware, we have a committee which goes by the name of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and to which the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry, which now becomes part of the department of the environment, are sent for scrutiny. This has been the case certainly since I came here in 1957. To what committee will the estimates of the department of the environment be now referred, and what will be that committee's name?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I regret to say that I cannot answer that question. I do know that standing committees of the House are named and organized on a functional rather than on a departmental-name basis. For example, there is no standing committee on the Treasury Board, yet nevertheless we do not have much trouble in finding a committee, which is prepared to industriously scrutinize the estimates of the Treasury Board.


Thomas Miller Bell: You aren't kidding!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: How the introduction of a bill creating a new department of government will affect the naming of standing committees is more a question for those who are charged with the organization of the House than for the executive branch.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Perhaps I could redirect my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis). This is an important point since the duties of committees are to examine and study the estimates of various departments. We understand that in the House of Commons committees are ordered to sit at certain times and estimates are referred to them to be studied and passed, unless the committee system is merely a mockery of the work to be carried out by this House and it is just a ruse and something to be sloughed off by the government to make members of the house of Commons believe that they are important when they are literally like a dog chasing his tail around a tree.
I think this question is important because a very basic change is being made in procedure. I maintain that there is a downgrading of the importance of the fisheries industry, and I hope that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who has had an opportunity to consult the President of the Treasury Board, will indicate to the House what the standing of the fisheries and forestry

committee will be in the future and to what committee the estimates of the department will be referred.


Mr. Davis:: My understanding is that the standing committee will continue. However, it is up to the House to decide whether a standing committee is to be replaced by another one. This is not a matter on which I would like to comment at present. As things now stand, the present Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will continue. I understand that the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution will terminate with this session, so that there will not be a committee on environment control at the beginning of the next session. However, this again is a matter for the House to determine, presumably through the government House leader in consultation with his opposite numbers around the chamber.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would move that the intervention by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), when he was being asked a question, not break the sequence of the speech of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury). The Department of National Revenue has a taxation division and a customs and excise division, each headed by a deputy minister. Following that example one could press the argument, with some justice, that there should be in this new department a deputy minister of the fisheries division. The example is right there in the Department of National Revenue.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, obviously the argument could be pressed, but it is really a measure of what kind of organization is most likely to efficaciously accomplish the general purpose. It is the view of the executive branch that the over-all purpose of the department of the environment, which includes adequately dealing with the problems of fisheries and forestry, can be better achieved by the organization proposed than by the rather more curious and less conventional one suggested on the floor today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or under Standing Order 37 (1), to make a brief comment if I may. In the concluding
portion of his remarks, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said the government would have to stand by the agreement reached by the House leaders. I think it should be made clear that the House leaders, and I happen to be one of them, agreed that the bill would be amended to provide that the Minister of the Environment would also be the Minister of Fisheries. There was no agreement on the part of the government to have a deputy minister of fisheries, but it was understood at meetings of the House leaders that from this side of the House we would still press our case on the floor of the House. I would not want the words of the President of the Treasury Board to suggest that somehow we had broken the agreement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Some ho.n. Members: Question.
May 26, 1971

Government Organization Act, 1970
Division


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment to the main motion. All those in favour of the amendment 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:: Call in the members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the motion for third reading of this bill is put and a final decision is taken, there are a few additional words I should like to say and there is another amendment which I should like to move.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hansard has developed an interesting mechanism. When there is laughter, Hansard says "Oh, oh!" When there is applause, Hansard says "Hear, hear!" I think Hansard should develop a means of indicating a groan, such as we have just heard.
This bill was given first reading in the House of Commons on December 9, 1970, so it has been in the parliamentary mill for quite a while. By the time it gets through the other place almost six months will have gone by. The government does a good deal of complaining

May 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 about that. Perhaps it is a considerable period of time for one piece of legislation to be before Parliament, but I am sure it will be said by those who write about this institution that this is a bill which has demonstrated the value of the parliamentary process.
Whether we entirely agree with the bill in its present form or not, the fact is it is considerably better than it was when it was introduced. This is true in particular with respect to the provisions for the appointment by the government of ministers and ministries of state. This is no time to use such words as "victory" or "defeat." The fact is that as a result of debate and consideration, as a result of collective bargaining among the representatives of the parties, that portion of the bill was changed so that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will not possess the unquestioned right to name ministers of state and give them departments without first obtaining parliamentary approval. This is an improvement which we welcome. There are two or three other improvements as well, so all told the bill is better than it was when it was first introduced.
However, there is one portion of the bill-and like so many of the pieces of legislation which this government brings in, it has both its good side and its bad side-concerning which I should like to say a few additional words. I refer, as hon. members would expect, to the portion of the bill which deals with changes in the Public Service Superannuation Act.
May I say, as I have said on previous occasions, that we welcome the provision for early retirement of public servants on a voluntary basis. We believe that in some cases the provision made for the pensions to be drawn by public servants who retire early is good. In other cases the provision is not very generous. At least, though, we are getting started on the practice of public servants retiring at an early age with the right to start drawing pensions from the time of their retirement. To this extent we welcome the provision which has been made.
However, the bill also makes it possible for public servants to be retired compulsorily and as a consequence to be obliged to take a reduced pension. May I qualify what I have said to this extent: it is not the bill before us which makes it possible for the government to retire public servants compulsorily; the government already has that power. During times of squeeze the government has been known to dismiss public servants who have been in its employ for many years. What this bill does is to say that persons over 50 years of age who in future are retired compulsorily may receive pensions, and this makes it easier for the government to retire them. But their pensions are subject to a severe reduction.
In the course of the debate I have drawn attention to the extreme case, a case in which it would be posible for a person to find the pension he would otherwise have enjoyed reduced by 50 per cent. This is the case of a person who is 50 years of age who has put in 20 years of service. Normally he would receive a pension equal to 40 per cent of the average of his salary during his six best years. But under the provisions of this bill, that 40 per cent pension would be reduced by 50 per cent. In other

words, it would be a 20 per cent pension, only 20 per cent of his six year average salary. I submit that to impose such a reduction on a public servant who is retired compulsorily because the government is carrying out some reorganization, or squeezing out certain employees, is quite unfair. There are those who think it is unfair for such people to be required to accept a reduction in their pensions even if they retire voluntarily, and I agree. But at least those people are free to make a decision.
In the case of those who do not enjoy the freedom to make such a decision, in the case of those who are fired for reasons of public policy, it is altogether unfair that there should be any reduction in the amount of the pension they would otherwise be entitled to receive. Let it be clear that we are not now talking about persons who are dismissed because of misconduct. There are already provisions in the legislation to deal with that situation. A person retired for misconduct receives only the return of his pension contributions-no pension of any sort. But there are times in its history when the government has resorted to the dismissing of public servants in rather large numbers, and this may well happen again. It is true that it is better that they get a reduced pension than no pension at all, but we think that to force a reduction in the pension is quite unfair.
This brings me immediately to the amendment I wish to move. It is not necessary to spin out this debate since we have argued this point on second reading and two or three times in committee of the whole. I move my amendment at this time because I believe that this House would like to do the fair thing and to have the bill altered so that it will not provide that the pensions of those who are compulsorily retired are to be severely reduced. I point out that the matter was dealt with in committee of the whole. In particular, on March 30, 1971, as reported at page 4739 of Hansard I moved an amendment to clause 27 of the bill; it was debated at some length but when the vote was called the amendment was defeated.
I have drafted my amendment for today in words that are not exactly those which would be put into the bill itself. Rather, it is in general terms that would achieve the same purpose, once the bill is referred back to committee. I hope hon. members have done some thinking about this since March 30 and that although they voted against the request for fair play and justice on that date, they will vote for this amendment today. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), I move:
That Bill C-207 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole House for the purpose of reconsidering the provisions of subclause 1 of clause 27 in so far as they relate to employees who do not retire voluntarily from the public service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
May 26, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment 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:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) which was negatived on the
following division:	YEAS Messrs:
Alexander	Laprise
Asselin	Latulippe
Baldwin	Lundrigan
Beaudoin	Maclnnis (Cape
Bell	Breton-East Richmond)
Benjamin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Bigg	MacLean
Brewin	Macquarrie
Burton	MacRae
Cadieu	McCleave
Code	McCutcheon
Comeau	McGrath
Crouse	McIntosh
Diefenbaker	McKinley
Downey	Mather
Fairweather	Mazankowski
Fortin	Monteith
Gauthier	Moore
Gilbert	Noble
Gleave	Orlikow
Godin	Paproski
Grills	Ricard
Hales	Ritchie
Harding	Rodrigue
Harkness	Rynard
Horner	Simpson
Howard (Skeena)	Skoberg
Howe	Southam
Knowles (Winnipeg	Stewart (Marquette)
North Centre)	Thomas (Moncton)
Knowles (Norfolk-	Thompson (Red Deer)
Haldimand)	Thomson
Korchinski	(Battlef ord-Kindersley)
Lambert	Winch
(Bellechasse)	Woolliams
Lambert (Edmonton West)	Yewchuk- (67).
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Caccia
Badanai	Chappell
Barrett	Corbin
Basford	Corriveau
Bechard	Cote (Longueuil)
Beer	Crossman
Benson	Cullen
Blair	Cyr
Boulanger	Davis
Breau	Deachman
Buchanan	De Bane
Drury Dube Dupras Duquet Emard Faulkner Forest Forget Foster Francis Gendron Gervais Gibson Gillespie Goode Goyer Gray Greene
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guilbault Hogarth Hopkins Howard
(Okanagan Boundary)
Jamieson Jerome Kaplan Lachance Laflamme Laing
(Vancouver South)
Lang (Saskatoon -
Humboldt)
Laniel La Salle
Leblanc (Laurier)
LeBlanc (Rimouski)
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lessard
(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Lind Loiselle MacEachen MacGuigan Mackasey McBride


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to apologize to the House for taking a few moments to introduce an amendment to the bill now before us. The subject of this amendment is of importance to every member of the House no matter in which province his riding might be located. It is of particular interest to me as mover of the amendment.
The amendment is based on the fact that the minister of the environment is now responsible for the administration of the Canada Water Act. The Canada Water Act has taken the place of the Canada Conservation Assistance Act. Under the Canada Conservation Assistance Act, when any municipality or area in this country wished to build a dam or set up a conservation program a federal formula was laid down whereby the federal government would pay 37i per cent, the provincial government 37J per cent and the municipality 25 per cent.
When the Canada Conservation Assistance Act was repealed and replaced by the Canada Water Act, this
Division Messrs:
McNulty
Mahoney
Major
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Morison
Munro
Noel
Orange
Osier
Otto
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Portelanee
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richardson
Roberts
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Sharp
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford
Stewart (Cochrane) Sulatycky Sullivan Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Tolmie
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Watson
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-(105).

May 26, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 formula disappeared. Now no arrangements are made for the federal government to contribute to any such project wherever it might be in Canada. As the minister stated on previous occasions, the cost will be negotiated. This means the federal government may or may not contribute toward the cost of a project. There is no set formula. This creates a very great hardship on the municipalities in respect of their conservation programs, because they do not know whether or not they will receive federal assistance.
I do not wish to take any more time of the House, so with that very brief introduction I shall put forward the following amendment. I have pleasure in moving this amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-207 be not now read a third time but be referred back to the committee of the whole with an instruction to consider the advisability of amending the bill by inserting therein, next after clause 5 on page 2 thereof, the following:
"6. (1) With the approval of the Governor in Council the minister may enter into an agreement with any province providing for contributions by Canada in respect of the cost of projects for the construction of dams and other works for the conservation and control of sea coast and inland water resources and, in accordance with such agreement, pay contributions to the province out of money to be appropriated by Parliament for the purpose.
(2)	The contributions paid by Canada in respect of an agreement with a province shall not exceed the amount paid by the province in respect of the project referred to in the agreement, and in no ease shall the contributions paid by Canada exceed thirty-seven and one-half per cent of the cost of the project, as determined by the Governor in Council.
(3)	No contributions shall be paid in respect of an agreement with a province unless all other agreements under this section with that province are being carried out in a manner acceptable to the minister.
(4)	Where revenue-producing works are part of a project, the revenues that may be derived from such works shall be taken into consideration in determining the amount of the contribution by Canada.
(5)	Contributions under this section shall be limited to projects that in the opinion of the Governor in Council are of a major character."
and, where the committee reports in favour of so amending the bill, then be it a further instruction to the committee to recommend that an humble address, in form prepared by the committee, be presented to His Excellency praying that he be pleased to recommend by message to this House an appropriation out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the purpose of the amendment so proposed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), seconded by the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe). I must advise the House I have most serious reservations about this amendment. To my mind it clearly affects the financial initiative of the Crown. I am quite satisfied to listen to argument in this respect and will make a formal ruling after having heard argument, but I think it would take quite a bit of imagination to convince the Chair that the proposed amendment does not affect Her Majesty's prerogative in relation to financial matters.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Grey-Dufferin-Waierloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of my colleague who proposed this amendment. For many years in this House I have been talking about conservation measures because in my riding there are some very important dams-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wishes to make a contribution now, it should be related to the procedural aspect of the proposed amendment. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member, if he wishes to make the speech which he now proposes to make, making it after a ruling has been handed down by the Chair. The hon. member has not yet spoken at the third reading stage of the bill and he has the right to take the floor to make whatever representations he wishes in relation to the point made by the hon. member for Wellington even if the amendment is ruled out of order. However, I think any contribution at this time should be related strictly to the procedural aspect of the matter.


Alfred Dryden Hales: With regard to your comments, Mr. Speaker, I will leave the ruling entirely in your hands. I wish to say simply that the formula that was used in the previous act was within the jurisdiction of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think hon. members would want me to go into the matter in considerable detail. I suggest to the hon. member who proposed this amendment, and to the House, that the amendment would clearly impose a call on the treasury. I do not think it is sufficient to say that whatever moneys are required to give effect to the proposal envisaged by this amendment would be voted by Parliament.
I believe that it is part of subclause 1 of the proposed amendment that the hon. member suggests that in accordance with the agreement, contributions to the province will be paid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose. It is not a sufficient answer to the procedural objection to say that any money required to give effect to the amendment would be voted in due course by Parliament. I must rule that the proposed amendment is not, therefore, acceptable from a procedural standpoint.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: 
CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-238, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, when speaking on this measure on May 20 I indicated that there were one or two points I wanted to make regarding some strong objections to Bill C-238. First of all, I pointed out that I was appalled at the impropriety of the government bringing in this type of legislation. I pointed *out, as did many other speakers on this side of the House, that the producers of rapeseed in western Canada in particular had been quite satisfied over the years with the opportunity they had had to produce rapeseed and to avail themselves of the cash profit. Many members on our side of the House pointed this out very clearly to the government.
There was one other point that I wanted to bring before the House in relation to the exports of grain through the port of Churchill. As I mentioned briefly on May 20, for many years people interested in exporting grain through the port of Churchill have been extremely concerned about the small amount of grain which they have been able to export through this very important port. On many occasions when we have requested the Wheat Board to announce larger shipments of grain available in Churchill, we have found that the Wheat Board in their wisdom have decided, in some cases arbitrarily I believe, that 23 million to 24 million bushels of wheat was the full amount they could allow through the port of Churchill in any given season.
They have come up with many reasons for this. However, from many investigations it has appeared to me that these decisions were reached as a result of a great deal of pressure being put upon the Wheat Board by representatives of other Canadian ports. We have seen many statements over the years by port authorities, in Montreal in particular, who have openly stated that they would strongly oppose further expenditures in relation to added facilities at the port of Churchill. Anyone who has been interested in shipping through the port of Churchill knows full well that many of the facilities that have been requested over the years are lacking at Churchill and are badly needed.
Now the government, under Bill C-238, proposes that the Wheat Board assume responsibility for the marketing of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. I would like to bring to the attention of the government the fact that at present at the port of Churchill there are no facilities whatsoever for the handling of grains such as rapeseed, and I think the government has a responsibility to advise the House whether or not there were full consultations between it and the Wheat Board before this legislation was drawn up.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
It is easy for anyone to see what the effect of the passage of this bill will be on the port of Churchilll. Up to the present the Wheat Board has not been in a position to announce just how much wheat it will have available for export from Churchill. I was told by the board that this is a result of the policy adopted in Great Britain, which is a protective policy so far as Canadian wheat is concerned. The board is therefore reluctant to give us any information on how much wheat will be available for export.
I understand that recently an announcement was made that some four million bushels of barley would be available for export from Churchill. We would like to know how much wheat we can expect to send through that port this year. Anyone who has had experience in exporting wheat through the port of Churchill realizes the tremendous savings which can accrue to the purchasers and the advantages which can accrue to the permit holders who are shipping wheat through any port in Canada. Regardless of where wheat is exported from, the amount shipped through Churchill shows an additional profit which is divided amongst all permit holders in Canada.
The government should find it easy to understand the concern felt by people who are interested in the port of Churchill for a measure which would give the Wheat Board jurisdiction over the marketing and exporting of rye, flaxseed and rapeseed. No facilities are available for the handling of rapeseed at the port of Churchill. One must conclude, therefore, that this measure will not only be detrimental to the port of Churchill but will cause further concern because it is not known how much, if any, wheat will be going through that port.
So many members on this side of the House have taken exception to Bill C-238 that I am sure the government must now realize it is not an appropriate bill to bring before the House at this time. We would like to know, for instance, if there was full discussion with the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the lack of facilities at one of Canada's major ports. We would also like to know whether all the other ports in Canada which handle grain are also in a position to handle flaxseed, rapeseed and rye.
There have been recent difficulties with shipment through the Great Lakes. Every time difficulties arise at Vancouver, at the St. Lawrence ports or at the Lakehead, people interested in the port of Churchill are concerned to know why the facilities of Churchill are not used. When this question is brought before the House or the Wheat Board, the answer is that it is because of the relatively short shipping season and that only 23 million or 24 million bushels can be handled. This is not a valid reason because it must be realized that the shipping season could be extended.
One of the main reasons for shipping more or less coming to an end at Churchill by October 25 may be the marine insurance rates. Recently the Minister of Trans-

May 26, 1971
Canadian Wheat Board Act
port (Mr. Jamieson) said that senior executives in the insurance field had visited Canada to look at the facilities of the St. Lawrence, and they would be invited back later this summer to visit our Arctic waters. It was hoped that they would visit Churchill and inspect the facilities there: this might convince them that the shipping season could be safely extended. Later we were told, however, that there is no assurance that they can come back this summer and it may be another year before we see them in Churchill. The record shows that over the last 100 years the safe shipping season at the port of Churchill is some months longer than in other places.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am greatly disturbed that this legislation is brought before us when apparently no plans have been made to ensure that all Canadian ports have the proper facilities to handle these new grains which the Wheat Board will be obliged to handle. I therefore oppose the bill on these grounds. Before the legislation is passed I hope the minister will be in a position to advise the House that there has been full consultation among members of the government, officials of the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Wheat Board on the matters which I have raised.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-238 represents one step toward the reduction of the number of small farmers in Canada. I can only interpret it as having the goal of the complete socialism of agriculture in Canada, and as a Conservative and an advocate of free enterprise I am unalterably opposed to anything which moves in this direction.
There is a very good reason for improving Canada's image as a producer of the finest wheat in the world, stringently graded as to content and value. We should be able to sell more than we have in the past few years. The ideal of $2 wheat, a solemn Liberal promise, has never materialized because of lack of attention to agriculture. I shall elaborate on this later. Two years ago the going price for wheat in western Canada was $1.70 a bushel; last year it was $1.50 and this year it is $1.46|. Some people might say that it is not a great reduction, but 3J cents a bushel means a lot to the farmers of Canada. Three-and-a-half cents a bushel less in the pockets of the farmers of Canada represents a lot of money when you are dealing with half a billion bushels. That represents a great loss to the western farmer, particularly in view of the inflation we are suffering. The price of farm machinery is still rocketing. Sales are dwindling. Even if the farmer were to obtain $1.70, it would be difficult for him, with tight quotas, to meet current expenses let alone repay loans on farm stored grain, pay taxes, pay hired help and gasoline and meet all the expenses which are entailed in the running of a modern farm.
I claim-not without cause, since no less a person than the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has suggested it-that it is the avowed policy of this government to get the small farmer off the farm.


An hon. Member:: Rubbish.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: The government is following that policy. It is true that piecemeal legislation has been brought in to-help the small farmer. The government has helped him in many cases to go deeper into debt. It has increased the ceiling on his loans. The ceiling is now up to $75,000 for a so-called small farmer.
What is the good of lending a small or even mediumsized farmer $75,000 when he has little or no hope of paying it back? This is a very poorly thought-out idea of kindness. Why put a man into debt that way? If he cannot repay it he will be dispossessed by the government or his operation will be taken over by the people to whom he owes the money.
Just last week I attended the sort of hearing that I never expected to attend. It was an eviction hearing. It was not brought by the banks, the trust companies, the loan companies or any loan sharks. These organizations did not bring an action because the farmer had bought too much machinery. The action was brought by the government agency. It was foreclosing. That was an unusual action and I attended the hearing. It involved a small farmer who owned a half section of land. He had been asked by the Farm Credit Corporation to increase the size of his farm in order to obtain a loan. He asked his blood-brother to deed over to him, for loan purposes, his quarter section of land. In other words, his brother backed his loan and the farmer needed the extra land to make the farm viable. The corporation then lent him $8,000. That happened ten years ago, and they are surprised that he has not been able to pay back the money. He could not do so because he had lost his markets and could not deliver grain. The corporation foreclosed.
Many people say that if he had wanted to work he could have kept his farm. Well, Mr. Speaker, his wife is a janitor at the local school. She has put every cent of her wages, as well as all the money earned from farm produce, into the farm in an attempt to keep the family unit together. The man and wife have nine children. I am only bringing these facts forward to show people that any policy designed to force small farmers off the farm can do no good to this country. Here was a farmer with a wife and nine children. His wife was willing to be a janitor at the local school where their children were being educated. She brought home every cent of her pay cheque to keep the farm afloat. Five years ago they were burned out. The farmer went to the bank and borrowed $6,000. He and his wife paid off the debt on the house; the $6,000 was put into the house. It was worth $12,000. He built it himself. The family hammered in all the nails. It was a project for the whole family. The finishing of the house was paid for partly by the wife's wages.
Today this family of 11 people is being put off the land for the simple reason that they have not repaid their farm loan. They paid off the bank. I wonder, as may any farmer within hearing distance of my voice or any farmer who may read my remarks in Hansard, how in

May 26, 1971

[DOT]the world any farmer could possibly pay off a debt of :$6,000 let alone keep 11 people on the family farm. Of course, he could not do it unless he and the other ten people on the farm were working very hard. Yet the best answer we can come up with now is to take these people [DOT]off the farm and put them in the city. The only thing that family knows, apart from how to be good Canadians, is how to run a farm. That is what they have done.
Now, because they have got into difficulties with an agency of the federal government, they are to go on relief. Not one of those 11 people had ever been on relief. Now they will all go on welfare. Imagine that-11 people will go on welfare! Does that represent any well thought-out policy by any well-thinking government, let alone one that calls itself Liberal, or left wing? This sort of thing is occurring all the time.
How do these remarks relate to this bill? They relate to it in this way: The government are not the best people to run farms or to tell farmers how to rim farms. The government's job is to find us the markets for our grain, markets for our livestock and to create the climate in which small farmers can operate on their own. No system of government would have made those 11 people co-operate among themselves more than they have done. You could not keep 11 people like that living in fresh, rural surroundings, happy and healthy and working together, by legislating. The government has adopted a heartless attitude to people like these whose only crime is that they paid off the bank ahead of paying off the federal government.
1 asked an official appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture what would have happened if these people had paid the government off instead of the bank. The answer was, of course, that the bank would have foreclosed. The farm is worth $45,000 or $50,000, and the bank would have acquired it for $6,000. It seems that if the government agency does not receive its money, it will do exactly as the bank would have done. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? You must believe me when I say that the agency never sent an agent out to find out why this family of 11 people working together could not pay the debt. They merely looked at the papers without investingating the matter and said, "We want our money or you must get out." That is the kind of heartless interference with the workings of agriculture in this country that I find hard to understand. I am against it.
This bill pertains to the responsibilities of the Wheat Board. I hasten to say that the Wheat Board over the years has operated well. Perhaps only a government agency could handle, in international trade, a product so important to western agriculture as wheat. As I say, the board has operated reasonably well-but it has not in the last few years kept the farmers' bins empty. Sometimes I wonder whether the Wheat Board knows what the railroads are doing. I wonder whether the railroads know what the elevator companies are doing. I wonder whether any of these organizations know what the farmers' problems are.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I sat on the Public Accounts Committee just last week and heard officials of the Wheat Board discuss the elevator situation in Vancouver. There are several grain elevators in Vancouver and two or three of them at least are empty. So far as I could make out from questioning, the National Harbours Board looks after these elevators. They do not know what the Wheat Board intends to do about them and the Wheat Board does not know what the Harbours Board intends to do about them. Sometimes when we want to sell grain to the Orient we are incapable of delivering that grain.
It is difficult enough to sell it in a glutted world wheat market. We understand that. However, with the wheat piled up on the Prairies and the railroads operating when there is not a strike, surely it is possible for the wheat board, railroads and harbour people to get together so that any time 10 or 20 ships are waiting to be loaded in Vancouver the facilities are available to load them.
I raise this matter because the bill purports to include rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the Wheat Board in addition to wheat, oats and barley. If the Wheat Board is so busy that it cannot properly handle wheat, oats and barley, how can we expect it to handle three additional grains, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed? Are these three grains to be put into the same category as wheat? At the present time the farmers in my district use rapeseed as a cash crop. I presume that when Bill C-238 is passed, rapeseed will be handled the same as wheat. It will no longer be a cash crop. The farmers will either have to wait or take a down payment on wheat. They will never know what their final payments will be. Instead of having a cash crop, they will have to wait. The opportunity of getting cash to pay their day to day debts will be gone.
I understand that if the elevators in Vancouver were renovated to a small degree, they could be used for storing rapeseed. Would the Wheat Board be in any better position to use these elevators to store rapeseed than to store grain? They are not used to store wheat at the present time. The Harbours Board people to whom I have spoken do not know what the Wheat Board intends to do. I do not know whether the Wheat Board checks with them to have the ships load grain for export.
We should take a good look at agriculture. This industry should be co-ordinated. There should be someone in the Department of Agriculture who can pull the different branches of the industry together. If the farmers are going to grow wheat, there should be some indication whether it can be sold. If they are going to change from wheat to rapeseed, they should know whether it will be sold. A great deal more should be done by way of research. We now have rigidity; we do not need more. Perhaps the Wheat Board should have more power and opportunities to find world markets. On more than one occasion in this House it has been said that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) or the minister in charge of

Canadian Wheat Board Act
the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) feel they are responsible for sales. If sales are made, the Wheat Board likes to say that it made them. If the wheat is not sold, the Wheat Board says it is stymied by the government. When wheat sales are made, the government says that it made them and the Wheat Board is incidental. Whose responsibility is it to sell grain?
The Canadian Wheat Board Act should be amended in other ways than those outlined in Bill C-238. I hope this bill will receive a good working over before it becomes law From correspondence I have received, I understand that putting rye, flaxseed and rapeseed under the Wheat Board is not universally welcomed by the farmers. It is true that some farmers are very vociferous in wanting these grains under the Wheat Board. This depends on their location and whether they are specialists in these grains. However, many farmers do not want this legislation.
I suggest that Bill C-238 be discussed with the farmers before it becomes law. We wanted Bill C-197 discussed with the farmers before it was made law. The correspondence which I received a year ago indicated that Bill C-197 should be passed as quickly as possible.


An hon. Member:: Bill C-176.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: It is now Bill C-176; a year ago it was Bill C-197. In any event, it is practically the same bill; it has not changed very much. Some newspaper articles blamed the opposition for holding up the bill. The same people who wanted Bill C-197 passed a year ago now want Bill C-176 passed. However, they always include a rider which would provide that the bill be amended in line with what the farmers want. The same could be said of this bill.
I warned the government not to have Bill C-238 passed until it finds out what the farmers want. We cannot believe the farm unions. There are four operating in my district. They do not get together, but they have a right to vote on it. I suggest that there be a plebiscite. Whenever there is a touchy problem such as whether rapeseed should be included under the Wheat Board, the people who grow rapeseed should be consulted. They are in the best position to know whether it should be included under the Wheat Board. If the farmers lose money by not being under the Wheat Board, that is their right. I nail my colours to the mast. It is even their right to go broke. They do not ask the government to always be saving them. The government should make it possible for farmers to make the sales they want. They should have the first, second, third and final say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I must interrupt the hon. member. The Chair has been informed that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seeks permission of the House to revert to motions. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

May 26, 1971


ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to revert to motions. I move:
That the annual report of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission for the year ended March 31, 1970, be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Downey:: Mr. Speaker, this motion is acceptable to the opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
4	$	*


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With Your Honour's permission, I have another motion I would like to put before the House. I move:
That the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works be authorized to study the oil and gas industry in Canada with particular reference to the ecological implications of various modes of transporting the product: and that in the conduct of such a study, the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada during the week beginning June 13, 1971, and during the adjournment of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). As far as the principle of the motion is concerned, we are in agreement with it. This is a good committee and we think it is the appropriate committee to deal with this matter. At this stage, we are not prepared to agree to that aspect of the motion which provides that the committee leave this city and miss the parliamentary session during the week of June 13. In our view this is an exceptionally busy time. We have problems and we feel that the committee should remain here. I have said this to the minister. He realizes our position. We think that this involves not only travelling within Canada but visiting such places as Russia to see what that country is doing. Rather than just having frost and foam coming out of there, the committee could make an objective study.
I must say, with regret, that we cannot accept the motion in its present form. If the aspect which deals with
May 26, 1971

travelling during the week of June 13 were deleted, we would be happy to accept the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Does the House accept the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), with the reservation mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin)?
Oil and Gas Industry Studies


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I would defer putting the motion for the moment, pending further consultation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The motion is withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant Special Order until Friday May 28.

Friday, May 28, 1971