1971-04-06

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ITALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION AND SECRETARY GENERAL OF INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION

Mr. Speaker:: May I bring to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from an enchanting country with which we have close ties of friendship; I am referring to Italy.

This distinguished group representing both Houses of the Italian Parliament is led jointly by Senator Antonio Pecoraro, and by the Honourable Giuseppe Fracassi. On behalf of all members of this House, I am pleased to extend to these visitors a most cordial welcome to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: An equally distinguished compatriot of the members of that delegation is also present in the Speaker's gallery today, although he is here on a distinct mission. He is the recently appointed Secretary General of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Mr. Pio-Carlo Terenzio.

Hon. members, especially those who are members of the Canadian group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, are honoured that Mr. Terenzio should have come here for the express purpose of getting in touch with them at the beginning of his mandate. We wish him a most cordial welcome to Canada.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), the list of the census commissioners appointed on April 1, 1971, for the 1971 census.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the very alarming forecast with regard to the difficulties that graduates in science and engineering are foreseen as encountering in the immediate future and perhaps for some time, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has any measures in mind to recommend to the government or any measures that he proposes to take to assist these graduates in obtaining appropriate employment in Canada so that we may retain the services of these highly trained individuals in Canada and avoid also discouraging those who are in the process of training in these fields? Has the minister any plans to propose?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has made reference to what is a very serious problem in the field of science and engineering graduates which was to some extent evident last year, will be much more apparent this year and, again, will be a continuing problem next year. The report that has been published makes quite clear that it is unlikely that these science and engineering graduates, these highly trained men, will be without employment but suggests that perhaps they will not find for themselves the kind of employment which would be ideal from the point of view of their training. The fact of the matter is that, given the state of industrial and economic development which this country now has, given the degree to which our industrial and economic machinery in the scientific and technological field is currently staffed, there will not be immediately available the places to absorb, in the kinds of positions which have been classical in the past, all the opportunities needed. There will, I am sure, be employment for these qualified men, which will have the result of upgrading, I hope quite substantially and generally, our technology and its application.


Mr. Lewis:: What did the minister say? What did you say, Bud?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think in summary the minister said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might ask a supplementary question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: The reply will be interesting.
April 6, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the minister whether one of the fundamental reasons for the difficulty being faced by these engineering and science graduates is that research and development emits developed by private industry have practically levelled off during the last three years under the present administration? Is the difficulty of these graduates not substantially due to the stagnation of research and development in this country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -in private industry? Has the minister any plans-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question of the Leader of the Opposition, it seems to me, is in the form of an argument. I doubt whether it is in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has any plans to encourage and stimulate the development of research and development units in the private sector in view of the difficulty that has been indicated?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly to the Leader of the Opposition who asked him to indicate if he has any plans. If the minister has plans, I think that normally they should be announced or elaborated upon by way of a statement on motions.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Revenue with regard to the study he is now undertaking for the government with respect to foreign ownership. Will his study deal with the suppressive effect of branch plant operations in Canada on the research and development sector of our economy? Also, will the minister have suggestions to offer in that report for beefing up the research and development sector of the economy?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the elements that has been looked at.


Douglas Charles Rowland: I wish to direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Supply and Services. Will the minister be looking into the suggestion contained in the science council background report that government contracts and other purchasing agreements might more commonly include provisions for research and development expenditures as a means of obtaining improved supplies and services for the government?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: I will be looking at the report, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. I wish to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has any
programs to encourage research and development. If so, will he take the earliest opportunity to inform the House about them?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is aware that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has a number of programs in the science and engineering field. It is in the process of revising them to make them more effective than they have been over the past year.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary. I wish to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce when he will be able to inform the House as to the measures he proposes his department and the government should take to encourage research and development?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman had had the privilege of taking part in the discussion of our estimates going on now in committee, he would have heard a full report on the amount of research and development support to industry which is given by my department. He would know that we are constantly revising our programs to make them more effective. He would also know that we have made some major changes for example in our DIP program to make it more civilian-oriented than in the past and that we have made many changes in the PAIT program to convert to grants what used to be offered as loans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that very soon we ought to go on to another subject, but for the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Joliette.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette wish to put a supplementary question?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
With reference to the policy of hiring 250 francophones, I should like to ask the minister whether he can say if he has started hiring these francophone university graduates, and how long it will be before these 250 francophones are recruited?


Mr. Speaker:: I dare suggest to the hon. member that his question is not directly related to the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition, but since the question has been put, it may be simpler to let the minister answer it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to try to get this information and relay it to the hon. member.

April 6, 1971



INDUSTRY


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambion):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with the chemical industry and the fact that they would employ many of these graduate students. Has the minister's department heard yet from the joint government-industry committee which was set up to study the problems being faced by the chemical industry? Has that committee made a report to the government yet?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that the supplementary is not related to the original question. The question will be allowed, but the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on a different subject immediately thereafter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, that study is very well known in my department because my department is taking part in it. The report on the necessity of having more foreign markets in order to build a viable base in Canada, has not yet reached me. I am waiting for it.



PROPOSED MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-AVAILABILITY OF BASIC INFORMATION TO PUBLIC

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising out of his speech in Vancouver to the Canadian Pipeline Constructors Association in which he called for a great public debate on the question of a northern pipeline on the ground that an informed public was needed in order to advise the government so that the latter could produce sound and lasting decisions. In view of the fact that public participation in such a dialogue requires certain basic information to be furnished, can the minister tell us when we may expect, first, the white paper on energy resources, second, the ecological studies of the effects of a pipeline in the Arctic and, third, a report on the economic impact of a project of this magnitude?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am not sure what the hon. member has in mind when he refers to a white paper. No such paper is contemplated at the present time. With regard to the many studies which are being made in connection with the economics and the ecological safety of a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley, both I and, I believe, some of the organizations in the private sector which are undertaking such research, have disclosed at considerable length what is going on. Whether the scientific papers will be disclosed or whether they will be left for use
Inquiries of the Ministry
should an application be made has not yet been decided, but certainly the nature and extent of these studies has been disclosed by me here in the House, at Vancouver and other speeches and also by the pipeline researchers themselves.



CANADIAN COMMUNICATIONS CORRIDOR FROM ALASKA TO UNITED STATES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In
view of the fact that the report of the minister's speech indicates that he spoke of a Canadian corridor from Prudhoe Bay to the United States border through which would run oil and gas pipelines, a highway and a railway, I want to ask whether the government has any plans for constructing a highway and a railway through the Arctic or whether this reference was merely a manifestation of the minister's exuberance?


John James Greene: I do not believe the speech itself dealt with the specifics of what would be in the corridor but reference was made to one of the guidelines issued by the government in August in anticipation of the pipeline question and after two years of research. This indicated there would not be pipelines or roads or rails all over the north but that there would be a single corridor concept through which all the various avenues of communications would be directed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the statement by Mr. Edward Patton, President of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company, when he was appearing before a legislative committee in Alaska, to the effect that the Alyeska Company was not interested in building a pipeline through Canada, may I ask the minister whether there is any group presently evincing an interest in the construction of such a pipeline or whether the debate which is contemplated is going to be about a pipe-dream rather than about a pipeline?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister say what procedure was followed by his department for the appointment of census commissioners, a list of which he has just tabled in the House, since for the constituency of Shefford, for instance, 1 note that all six commissioners are officials of the Liberal party organization in Shefford?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very easy. I simply followed the procedure described in section 5(1) of the Statistics Act. At one time, I did consider consulting my hon. friend to ask him for names but as I know, first

April 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
of all, that he has no friends but his supporters, and in the second place as I know he was opposed to my appointing supporters, I refrained from doing so.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Further to his reply, can the minister assure us that the names appearing on the list are really those of commissioners, and that he has not inadvertently submitted the list of members of the Liberal association of my riding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As phrased, the question is hardly in order.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It concerns a report just released an hour ago in Halifax by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion containing the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council, a government agency. Is the government now prepared to change its monetary, fiscal and tariff policies in keeping with the recommendations of the council to foster and generate economic growth in the Atlantic area?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question directly beyond saying that we have had policies that are precisely designed to foster economic growth in those areas and which in fact have had that effect.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received the report, has it been considered in cabinet, and will the Prime Minister table the report which was released to the press in Halifax just an hour ago by one of his ministers so that members of the House will have the same privilege that the press have at the present time?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal on a
supplementary.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wanted to answer my question. I wish he would do so.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be some reluctance. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on a supplementary.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in relation to the statement. What steps is the government taking to lower trade barriers so that an increase in trade can take place between the Atlantic provinces and the New England states, as forecast in a speech by the Prime Minister in Saint John last December and as taken seriously by the
[Mr. Pepin.l
Atlantic Development Council and, incidentally, by M.P.'s from the Maritimes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, we do not lower tariffs on a regional basis. Second, it is very doubtful whether the United States government would have the power to negotiate such tariff reductions at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question, which the Prime Minister refused to answer, to the now occupied President of the Privy Council. May I ask the government House leader whether the government has received the report of the Atlantic Development Council released just an hour ago to the press by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and is the minister prepared to table the report so that Members of Parliament will have a chance to study it?


Mr. Speaker:: My understanding is that this is a matter that does not come under the administrative responsibility of the minister. I believe the hon. member's question was properly directed in the first instance when it was asked of the Prime Minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then may I redirect my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. May I say, with great respect, that this report was released in the city of Halifax by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and all I am asking is that the Prime Minister table the report so that Members of Parliament may have a chance to look at it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is a report that was directed by an advisory council to the minister just in the last few days. I have not yet seen a copy of the report, but I would invite the hon. member to table his copy and perhaps the House can then study it.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to comply with the wish of the Prime Minister and I table a copy of the report forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that even the right hon. Prime Minister cannot change the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he cannot table a document. According to our rules this is not in order. The hon. member may bring the document to the attention of other hon. members, but there is no provision under our Standing Orders for a member of the House to table a document in the way which is now being attempted by the hon. member for St. John's East.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I then ask for the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions so that I can table this report under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2)?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!
April 6, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I really do not think that the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) are applicable in this instance. In any event, I will read Standing Order 41(2) for the benefit of hon. members. It reads as follows:
A Minister of the Crown, or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of a Minister-
The hon. member may have been either promoted or demoted, according to the way he wants to look at it, but it is not my understanding that he falls under either of these two designations. I suggest to hon. members that we are not making much headway in this regard. The hon. member has no right under the rules to table the document.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I say, with great respect, that I was acting on behalf of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CENSUS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with a document which, if tabled in the House, would be incomprehensible to most members. I refer to the 1971 census which is full of questions of all varieties and types, including such questions as, when you enter your living quarters do you go in by a common hall or through someone else's living quarters.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: It also asks, do you have a flush toilet, and other questions of an intimate nature in the domesticity of the home. It also has all the appearance of being of interest to those who have set out certain principles in the white paper on taxation because it asks, if you were selling your home now, how much would you expect to get for it.
I ask the minister whether he reviewed this conglomerate mess before it was made available as an official document? I would like very much to know why "snoo-pocracy" of this kind is being tolerated today in our country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the opposition will sooner or later get together and reconcile their views. One day I am accused by one of them of playing with statistics, of telling DBS what to do, and the next day I am accused of not doing so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baldwin:: Yes, we are right on both counts.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I suggest that they should make up their minds.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: So the minister's admission is that this is an opportunity for the government to obtain correct statistics, and if you do not answer every question you are liable to a $300 fine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman may have a supplementary question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the question. In view of the fact that the fine will be $300 if you do not answer this mess of questions, does the minister not agree that there will be only two classes of people in Canada, those in jail and the rest waiting to get in?
# * *



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can inform the House if any change is contemplated in the policy which has been followed by the Canadian Dairy Commission in respect of the allocation of dairy quotas to producers. Will some quota allotments be made available to prospective producers who do not now have quota allotments or do not qualify under the policy that has been followed?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any policy changes are under consideration at present which would increase the total amount of the subsidy eligibility quota, but I could advise you, Sir, that discussions are going on now between the provincial agencies responsible for milk marketing and the Canadian Dairy Commission as to the way of transferring both the market-sharing quota and the subsidy eligibility quota.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's reply to my question, would he be prepared to make a statement on motions very soon and inform the House as to what changes his department, in consultation with other governments, is proposing to make?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I would be prepared to make a statement on motions as soon as there is general agreement between those provinces which have entered into a market-sharing quota and the Canadian Dairy Commission as to the new rules, regulations and criteria for transfers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: The minister referred to those provinces which have entered into an agreement. May I ask the minister what the position of those provinces which have not entered into an agreement will be, and will his statement cover that?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Quite obviously there is no question of transferability of the market quota in those provinces which do not have a market quota. In so far as the

April 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
subsidy eligibility quota is concerned, there may be some consequential and minor amendments required, but we do not intend to have a major change in the transfer of the subsidy eligibility quota at the moment.



DAIRYING-TRANSFER OF QUOTAS WITHOUT INCLUSION OF HERD AND IN SMALLER AMOUNTS

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I wonder if the minister, before making his statement on motions, would give consideration in the negotiations to having the federal quotas transferred without inclusion of the herd, and also would he consider whether smaller amounts could be transferred?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is one of the considerations that the negotiations are taking into account now.



DAIRYING-POLICY RESPECTING ANTICIPATED PENSIONS AND TRANSFORMATION OF CERTAIN OPERATIONS

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question.
At the last meeting with provincial ministers, was any reference made to new funds or grants with regard to, if I am not mistaken, pre-retirement benefits for older producers and transformation of some operations? Is the minister in a position to say what he thinks about it and whether the policy will be announced soon?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any further details respecting this until we have come to an understanding with the provinces. We have had one meeting with all the ministers. There is another meeting later this month of the deputy ministers. If at that time there are some positive details that can be announced that have been agreed on, I will be happy to do so.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the fact that a large number of Canadians are currently seeking employment and that census commissioners are in a position to hire personnel, could the minister have printed in appendix to Hansard the list he tabled so that the unemployed know where to apply for a job?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this list is available and should my hon. friend want a copy of it, I shall be pleased to send him one.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: My
question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister bring us up to date on the present status of the restructuring by him and his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, of the pay schedules for the Canadian Armed Forces, promised for some time this month?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: will have to take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: My question is for the
Minister of Agriculture. In view of the proposed sale by the Department of Agriculture of imported bulls presently being held for semen collection at the government experimental farms at Lacombe and Brandon, can the minister assure the House and farmers of the nation that any sale will be made with the assurance that a percentage of the semen collected will be retained by the Department of Agriculture so that semen will be available to Canadian farmers and ranchers at a price they can afford?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this might not be the kind of question which might easily be placed on the
order paper.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of housing. In view of the statement issued by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities that present federal government policies may be making the housing situation worse instead of better, would the minister put an immediate end to the freeze on urban renewal funds and in so doing deal directly with the muncipalities which have a better view of the situation and are more sensitive to the needs of the people?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there was not a curtailment of urban renewal funds. We are in fact spending more on urban renewal now than before the dialogue and debate arose as a result of the task force on housing and urban affairs about two years ago. I did tell the mayors we were interested in discussing this as well as all other urban problems in tri-level consultations which are hopefully scheduled to begin before too long.

April 6, 1971



MONTREAL-REPLY TO CITY'S HOME RENOVATION PROPOSALS

Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister in charge of housing. Has the minister given any reply to the city of Montreal regarding the proposals that city made to him about two weeks ago regarding the renovation of 100,000 homes in the Montreal area?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we had a very constructive meeting about two weeks ago with the Minister of Municipal Affairs from the province of Quebec and some of his officials and the mayor of Montreal and Mr. Niding and some of their officials from the city administration. We agreed to establish a co-ordinating and working committee between the federal government, the provincial government and the city of Montreal to address ourselves to all those problems. I heralded that meeting and the commitment to consult further as a major breakthrough in tri-level co-ordination and co-operation.



URBAN RENEWAL-USE OF TRI-LEVEL COMMITTEES TO INVESTIGATE CITY PROBLEMS-ESTABLISHMENT OF GUIDELINES

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the minister in charge of housing. Am I to take it from the minister's answer that this will be the policy of the government in order to alleviate the growing problems of the major cities throughout the country?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think that one flew past my ear. I am not quite sure to what the hon. member is referring.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can explain it a little more clearly for the minister. In view of the fact he has just indicated he is setting up a committee representative of the city of Montreal, the province and the federal government to look into that city's several urban problems, will that be the policy of the government in respect of all other major cities throughout the country, including the city of Hamilton which has been continually pressing the minister for more funds for urban renewal?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, without going back to the more funds for urban renewal for Hamilton question, which battle we fought last year, the general principle of tri-level negotiation and co-operation, if the provinces are willing to join with us in that kind of endeavour, is very close indeed to my heart.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the mayors and reeves have indicated how important urban renewal problems are, or regeneration as the case may be, is it the intention of the minister to bring down guidelines now keeping in mind the several suggestions which have been made by the mayors in order that we can have some sort of policy from this government in terms of attempting to alleviate the several problems of urban renewal?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker;: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly. We have spent quite a bit of time on one question and three or four supplementaries.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, urban renewal under section 23(b) of the National Housing Act is only one of many programs, and last year we spent $1.1 billion and this year we will spend about $1 billion directly through CMHC, to say nothing of the vast amounts of money being spent by many other departments of this government in help to the cities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly accustomed to the answer the minister has continually given me for the past two years. All I asked was whether the government is thinking about indicating guidelines in respect of urban renewal, and the minister will not answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member may not be satisfied with the reply given by the minister but I suggest to him that is not a point of order.



PROPOSED REHABILITATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE PROGRAMS

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the minister. Is he giving consideration to the proposals made yesterday that the federal government fund neighbourhood rehabilitation programs and fund social service programs to permit improvement of the environment in other forms except provision of shelter?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this much more comprehensive approach is one we are examining with great sympathy and with a considerable bias toward ultimately arriving at this kind of policy approach.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister has rejected the requests of Metro Toronto and the city for additional programs to fight the problems of high unemployment on the ground that present government policies are more effective, is the Prime Minister able to give the House specific levels of reduced unemployment for 1971?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot, of course, predict what will happen in the months to come, but for the month already expired the figures have been given to the House and they are known to the House.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister undertake to work out some projections of reduced unemployment levels for the country for the year ahead?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the time of the budget we do attempt to indicate to the House of Commons and to the people the shape of economic things to come.

April 6, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP



ALLEGED INTERFERENCE BY CIVIL SERVANTS IN JUDGES' DECISIONS-SPECIAL STATUS FOR BRITISH SUBJECTS

Mr.   Gaetan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister responsible for citizenship I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Following charges yesterday by a citizenship court judge to the effect that senior civil servants attempt in some instances to influence decisions on citizenship applications and the British subjects are given additional special status by Ottawa officials, would the Prime Minister tell the House what his reactions are to these charges and whether he would ask the minister responsible to conduct a personal inquiry into the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the second part of the question is in order, but the hon. member cannot ask what the Prime Minister's reaction was to the circumstances to which he has alluded. The Prime Minister might reply to the second part of the hon. member's question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the subject was drawn to my attention before coming into the House and I have ascertained that the minister will do what the hon. member suggested. He will look into the matter, make an inquiry and report to the House as soon as possible, perhaps even tomorrow when he will be in the House. Could I be allowed to answer a question asked yesterday, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no difficulty whatsoever about the Prime Minister answering a question asked yesterday. A suggestion was made by a member of the cabinet the other day that the Chair does not allow ministers to take the initiative to reply to questions asked previously. What I have objected to from time to time is that a minister, while he has the floor, replies to a prior question without allowing a supplementary. However, since there is no supplementary at this time it is quite in order for the Prime Minister to seek permission of the House and of the Chair in order to reply to a prior or previous question.
*i*	-J-	"f*



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a series of questions yesterday concerning the B and B commission and I wish to refer particularly to the question concerning the exchange of correspondence between myself and members of the commission. I did look into it and I can report to the House there was no further exchange of correspondence beyond that already tabled in the House on March 17, which corresponded pretty directly to the type of question asked by the hon.
member for York South. That was tabled on March 17 and I have not been able to find any further correspondence.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Did the Prime Minister not get a letter from one of the commissioners, Professor J. B. Rudnyckyj, dated March 16 in which he made certain recommendations to the Prime Minister, and would the Prime Minister be prepared to table that letter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember having received such a letter but I will look into it and if I have I will see if it can be tabled.



WHEAT-PREVIOUS LOANS UNDER CASH ADVANCE PROGRAM-DATE MONEY AVAILABLE IN CURRENT CROP YEAR

Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the substantial changes being made in the cash advance program for the 1971-72 crop year, when will the minister be in a position to announce what the situation is regarding previous loans, and the date cash advances will be available in the current crop year?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, if there are to be substantial changes in the cash advances program I am sure that my colleague, the minister from Saskatchewan, after taking that into account will announce whatever changes are necessary to take care of the advances that are outstanding now.
* * #



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is supposed to be here today, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister or to his parliamentary secretary. It has to do with the starvation of elk and other animal wildlife in Elk Island National Park. In view of what has transpired there, can the parliamentary secretary indicate whether the department is looking into the operations of the Canadian Wildlife Service, which serves the parks administration in an advisory capacity, to determine why a directive was not issued recommending a fall reduction in the elk population commensurate with available feed supplies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this kind of question might be placed on the order paper. I am not

April 6, 19V1

familiar with the details of the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member, but it seems to me he is referring to a situation that has already passed, and, in those terms the question might be placed on the order paper. In any event, I note that the parliamentary secretary has taken notice of the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order and with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, since park officials are now engaged in mercy killing of elk and other wildlife, with the meat being of no saleable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the additional
circumstances mentioned by the hon. member, but he has noted that the parliamentary secretary has taken notice of the question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to ask the parliamentary secretary whether he can give the House and the people of Canada an assurance that such a situation will not happen again in the future?
sfc Hs &



PROPOSED NORTHERN PIPELINE-DETAILS OF ECOLOGICAL STUDIES

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of statements made by the Canadian Wildlife Federation that there is little research being conducted on the ecological results of oil pipelines in the north, will the minister list with the House the studies presently under way, the location of each project, and the staff which is carrying it out?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think that question should be placed on the order paper.



ELECTIONS


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will urgent consideration be given to providing the right to vote to all eligible Canadians residing outside Canada in the next federal election, particularly people who are employed at the United Nations and others who are not in the armed services?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's very interesting question could also be placed on the order paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Would he tell the House if he intends to ask the government to amend the Bank of Canada Act and the Bank Act concerning chartered banks to establish government participation in the major decisions of the banks and the economic independence they advocate?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the question asked by the hon. member has already been asked several times and I wonder if it could not be put on the order paper.



BROADCASTING


Mr. Paul Yewchult (Alhabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that television will soon be available to northern communities through the Telesat satellite, are there any plans, or have consultations been held or are consultations being held with northern residents, concerning programming? Further, are there any plans to include natives in the areas of acting and film production as recommended recently by the National Indian Brotherhood?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the details but I will be happy to draw the matter to the attention of the minister.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


J. Judd Buchanan: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state that in reply to a question from the hon. member for Athabasca last Friday I indicated that it was my assumption that the jobs provided in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for native students would be filled through the Public Service Commission. In fact they are being handled through the regional offices of the Department.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to speak on Bill C-215, an act to establish the Textile Clothing Board, I should first like to make some general comments regarding the basic liberal philosophy which surrounds so many of the current problems facing the country. I would commend to all hon. members on the opposite side of the House a book written by that distinguished spokesman for conservatism, William F. Buckley, entitled "Up From Liberalism." One of the chapters in Mr. Buckley's book is entitled "The Liberal-and the Obliging Order," sub-headed "Our Age of Modulation." Mr. Buckley has several interesting things to say. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the age of liberal modulation is in no way better illustrated than in the liberal lexicon for describing current social phenomena. For instance, it is most revealing to note that no longer do our societies have ghettos, but rather in the liberal view we have "centres of ethnic concentration," and so on.
I have made these introductory remai'ks merely to illustrate that once again this confused manner of liberal thinking is present in the bill now under consideration. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) refers to the bill as having the purpose of "rationalizing" the textile and clothing industry in Canada, whereas in every eventuality, as I believe all hon. members on this side of the House know, the result of the bill will be to build a high protectionist tariff wall, particularly around low cost cotton imports.
I wish to quote a few passages from an editorial entitled "Protection Will Out" which was published in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 22, 1971:
Any doubts as to Mr. Pepin's attitude should be dispelled by his response as minister to various proposals for modifying the bill. Since it first appeared there has been much criticism that it goes too far, even on the doubtful premise that something more should be done for the textile industry.. .In consequence, various amendments were offered when the legislation was reported back to the House. Their purpose was not to destroy the bill; merely to remove or ameliorate some of its worst features. It would have been quite open to Mr. Pepin to accept any of these or to propose acceptable substitutes. This is a perfectly normal procedure; the government would have lost nothing by following it and might have gained marks for good sense.
What happened? The first amendment on Thursday was in the name of Gordon Ritchie and called for regional representation on the new clothing board. The method proposed may have been imperfect but the intent-of providing a consumer voice-was clear enough. Mr. Pepin rejected this out of hand...
The next two amendments were offered by G. W. Baldwin. In these cases the intent was even clearer. It was to limit the new textiles legislation to textiles. For the astonishing thing about
the bill is that it is not so limited. Under the guise of helping one afflicted industry, it opens the way to general restriction by order in council. One section of it refers to the anti-dumping act, using the words: "in respect of any goods other than textile and clothing goods." Thus, if there is injury-or even threat of injury-to manufacturers not in textiles, the government will be able to rescue them too by placing the offending goods, on the import control list. For Mr. Pepin, that is a convenient arrangement. He turned down the amendment.
Mr. Baldwin then moved to delete clause 27 of the bill, which refers to the Customs Act, again using the word "goods". The purpose here is to reinforce the government's method of blocking imports by imposing "voluntary" quotas on other states.
As Mr. Baldwin judiciously observed, there is no more connection between that clause and the inherent principles of a textile bill than there is between rapeseed and immorality. But again, it provides a weapon of convenience for a protectionist minister and Mr. Pepin would not tolerate its removal...
With this in hand and no one upset (apart from knavish importers and long suffering consumers), he will be able as minister in charge of trade and commerce to revert to the congenial task of lecturing a wayward world on the evils of restrictionism and the superior morality of freer trade as practised preferably on a one-way basis by this enlightened nation.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-215, simply reflects the fact that certain sectors of the Canadian textile and clothing industry are uncompetitive with their counterparts in other countries of the world. Following from that summary of the problem, we must then look to see what proposals are being put forth in this bill to remedy the situation, what the people who are most actively engaged in the industry think their basic problems to be, and what their assessment is of the likelihood of these problems being overcome in the foreseeable future.
During the course of the examination of this bill by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of which I am a member, we had the opportunity of hearing a number of expert witnesses representing different and contrasting viewpoints on the implications of this proposed bill. A number of them also commented at length on the state of the Canadian textile and clothing industry. One such witness was Mr. G. L. Bruck, President, Bruck Mills Limited, who appeared before the committee on February 18, 1971.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Caftk), asked Mr. Bruck if he thought there was any real hope of the Canadian textile industry becoming competitive in the international market in Canada. Mr. Bruck responded as follows, and I quote:
Well, my answer is "yes", we are competitive with most countries in the international field and I mean truly competitive. We are not complaining about what is happening to us from importations from the European countries, or even the United States. We feel that with the present tariffs, although they are not terribly high, they are adequate, and we have to learn to operate within these limitations.
To say that we must be competitive with Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Mainland China, or any of these countries, well, that is drawing a rather long bow. I am not quite certain how they are going to get up to $3.00 an hour salaries and other such fringes. Let us wait and see.
Mr. Bruck was asked further if he did not think that the real problems of that portion of our textile and clothing industry which face the greatest competition

April 6, 1971

from countries in the far East originated from the industry in Canada not being as technologically advanced as its foreign competitors. Again, I think it is most revealing to quote to hon. members the reply which Mr. Bruck made on this particular point. Mr. Speaker, he said, and I quote:
I disagree completely with that view. I think our industry is well up. We are keeping up with the technological advances. It is possible that our industry does not have everything the next fellow wants at all times. This can never be. No country in the world can provide everything, and in that context, as Mr. Armstrong said, we do not expect to have the entire Canadian market. We have 50 per cent now. Perhaps if we had 60 to 65 per cent we would have come a long way. So from the point of view of not keeping up, we say this is completely wrong, we are right there.
I think that I am summarizing the essence of the witness's testimony when I say that, in fact, he admitted that the section of the Canadian textile and clothing industry which specializes in cotton goods can never, in the foreseeable future, become competitive with goods produced abroad. Notwithstanding this admission, he still feels that the industry should be entitled to some 60 or 65 per cent of the Canadian market in these products. While that viewpoint is to some degree understandable coming from the industry, I do not think it is at all understandable or justifiable when we relate it to the broad and vast interests of the Canadian public as a whole. I think we need to remind the industry, that it exists to serve the needs of the Canadian people and not the reverse. If an industry is not competitive and has few prospects for becoming competitive, and if similar products can be imported from abroad at a price which allows low income Canadian families in particular to benefit from the import, then I think we have a compelling obligation to see that the interests of the greatest number of people are protected.
I simply do not see the purpose of using tariffs or import licences to protect an industry which can never become competitive. I think the history of tariffs or other similar restrictive devices has shown that once erected, they are seldom torn down. Moreover, the countries against whom they are erected usually respond by establishing their own tariffs against those commodities of which we are most productive.
Those hon. members who have followed recent trends in trading patterns cannot, I think, but become gravely concerned at what appears to be the very real possibility that an intense trading war may be developing between the United States and the European Economic Community on one hand, and the United States and Japan on the other. When one bears in mind the size of these trading blocks, and further remembers that Canada is not a member of any of them, it becomes readily apparent that we could be caught in the middle of a giant conflict, thus incurring all of the damage to which we would be subject in such a position.
At the outset of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I spoke of the manner in which the liberal mind distorts realities. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has stated that this bill has as its purpose the rationalization of the Canadian textile and clothing industries, or certain portions of them. I quite agree that the purpose of the bill is
Textile and Clothing Board Act to rationalize certain matters, but what concerns me is that the rationalization which the bill may bring about will be the type of rationalization which will permit a number of uncompetitive segments of these industries in central Canada, namely Ontario and Quebec, to remain in existence, while tne consumers of western Canada, that is those in the portions of Canada west and north of the boundary of Ontario, will have thrust upon them unnecessary costs through tariff structures to protect an industry which does not warrant protection.
In addition to western Canada, we must also remember those many Canadians in our Atlantic provinces who will also suffer increased costs for cotton imports and who are in an area of Canada not known for high wage rates. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has stated on a number of occasions, his department conducted an exhaustive two year study of the Canadian textile and clothing industry as a prelude to drafting the present bill. I should think, as a result of that study, he and his senior officials would know quite clearly at this date that those segments of the textile and clothing industry in Canada which persist in attempting to compete with low cost imports from Japan and Taiwan, Mainland China and Korea, can never become competitive. If they are to remain in the Canadian market, their presence can only be maintained by Canadians having to pay an unreasonable and unjustifiably higher cost for their basic cotton goods than they otherwise would.
Western Canada has become increasingly successful in developing export markets with the Far East. While the bulk of our exports consist of primary industry products, their export is, nevertheless, a significant item in Canada's international balance of payments. In addition, these exports provide a broader and greatly needed economic base in western Canada from which we expect secondary industries will be developed. Western Canadians would naturally and rightly look with the utmost disfavour and concern upon any measures which might be adopted to protect at the possible expense of these markets, industries in central Canada which have for decades been the recipients of heavy tariffs and other protections, all of which have been borne with resentment by Canadians in our western provinces.
I strongly caution the government against passing legislation which will not in any significant way assist those segments of the Canadian textile and clothing industry which are experiencing extreme difficulties in remaining in their fields, and which at the same time will result in Canadians paying unnecessarily increased costs for many textile imports. Not only will import licences restrict choice, but their great harm will be in the potential threat which they represent to some of our largest and best trading partners whose good will we should be cultivating rather than testing.
The real danger in this legislation is that it could so very easily be cited as a precedent by other Canadian industries experiencing difficulties similar to those of our textile and clothing industry which, in fairness, the government ought to extend to them. Are we then to see a proliferation of boards and acts similar to the present

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act legislation, each with the power to urge measures upon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce which in their total could make us one of the most portectionist countries in the world, with obvious consequences for our exporters. With the difficulties which Canadian exporters are already experiencing, including those which have arisen from our floating-perhaps I should say bloating- Canadian dollar, the government should not be embarking on courses which could well set off anticipatory reactions amongst our trading partners, particularly in the Pacific area.
Much has been said in our country, Mr. Speaker, in these past, uncertain months about the need to foster Canadian unity. We in western Canada cannot be unified with central Canada if we are to be separated by tariff walls. We have acted in good faith in understanding the needs of other parts of Canada and now we must insist that the same good faith be extended to our needs. If the government damages relations with our major trading partners through measures such as those proposed in the present bill, we can only conclude that western Canadian alienation from the Canadian union will be further enhanced.


Mr. Normal Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing this bill for a brief moment, I want to say that I am fully in agreement with its intentions. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of this House which reviewed this bill in considerable detail. I think that it skates the very difficult route between the interests of textile manufacturers and those of the consumers of textiles in Canada, and I think it does this very well. I think that through the establishment of the textile board, the bill will make it possible for action to be taken to rationalize the textile industry in the interest of both the consumers and the manufacturers.
One thing concerns me particularly at this moment and I hope in his concluding remarks that the minister will touch on the question of adjustment assistance for workers. Clause 21 of the bill almost parallels a similar legislative provision connected with the auto pact under which transitional assistance benefits are made available to people displaced as a result of the operation of the auto agreement. What concerns me is whether the decision of the textile board as to whether or not people are qualified for these benefits is subject to appeal. I know ;hat in the case of the auto pact there are no such provisions within the act itself; and, indeed, there are no such provisions for appeal within the bill we are now considering.
I pursued this question in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. When 1 did so, the minister indicated that he would take my views into consideration and, in the House, indicate whether appeals would be allowed by trade unions or representatives of employees if new evidence was available to show that they should, in fact, be granted such eligibility. I hope that the minister will assure this House today that those
groups will actually be given an opportunity to appeal decisions made by the textile board in connection with their eligibility. Provided that assurances are given that appeals will be heard if new evidence is available to indicate that they should be granted that eligibility, I would be quite prepared to support this bill enthusiastically.


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, the members of the New Democratic Party supported this bill on second reading. Having seen the bill through the committee stage, we are now prepared to support the bill on third reading, despite some reservations which I shall attempt to set out in the course of my remarks.
Basically, we consider that this is a new step which represents an innovation on the Canadian scene in trying to find solutions to the problems that face the textile and clothing industry. We wish the government luck in its program, and we will be watching the actions of both the government and the board very closely as they attempt to grapple with the difficult problems facing this industry. While we have some reservations on some aspects of the bill, nevertheless we believe it represents a step forward in government policy. I think it should be noted here, as it has been during the committee hearings, that there is a possibility that, on the basis of the experience gained through the operations of this board, the principle involved may be extended to other fields of industrial activity in Canada. We hope that this proposal will be of assistance in finding a solution to the very difficult problems of the industry concerned. I think it should be noted that the government has a particular responsibility, in view of the very wide ranging policy considerations involved, to deal with the problems with which we are confronted in the textile and clothing field.
Of course, we shall have to deal with conflicting interests, and there are some difficult conflicts of interest to contend with as we attempt to find a sensible and reasonable solution to some of the problems before us. We must take into account the fact that we want to see a viable textile industry in Canada. On the other hand, we must also recognize that we trade with the rest of the world, and that Canada is greatly dependent on trade for the carrying on of its economic activities.
Some conflicts of interest have resulted in concerns which have been expressed, both on the floor of the House and during committee hearings. In particular, those concerns have been expressed by some hon. members who are involved with and concerned about the situation affecting western Canada. I speak as a member from western Canada. Concerns respecting questions of trade and respecting, particularly, agricultural products have been raised in the discussion on this bill. Most of these concerns arise with respect to the degree of protection which will be afforded to the textile and clothing industry as a result of the activities that will be carried on by the proposed textile and clothing board. Concerns and fears have been expressed as to how these will affect the economic interests of people in other parts of Canada. For instance, in western Canada people are concerned about

April 6, 1971

agricultural trade and agricultural exports. Thus, we see that this bill affects various sectors of the Canadian economy and we must give it careful consideration.
It seems to me that some of the concerns expressed from time to time have not been totally rational. I say this with the greatest of respect, at the same time noting that some of the concerns expressed are valid and should be taken into account. I believe, too that some of the concerns which have been expressed from time to time have been expressed in a way which I do not think reflects the degree of maturity that we require in Canada to deal with the various interests, concerns and conflicts with which we are faced.
Speaking as a member from western Canada I can say, as hon. members will be aware and as you, Sir, will be very much aware, that from time to time-many hon. members would say "on numerous occasions"-problems of western Canada have been brought before the House. These have involved everything from damp wheat and farm income to wheat sales, grain movements and so on. These constitute very real problems for us. I might say that while remarks about these problems were listened to with interest by members in some parts of the House, there was also a certain amount of reaction from members coming from other parts of Canada. They were very unhappy that some of us from western Canada had taken advantage of numerous occasions to raise some of these problems. I suggest that many of those members did a disservice to Canada and to Canadian unity by not giving proper recognition to the very real problems that some of us were attempting to raise.
In the bill under consideration, we are concerned about the problems of the textile and clothing industry. As has been noted, these are very real problems. The industry has had to contend with problems of low cost imports. These have had a very serious effect on employment in the industry. Some of the provisions of the bill, of course, have been drafted with this factor in mind.
My colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will be dealing with some of the considerations involved in the assistance to workers which may result from any further dislocation to this industry. The fact is that this industry has faced serious disruption and serious problems. It is obvious that the industry must adjust. It requires time to make these adjustments, but nevertheless they must be made. In addition, further adjustments will be forthcoming.
Within the past few weeks there have been newspaper articles on new technological innovations in the textile field which will greatly cut down on the employment available in this industry. Very large amounts of investment will be required if Canadian firms are to keep up with international trends. It is obvious that the industry has responded, and we can expect a further response. Whether the response has always been adequate is another matter upon which I do not pass judgment at this particular time. We have a duty to respond positively to the situation which we face at the present time. In my
Textile and Clothing Board Act view, a negative response would be a disservice to Canada, to the people who work in this industry, and to those companies associated with the activities of this industry. If there were no signs of response, legislation such as this probably could not be justified at the present time.
We must try to find a good balance with respect to our economic situation. We have to take into account the trading needs of Canada, and the fact that we must not only export but import as well. We have to take into account also the concerns of the industry in Canada, and the need to carry on industrial activity in this country. Reference has been made to some of the exchange problems which have developed. These remarks may not be completely consistent, because while the exchange problem has resulted in some very real problems in some sectors of the Canadian economy at this time it will, on the other hand, force some sectors of the Canadian economy to upgrade their standards of activity and productivity.
We consider this legislation to be a step forward. It is a useful innovation. As far as we are concerned, we are going to watch and judge the government on the basis of its actions. The minister made quite clear during the second reading stage and before the committee that the government must and will bear final responsibility for actions taken under this legislation. However, Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of the structure involved in this bill which needs further consideration and development. I refer to the whole question of industry planning.
The minister made it quite clear that responsibility rests with the government. In my view, this is correct. The board is to be given a free hand in making its recommendations. This is also correct. I have no quarrel with this position. However, what is the framework within which the board must operate? The board really cannot make judgments unless it has some knowledge of industry plans, and the direction in which the industry is moving. Within what sort of a framework will the board be operating which will enable it to make sound judgments to pass on to the minister?
What is needed is an overview of the situation which will enable the board to make more rational and useful recommendations to the minister, on which he will then pass judgment. At the present time, the board is expected to react to proposals, plans and requests of the minister as well as other inquiries. It is entirely dependant upon requests for action. This is going to be the basis of its activities. As I understood the questioning that took place in the committee, there is no provision for consultation with the minister or the department while an inquiry is in progress. I want to make it clear that I do not suggest any restriction on the powers and freedom of the board to carry out its studies and prepare recommendations for the minister.
The government has not adopted the principle of planning which would enable an adequate job to be done. There is an element of "ad hoccery" in the bill as it is before us at the present time. There is no overview which would permit the problems of the industry to be

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
dealt with properly. When I questioned the minister and his officials before the committee, they stated that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does carry on studies regarding trends in the industry. These studies are available to the minister when passing judgment on any recommendations made to him by the textile and clothing board. This is a perfectly valid form of analysis. Such an examination needs to be carried out to determine the trends in the industry and the direction in which things are moving so far as they can be foreseen. However, I suggest that is not adequate.
As I pointed out during committee hearings, it is quite correct that an analysis of trends is one part of the process of developing a plan for industry. If you are going to leave it at that and then decide whether proposals and plans submitted fit within this trend, then certain assumptions are involved. Trends usually develop because they best serve the over-all public or national interest. A further assessment of the public interest is required before you can decide whether a proposal or plan fits in with the trends. When I speak of planning, I want to make it clear that I am not speaking of any sort of imposed plan, any sort of a monolithic, bureaucratic type of plan. The type of planning that would be required in this industry would involve a combined effort on the part of the government, industry, workers and other people associated with the industry.
I acknowledge that there have been consultations. The government has held many consultations with people concerned with this industry, both in the preparation of this bill and in dealing with the problems that the industry has faced for a number of years. I suggest there may be a further development of this process before the board and the government will be fully equipped to deal with the problem in the best possible way. In trying to understand the exact nature of the board proposed in this bill, I suggested to the minister during the Committee hearings:
Then, really what you are underlining, it would seem to me, Mr. Pepin, is that through this legislation you are establishing a framework for future policy development in that-
The minister then interrupted me by saying:
I have said that.
I find the minister's words are always much more complex than that when he speaks on these subjects. I continue to quote:
-this does not necessarily influence the policy that will be developed in future years. It simply establishes a structural framework within which policy is developed.
The minister indicated that was essentially the case. Later on, I said:
You are really going to leave it to the Board to make its own studies of the problems that exist, to assess the conflicting interests-and make their own assessment of the situation to develop their own criteria and to make their own judgments, which they then pass on to you-and upon which, then, you have to pass judgments.
"You" being the minister in this case. This deals with one aspect of the matter, but again it is clear that a
complete framework for dealing with all these problems is lacking. The proposals contained in the bill before us amount to a step forward but they are still incomplete in this respect. I questioned the minister about this aspect on a number of other occasions during the committee hearings.
The issue of protectionism has been raised during the debate in this House as well as during the committee hearings. Is the board contemplated in the legislation to be simply a protectionist vehicle? The minister did deal with this matter at one point during the committee hearings. In answer to a question by myself, he said:
Will the Board be a protectionist one? Will it be the opposite of whatever a protectionist one would be? I really do not know. I suggest that we have appointed good members. We have given them the kind of task, the kind of definitions that are really motherhood before the Women's Liberation movement, and they have to bear in mind the interests of consumers, the interests of importers, the interests of exporters, the international situation, everything. That is what you wanted us to do is it not? Now they are going to come out with suggestions or recommendations to the government, and the government will have to make up its mind. Then, from that series of decisions, you will be in a position to judge whether the government is protectionist or not.
I thank the minister very much for setting out this situation so clearly in order that we might have a proper understanding of the functions of this board. Of course, we are very much concerned that there should be no greater degree of protectionism than may be necessary. I understood the minister to say, in answer to one of the questions I put to him, that it was quite possible some tariffs would be raised as a result of recommendations from this board and that other tariffs might be lowered. We want to see restrictions on trade removed as far as possible within the context of developing the Canadian economy on a rational basis. We should keep our relations with the developing countries constantly in mind, particularly since a good deal of the competition in this field is coming from those nations. The minister referred to this point, too, during the committee hearings.
It is necessary to take conflicting interests into account, to determine in which direction the industry is moving and the kind of industry we desire to see established in Canada. Here is an area in which more answers from the minister are needed. The hon. gentleman told us during the committee hearings that he really did not know. I cannot blame him for giving such an answer; some things cannot be forecast, though, as the result of events over the past two or three years in particular, the department has a good idea as to the likely trend of affairs. Above all, we must seek to reconcile the conflicting interests which arise when dealing with these questions. We must encourage and foster trade with all parts of the world. This is critical for us in Canada, and especially for some of us in western Canada.
On the other hand, when we are concerned with the affairs of an industry which employs some 200,000 people directly, as well as providing indirect employment for many more, this becomes a matter which cannot be treated lightly. It is for this reason that we are prepared to support the bill. We wish the government well. We shall watch its actions, we shall question its actions and

April 6, 1971

we shall judge on the basis of the decisions which are made. We shall certainly wish to examine from time to time the programs which are instituted as a result of these proposals in order that we may properly take into account the various interests with which I have attempted to deal this afternoon. On this basis, we are prepared to support third reading of the bill.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out the importance of this bill without however taking up too much of the time of the House.
I believe the bill to establish a textile and clothing board will certainly help solve some of the problems now confronting textile and clothing manufacturers, especially with regard to the marketing of their products.
The industry in general and the representatives of labour unions have welcomed this bill whose purpose is neither to help the textile industry financially nor to grant it the monopoly of the Canadian market, but rather to organize meetings with the representatives of the industry and find out what the real problems are.
I feel that the real purpose of the board will be to advise the government with regard to imports, especially when these tend to flood the market with low-cost products, or to lead to practices for avoiding duty and excise tax.
Although that board must not be endowed with absolute powers, I would hope that further to serious investigations, corrective measures could be brought about in order to improve the situation which we have known for some years.
The textile industry in Canada is one of the most important with respect to production, employment and investment in that sector of the industry. It would therefore be unthinkable that a country like Canada be deprived of an industry such as textiles, an industry with a high productivity, centered on investment and technology and one like which all modern countries would like to have.
In any modern country, consumption of textile products is an indication of the standard of living of the people and of the extent of the industrialization of its economy.
Canada is a country where consumption of clothing as well as household textile products of all kinds is very high. Prosperous countries are highly industrialized. That is why they use also large quantities of packing material, bags, insulating products, transmission belts, tire canvas, upholstering for automobiles and a number of other special industrial products which the textile industry can provide.
Textile products are essential in the life of a modern people. It is not surprising, therefore, that Canadians are among the largest users of textile products in the world.
In Canada, textile products purchased in a year average more than 33 pounds per capita. These products are
Textile and Clothing Board Act made up of natural and synthetic fibres; about 40 per cent are used for clothing; about 31 percent for industrial products; and 29 per cent for household articles. Second to the United States, Canada has the largest average consumption of textile products in the world.
For the Canadian people, the main and most reliable source of textile products, remains its national industry which produces clothing, knitted goods and a large number of household and industrial products. The latter are generally used to supply material to other industrial sectors for further processing.
Canadian textile factories are located in the industrial areas of Quebec and Ontario, close to the market, but the industry is nevertheless spread out from coast to coast, and more than 80,000 Canadians, or 6 per cent of the total labour force in the manufacturing sector, earn their living in the manufacturing of textile products.
According to an economic study, each job in the manufacturing sector creates work for 1.17 persons more in the sectors of supplies, services, maintenance, repairs, etc. So, the textile industry provides jobs for close to 175,000 workers, who, in turn, support families representing over half a million people. The best conditions for efficiency in the textile industry do not necessarily imply large production units. However, a large part of the total textile production in Canada is concentrated in order to allow a maximum scale of production under the present conditions of the Canadian market.
The annual production in Canada exceeds $1.8 billion, which shows the importance of the Canadian textile industry which no longer has to prove the top quality of its production. This industry, as well as the ready-to-wear industry, is endowed with a technology as advanced and as efficient as in any other country in the world. The Canadian section of the National Industrial Conference Board stated, and I quote:
This is a sophisticated and progressive industry whose technical efficiency leaves nothing to be desired compared with similar industries in North America, meaning the whole world. Its management is enlightened, the quality of its products is superior and its prices are maintained at a very low level, taking into account the salary scale in North America and the special demands of the Canadian market.
The enormous investments made by the manufacturers of textile products demonstrate the willingness of the industry to remain always ahead of progress. Presently, and for the last twelve years, the textile industry has spent about $100 million per year to renew its machinery and equipment.
Not only is the computer more and more widely used in production control, but the Canadian textile industry owns some pieces of equipment found nowhere else in America.
This concern for upAo-dateness obviously gave tangible results. The rate of production has increased faster in the textile field than in most other industrial sectors in Canada, by about 6 per cent, for a good number of years.
Canadian textile mills sell around 90 per cent of their production on domestic markets; this is why we should try to protect part of those domestic markets for

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act Canadian manufacturers. However, on account of the very great variety of materials, designs, patterns and finishes, let alone the requirements created by marked variations in the climate, the industry cannot easily resort to mass production, which would allow for a still greater decrease in prices.
Consequently, Canadian producers have to face very strong competition on foreign markets, in the United States as well as in Europe and in Asia, where big industries, because of the huge population and of the lower standard of living, or because of both factors, enjoy many economic advantages and corner practically the whole of their domestic markets.
The Canadian market is different. In this country, industry must continually fight, and it has been doing so for many years, to get each dollar of sales. Mass-production and low costs, which are assets to big foreign producers at home, are also a big help to them on our domestic markets.
As a result, Canadian textiles have to face hard competition from imported items. For instance, out of the 800 million-odd yards of cotton, wool and synthetic textile items that the Canadian people consume yearly, the proportion supplied by Canadian factories represents less than 60 per cent.
For several years, manufacturing has been a most desirable activity for Canada by reason of its high productivity and of its marked technological trends. In recent years, the annual value added per worker, in Canada, has been more than $13,000 compared with approximately $7,000 for the whole Canadian industry. Several other countries see in it an ideal way to use their resources, so as to create maximum economic growth. The world capacity for manufacturing synthetic goods has increased by more than 60 per cent over the past 10 years and it is anticipated that this growth will accelerate again in the future.
Technological development has been speeding up and showing itself in the improvement of the quality of products, and the rate of appearance of new products on the market is increasingly accelerating. The producer who would choose to offer a product of a quality and type similar to those of two or more years ago, would disappear.
In the area of man-made fibers, as in many other industrial sectors largely dependent upon investment and technology, the average unit production costs decrease in relation to the production volume. Therefore, other factors being equal, the manufacturers whose production is the most important have the lowest unit costs. The bill now before us is specifically designed to protect low production costs industries with a fast turnover.
The volume of production is a function of the volume of demand. So it is logical to say that the production unit cost is a function of demand. Under present conditions, with a small domestic market, it is necessary to take protective measures for the Canadian textile industry.
Since 1952, Canada and other industrialized countries have reached agreements to expand their textile imports

from developing countries. For the last 20 years or so, we have assisted these countries in many ways either by extending loans to organize their industry or by allowing them to acquire machinery from us. This is not a reason to put aside our own industry which is now feeling the bite of cheap imports from these countries which we have assisted for some twenty years.
Before concluding my remarks, I wish to stress that the board's main duty will be to supervise and advise the government on the risks that textile and clothing imports present for the various sectors of our industry. I think the bill before us is a reasonable measure for the contracting parties to the agreements reached since 1952 and that it is a desirable step for the Canadian textile industry whosp share in the domestic market has been continuously declining for ten years.
I wish other measures of that kind will complete the work already begun by the Textile and Clothing Board that already started to operate four months ago.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I already had the opportunity on many occasions of expressing my opinion as to the measure before us now and of dealing with the textile and clothing industry, so this afternoon, in order to hasten the passage of that measure, I will make only a few remarks.
Since I was closely associated with the textile industry for many years before becoming a member of Parliament and that many of my fellow citizens are unemployed at the present time, on account of the government's lack of foresight, I avail myself of this opportunity to express once more my dissatisfaction and direct reproaches to the authorities concerned.
But I will not elaborate because I think that the government took long enough to recognize the disastrous situation of the textile industry. In fact, the government is responsible for the loss of markets and jobs. There is no need to recall the past. I would rather share the enthusiasm shown by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) about the results of the Textile and Clothing Board and assure him that we shall not oppose this legislation. Certainly our views may differ but, generally speaking, we shall give the minister all the support we can.
Let us not forget that the current situation of the textile industry is due to imports. The minister himself is convinced of this since he introduced last year specific measures to protect the jobs of certain workers in the shirt industry. But once again, these measures were taken too late and the workers were the most affected.
I hope that the minister, in co-operation with other departments, will do his best so that the workers who have already spent several years in the textile industry will get their jobs back. I dare hope that the minister, who knows this industry very well, since he is from a city where the textile industry is a major activity, will give this problem all the attention it requires. If it is possible to find new jobs for the workers who have devoted most of their life to the textile industry, the minister will have deserved our admiration and our gratitude.
April 6, 1971

1 believe that there should also be full co-operation between the various departments. Now, I wonder whether there really exists the necessary co-operation that would ensure planning in the textile industry and other industries.
While skimming through the report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the period from May 1970, I see that some ten new textile industries have been established in Canada with the help of grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I am asking myself whether it would not have been better to provide a little more planning and to transfer those grants, if possible, to industries already in existence. It is somewhat difficult to make workers who have just lost their jobs understand that the government is providing a grant amounting to thousands of dollars to some textile industry in India through the liberality of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
The House will no doubt be interested in learning that the grants to new industries for the period from May 1970 to March 1971 amounted to over $2 million.
Our taxpayers will not admit easily that part of their tax money should go through grants to foreign companies in order that they may settle here. Mentioning this state of affairs to the minister will surely bring about more co-operation between the various departments.
Insofar as all the representations made by the leaders and the workers of the textile industry are concerned, it must be noted that the Canadian textile industry does not want nor has it ever requested assistance or charity. That industry simply wishes to be assured of at least 70 per cent of the Canadian market. In my opinion, that is a reasonable request which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce could grant. It may be that in some quarters people will maintain that it is a protectionist measure. I would like to reassure those who tend to see excessive protection in this measure and to remind them that what is good for one part of the country is also good for other parts.
Were we to examine whatever the government does in different areas of the country, I think that some of my colleagues who live outside Ontario and Quebec could find ample reasons to take exception if they were looking at the government actions the same way we do.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the minister that even if we do not share all his enthusiasm, we want him to succeed, because on his success hangs the welfare of many workers and industries.


Mr. Max  Bailsman@Waterloo: Mr. Speaker, in looking over boards I have known, it seems to me there are generally two reasons for establishing boards or two categories into which boards fall. In one category, the board becomes the captive of the industry itself. Instead of regulating the industry, the board becomes the instrument of the industry. The other kind of board, which also is very common in the country whether municipally, provincially or federally, is the type of board which is
Textile and Clothing Board Act used by a government as a means of putting off the making of political judgments and as a means of avoiding political responsibilities. I think the bill we are now debating in respect of setting up the textile board is really an indication of that kind of policy. My colleague, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) has indicated our support for the measure. We support it because we believe it is an improvement over the complete lack of thought which has prevailed and, therefore, even a board is more acceptable than the vacuum which has existed up until the present time in the field of textile policy.
I believe we should make very clear that if we had had a government which had a policy, which was prepared to implement a program and which had given some thought about planning the direction of this industry, we would not be faced with the necessity of having a textile board. We are to have this board. We have heard two conflicting views concerning what this board will do. Some hon. members look upon this board as a protectionist device to protect the textile industry and provide additional aid to the industry. It has some of those characteristics. Other members are fearful that the board's existence will lead to the phasing out of the textile industry. Again, there may be some validity to certain aspects of this kind of comment. I think the minister's statement to which my colleague from Regina East referred is the most honest. The board will be neither of these things but will look at each case, make recommendations, and from these recommendations a policy will be developed. It is a framework of a kind. The Board is not there to do one thing or the other, but to provide a framework for policy decisions.
Whether in fact the policy will be successful, or whether we will have a textile policy, will ultimately depend on what kind of approach the government takes to the recommendations of the board. The great weakness as I see it of this general approach is that it depends on people in the textile industry finding themselves in trouble, responding to a crisis which arises one way or the other, and then having a resolution take place within the framework of the board. It would seem to me, and again I refer back to the remarks of my colleague the hon. member for Regina East, that what is needed is some kind of a government program for the textile industry. I see my hon. friend from Edmonton West is making faces whenever I speak of a framework or plan. I hate to see that handsome face so distorted.
In speaking for the people in the textile industry whom I know, I can say that to have some kind of planning take place in that industry would not be repugnant to them. Their futures are involved and planning is not a dirty word to them. They want some kind of framework in which they know their future will be assured. It is not a question of moving in with a heavy hand and clamping down on this or the other, but rather is a question of trying to get industry together with the government to discuss the bringing in of tax policies or incentive policies in order to provide a rational framework. I can almost anticipate what the charming Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would say to me.

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
He would say: Ah, that is very easy for you to say; have you ever tried to bring these people together? The minister would say it is not easy to bring them together. I agree.
In our Canadian society there are some very real problems involved in bringing people together, but I honestly question whether the philosophy of the minister's party is really conducive to making this kind of proposal to people in industry. I question whether a wholehearted effort has ever been made to bring people in the industry, people in the trade unions representing the workers in that industry, together to work out a framework and, if necessary, a program of incentives and perhaps even of penalties or a combination of both, in order to effect a rationalization of this industry. So, while all of us in this House really do not have any choice but to support what we see as an experiment or an attempt to deal with the problems in the industry, we will not be in a position to judge what is being done until some time has elapsed when we can see the outlines of the government's policy.
My reason for rising today to make this intervention is the speech made by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), a member for whom I personally have a very high regard. I was rather surprised by the touch of bitterness in his voice when he spoke, as a western member, about protectionist policies which favour the east. He looked upon this bill as a protectionist bill which would tend to subsidize the textile industry. I do not really think anyone could come to that conclusion based on a reading of the bill. His statement, however, illustrates what has been a long and deep grievance between the western part of Canada and the central part of Canada. It is very difficult to say-and I suggest the hon. member for Dauphin consider this-whether in fact it is always the west which subsidizes the east or always the Maritimes which pays the price of central Canada's prosperity. At the moment, however, no part of the country is prosperous because of the government's policies.
There is a considerable degree of subsidization. Certainly, those of us who are from Ontario have never been, and I hope never will be, insensitive to the problems of Prairie farmers. We have never stood in the way of farm programs that would assist them when they were facing difficulties. I do not think any of us from Ontario have stood in the way of transfer payments to the Maritimes. We have supported those payments very strongly. The truth, of course, is that there does not seem to be any acceptable pattern through which the rewards in one part of the country are being shared with another part of the country. Historically from the beginning of this country, there has been this conflict between the primary producers, the provinces dependent on primary production, and the manufacturing sections of the country. Having listened to the speeches made today, we know that we are a long way from resolving this problem.
Since this problem must be resolved if we are to have an economic policy that will gain wide acceptance, the one thing that must be assured is that the benefits which accrue to any one part of Canada must be shared equally
with the other parts of Canada. The day has long passed when one province can say, "because we have oil the major rewards from oil production must stay with us," or "because we have manufacturing, the major rewards from manufacturing must remain with us." We must develop a sharing program that is acceptable across the whole country. Until we do that, we will have the kind of recrimination that always arises whether it be over textile policies, tariff policies, or natural resource policies. If we are to have a rational, reasonable and intelligent development of industrial policy, that particular issue of sharing must be involved.
In an interview the other day the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) made some scathing remarks about the effects of a pipeline through the Mackenzie valley on the manufacturing industry in central Canada, on our balance of payments, and on the Canadian dollar. But the people in Alberta and Saskatchewan may have different views. They may see the pipeline as of great assistance to their economies. They will be able to move more oil. There will be additional employment available in those provinces. But even if they agree with the minister they may say, "So what? Ontario has been living off the fat of the land; it is time we had our innings." These are understandable conflicts and we will not resolve them through this measure or in this debate.
I raise this matter because these kinds of bills are being debated out of the context of national policy, out of the context of the kind of society we want to see, out of the context of sharing between people and sharing between provinces. Until we have a clear statement of national policy from the government on what it is planning for the economy, it is difficult to see anything meaningful or important in the kind of measure that we have before us today.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on the bill before the House.
We set up a commission to study the problem of the Canadian textile industry. I recognize that the problem is serious and rather complex. I should like to say how much I admire the Minister of Trade, Industry and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) who worked untiringly in his endeavour to find solutions to the problem.
To solve the problem, he has recommended that a board be established to study the problems of production, distribution and especially exports and imports, to find out what may not be working properly.
If something is wrong in respect of imports, especially with dumping, the Board will have to prevent such abuses. However, all kinds of suggestions have been made, all kinds of statistics have been produced about textile products, but such a solution will never solve the problem.
The problem in the textile industry is the same as in any other industry, in any other segment of the economy. It is a Canadian problem as well as an international one. In the textile field as in many others, the experts should be seeking a real solution to the problem, one which

April 6, 1971

would tend to reduce textile prices. These prices are too high, therefore bringing about all kinds of consequences.
I suggest the Board should primarily consider the textile industry's main problem which is that of unduly high prices.
What causes high prices? As in any other field of industry, prices of Canadian products increase because of excise taxes, provincial taxes, municipal and school taxes, all of which are exorbitant. Finally, the financing of stocks by formula 88 again increases textile prices. That is what the Board the minister mentioned should get to work on. The government can certainly find a cheaper way of financing stocks. This increase in the price of textile products and other products is attributable to the 2 per cent monthly portion of the production which is allocated to inventories. Instead of decreasing the prices of products, all this contributes to increasing them and diminising the purchasing power of the Canadian people who are therefore unable to buy textile products. The problem of exorbitant prices is one that we should tackle.
The minister does not see any problem with production. I do not believe either that his officials find anything wrong with production for it is excellent. Experts should rather deal with the problem of distributing these products. We could consume 50 times as many Canadian textile goods as we are producing now. We buy textile products from other countries because they are 50 or 60 times cheaper than Canadian goods. It is not the fault of the Canadian producers, but of the economic system which increases prices through government and bank agencies of all kinds which control prices and board in part the profits of industrialists.
Therefore we support the board set up by the hon. minister. If something can be done, if it can find a *solution to the problem, so much the better! But, how many such agencies, how many other boards in the industrial or commercial sectors have never solved the problem. I doubt that this Board will solve it because it will be concerned only with dumping and not with high prices, too heavy taxes, excise duties, etc. These contribute to maintaining high prices and also diminishing the production of our textile industries. The distribution system is to blame. If it could count on lower taxes, interest rates, and transportation costs, the textile industry would do so much better. Transportation is so expensive, because of too many taxes on trucks, on gas, on all sorts of other things. This contributes to the higher cost price of our textile products, while in other countries, there are lower taxes on transport, on building materials and lower excise duties. There are also many countries which have more beneficial customs tariffs.
I ask the minister to instruct the Board to adjust prices through grants if necessary. If the government must subsidize the textiles industry, let the Board study the possibility of granting subsidies to this industry so that it can lower its prices, adjust to the purchasing power of Canadians and sell in other countries at competitive prices. We shall achieve this only through the compensated discount that we could give on these products. As to
Textile and Clothing Board Act the implementation of this compensated discount, it is merely a technical question. If the government would open its eyes and ears, and apply the real financial technique to finance what can be financed, to make financially possible everything that is physically feasible, we should see the result, and we should not have the abominable situation that now exists in the textile industry.
p,m.)


Paul Yewchuk: I shall not take up very much time, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to make a few comments about Bill C-215. The bill has a potential for effecting a much needed rationalization of various segments of our clothing and textile industry. In my opinion, it also has some potential for being a protectionist device behind which inefficient and outdated segments of the industry will lobby for further restrictive measures. In many instances this might lead to protection of industries which are not competitive or efficient enough to be worthy of survival.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Do you know the industry well?


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, let me point out to the minister that I am not opposing the bill. I just wish to make a few comments on behalf of the consumers of the country and point out some of the pitfalls facing us.
During the study of this bill, the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs heard from a number of knowledgeable witnesses who expressed concern over the ends toward which the provisions of this act could be used. One of these witnesses, Mr. Keith G. Dixon, Executive Vice-President, Canadian Importers Association, gave, in my view, a very reasonable summary of the reasons Canadian manufacturers ought not to be competing against overseas producers of low cost cotton goods. For the benefit of those members who were not as the committee's sitting when Mr. Dixon spoke, or who have not had an opportunity of reading the minutes of the committee, I would like to quote a small portion of his remarks. He said, and I am now quoting a portion of his remarks:
One of the principles of international trade, as I think you will quickly agree, is that every country in the world tries to do that which it is best equipped to do and perhaps Canada is not ideally suited to make the complete range of textiles for a population of 21 million. We do not have any raw materials here at all in textiles. We have no cotton. We have no wool to speak of, we have about 3.5 million pounds of wool, and the synthetic operations are associated or closely directed by overseas companies. The only textile fibre we have in Canada of which we are a world producer, Mr. Chairman, is asbestos.
I am sure all hon. members would agree that the facts which he outlines, plus our wage rates in the textile and clothing industry which are the highest or second highest in the world, necessitate that our judgments and actions concerning the clothing and textile industry in Canada reflect the economic realities with which we are faced. This means that the industry must direct its resources and initiative into those areas where it is competitive in world markets. I fear that in too many of our commercial endeavours, and not just in the clothing and textile

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
industry, we have clung to the production of many items on sentimental or emotional grounds long after such operations have lost their economic justification.
Under clause 8 of this bill, a person who produces in Canada any textile and clothing goods, or a person or association acting on his behalf, may file a notice of complaint with the board alleging that the importation of the textile and clothing goods described in the notice is causing or threatening serious injury to his production in Canada of any textile and clothing goods. In essence, the board is being established to hear complaints from parties who allege, or even fear, injury from the importation of certain textiles or clothing items. I cannot help but think, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a relatively short time before the board becomes brain-washed into believing that most Canadian textile and clothing manufacturers are encountering serious challenges from overseas sources, and that the issuance of important licences is required in order to eliminate these challenges.
The textile and clothing producers appearing before the board may be able to strengthen their arguments by having their employees' representatives testify regarding the actual or alleged jeopardy in which their jobs are being placed. Being further mindful of the fact that in many of the towns or villages in Ontario and Quebec where textile and clothing companies are located they are the only or major employer, the board will be under extreme pressure to agree to the request for the issuance of an import licence. I am not suggesting that clothing and textile manufacturers and their employees should in any way be impeded in making their position or views known to the board. What does, however, concern me is the lack of regional balance amongst the membership of the board, and the lack of adequate provisions in the bill to ensure that the consumers' interests are going to be as vigorously represented as those of the manufacturers and unions.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) may believe that the provisions of clause 10 of the bill, whereby the board is required to publish in the Canada Gazette a notice of its intention to hold an inquiry, will afford to all interest parties an adequate opportunity to make representations. However, I think he would agree that while consumers are the largest single interested group in Canada, they are one of the least organized. Moreover, as the hon. member for Coast Chil-cotin (Mr. St. Pierre) observed during a committee hearing, the Canada Gazette is such an obscure publication that the death of kings may be buried in it without one being the wiser.
The very limited extent to which Canadian consumers are organized was clearly brought out before the committee studying this bill when it heard representatives from the Consumers Association of Canada, the only nationally organized consumer group in Canada. The Association has 65,000 members and a professional staff of only five workers. When one considers the many other consumer interests which the association must serve, I think it becomes readily apparent that the Canadian consumer is
going to be at an enormous disadvantage in presenting his case before the textile and clothing board in comparison with the industry and its employees, who in themselves number almost 200,000.
The Economic Council of Canada has documented rather dramatically what a high percentage of our population lives below the poverty line. In addition, hundred of thousands of our people live on net salaries which are not a great deal above the poverty line. My concern is that measures which serve to increase artificially and unnecessarily the costs of clothing items for people in these income brackets-and they are the ones who will be most affected by restrictions against inexpensive clothing from overseas-are directed against those people who are least able to afford increased costs and who are least able to make the kind of organized representations against increased costs that will be made in favour of them.
Perhaps even more fundamental to this whole issue than anything else is the question, "Why is a board necessary?" Why cannot the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce assist the rationalization of the industry from within the framework of his department instead of creating a new agency, which by his own admission will in any event be heavily dependent upon the human resources of his department? I have followed the debate and study of this bill as closely as any member, I think, yet I cannot see any clear, overriding advantage for the creation of a textile and clothing board, whereas I can see a number of distinct disadvantages against its formal creation.
The very existence of such a board cannot but raise fears that, starting with the textile industry, which is certainly not one of our weaker industries, Canada is embarking on preparations for restrictive trade barriers at the very time when there is so much uneasiness in international trade quarters that the European Common Market and the United States are headed for a trade war which could have the most drastic consequences for us if we become caught, as is likely, in a squeeze play between these two giant trading blocks. Owing to the indifference towards our traditional ties with Great Britain shown by successive Liberal governments, Canada can no longer expect that its markets in the United Kingdom will remain when the British government is finally accepted into the European Common Market. The United States and Japan are having serious difficulties in arriving at mutually acceptable positions regarding trade in clothing and textiles. With growing unemployment in Canada and the United States, it is easy for us to fall into the dangerous trap of hoping that by keeping out foreign competition we will ease the level of unemployment. I think that one does not need to look too far to see that overprotectionism can bring retaliation from other countries and may result in the possibility of the collapse of international trade as each nation seeks to protect itself more and more.
The presence of the board will help to encourage the opinion that a certain percentage of the Canadian market-it appears to be 60 per cent-belongs almost as a birthright to Canadian manufacturers. Indeed, this posi-

April 6, 1971

tion was put forward by the president of the Canadian Textile Institute when he appeared before the committee studying this bill. I think that such a proposition is the root cause of so many of the problems which our industries are facing. I do not believe that a guaranteed percentage of the market makes for a healthy economy in a free enterprise society.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Neither do I, and I did not suggest that.


Paul Yewchuk: In a recent article appearing on January 20, 1971, in the Winnipeg Free Press, this attitude was rather nicely summarized. May I quote from that summary appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press:
It was once accepted that industry exists to serve the public. Has this now been reversed in the case of textiles? Do we, the captive consumers, exist to save the needs of industry and, to that end, must the market be rigged so that 60 per cent of our textile dollars flow to the domestic interests-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not in the bill. Is the hon. member answering the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard)?


Paul Yewchuk: I listened with a good deal of interest to his speech, and that is why I said at the beginning that I was not objecting to this bill. I am merely pointing out what we ought to be thinking about from the consumer's point of view.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But what the hon. member has just suggested is not in the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please.


Paul Yewchuk: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that all hon. members will carefully weigh the comments I have made and the precedents which Bill C-215 will establish, if passed, which I have attempted to outline in the preceding comments.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) appeared before one of our standing committees a few days ago, I went out of my way to commend him with respect to one portion of this bill, Bill C-215. I refer, of course, to the provision in the bill for enhanced unemployment insurance benefits or for preretirement benefits in the case of textile workers who are put out of their jobs as a result of government policy. My going out of my way to commend the Minister of Labour brought a reaction on his part. He went out of his way to make it clear that this provision is unique and applicable in this kind of situation only because this very bill could produce a situation which government policy might throw people out of work. He did not want me to read anything more into it.
In my intervention at this point, which will last for only a couple of minutes, I wish to repeat my commendation. I think the government is doing the right thing in providing for enhanced unemployment insurance benefits or for preretirement benefits when textile workers are thrown out of their employment. I should like to impress upon the government that this is a principle that ought to
Textile and Clothing Board Act be extended. It is all right for the government to say that this is a special case. It is all right for the government to admit that in this instance government policy may cause unemployment. The fact is that many of those who are out of work in other areas, especially those of middle or older years, are out of work because of government policy, because of social policy, or because of conditions generally. I submit that this situation should not be regarded as unique. Instead, the government should boast of it as a precedent and as a principle that it should be prepared to follow.
I am also interested in the remarks attributed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Niagara Falls over the weekend. He said that one of the solutions to our unemployment problem would be earlier retirement. If we are going to talk about earlier retirement, and if we are going to talk about people being forced out of work at ages such as 50 or 54, the ages mentioned in this context, it seems to me that we must move a great deal faster than we have been moving in the provision of adequate pensions at an earlier age. I welcome these few beginnings, especially the one that is before us in this piece of legislation. I noted with interest the plea made this afternoon by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) that if any textile workers are denied benefits to which they think they are entitled, there should be an appeal to the board or even beyond that board. The main point of my intervention, however, is to say that it is a good idea for the government to recognize that when people are out of work at age 50 or 55, the government has a special responsibility. I agree with the statement of the Prime Minister in this area which he made at Niagara Falls over the weekend. I urge that the government move a lot faster than it has been moving in the matter of providing for earlier retirement. But the only way to do this is to provide adequate pensions so that people can enjoy an earlier retirement, and that is the plea I make at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. If the minister speaks at this time, he should have the unanimous consent of the House, and close the debate. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, while I receive assurance from every part that there will be unanimous or almost unanimous endorsement of Bill C-215, it would be ungracious for me of course, to hinder speedy passage of this bill on third reading.
However, I feel strongly tempted to reply, point after point, to some hon. members who imagined all kinds of specters, werewolves and ghosts in order to try and frighten people about the implementation of this bill, and especially to answer some editorial writers who wrote about this bill "non rational" things, to use the term of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton). But I resist the temptation and wait for other circumstances.
4960

April 6, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
At any rate, I have said almost all that I had to say about Bill C-215, either at the time of my statement on May 14 last, or on January 21, on second reading, or during the numerous sittings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I had the opportunity there to deal with the subject in detail and to raise almost all aspects of this textile and clothing policy.
My officials and I have described the situation obtaining in that industry, which is not as good as some hon. members-the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk) in particular-would have us believe so that we do not do anything about it, nor as bad as some others state so that we give it up. Both in the House and before the committee, we have mentioned the many changes taking place in that industry, namely the greater part that fashion will play in it, the reduced cost of labour as technology and equipment are developed, changes which, by the way, will be of advantage to our producers.
We have of course dealt with the problems resulting from imports from countries with low production costs and from the important sales that these countries are already achieving in Canada, as evidenced by the high degree of penetration of their products on the domestic market. We have seen, in committee, how the other industrialized countries deal with problems arising from exports, and I feel that we have clearly shown that Canada's attitude had been most conciliatory and constructive toward developing countries.
I have also described the new policy as global, with some commercial, industrial, finaneal, social, and even aesthetic aspects. I have indicated the general direction of this policy, that is rationalization and concentration in certain areas identified as viable, so as, indeed, to be able to avoid a protectionist attitude.
I explained the membership and the work of the Clothing and Textile Board, as well as the criteria on which it will base its judgments. Of course, I cannot go over all that. But I would have expected the hon. members and the editorial writers who condemned the policy, sometimes irrevocably, to have been better informed. But in this case, I think we were facing prejudices of which, as the author said, "reason knows nothing".
However, I must point out that few well informed members are against the bill. We mostly disagree about the principle underlying the implementation of the bill, some fearing that the Board and the government might be too protectionist, others that they might be too liberal.
Besides, may I say in passing, that some critics, from the opposition for instance, have managed to condemn the textile policy as too protectionist while in the same breath asking for more protectionism in the sector of industry or agriculture that means more to them or to their area.
If a logician were to study some of the speeches made in this House on the occasion of this bill, he would surely split his sides with laughing for several days. In either case, some members and editors argued on the basis of their own prejudices for, as I have said repeatedly, this bill does not reflect any prejudices: it merely enumerates what factors should be taken into consideration. At most,

this bill gives an orientation, that of rationalizing around the viable sectors. The sole purpose of this bill-and some members, of whom those from Regina East and from Waterloo, recognized it, and I thank them for it-is to create a framework, to provide an instrument for decision-making and means to implement decisions.
The whole thing is so well balanced, to my mind, and several others agree, that some industrialists are now using this policy to justify their closing down certain plants, while some members and commentators are accusing the government of taking protectionist measures.
In my opinion, both accusations are contradictory, it being impossible for both of them to be true. It seems to me indeed that some closings of plants now taking place can very well be explained by referring to the substance of this bill. If so, the bill cannot be protectionist. Life always offers some contradictions, and I agree, but sometimes there are contradictions which simply cannot be accepted.

There has been a lot of talk about free trade, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I ask for the indulgence of the House? I have been silent for days! These are my 10 minutes.
There has been a lot of talk about free trade in this debate. Everyone, inside and outside this House, is in favour of freer trade, especially when someone else is involved. If one reads the presentations made to the Canadian government by national institutions, from the Canadian Federation of Labour to the Canadian Labour Congress, he will realize that everyone in Canada is in favour of freer trade. However, if he reads the paragraphs that follow that statement, he will see that free trade is usually qualified by words such as "as much as possible". Free trade, protectionism and other concepts are usually found in their purest form in textbooks of sociology, economics or political science. I hardly need to say, though, that the art of the possible is the only reality. As the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) said, in practice it is a question of finding the right balance, the right mix. Intelligent men discuss the mix, the balance, not the absolute.
May I answer briefly some of the questions which have been raised? The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) asked me whether it would be possible for the Board to review decisions with respect to the certification of special benefits for workers should new situations arise or new circumstances become known. Well, if new circumstances come to light, the board will surely be prepared to look at the situation again. If it were not, the minister could direct the board to do so.
I shall not deal at length with the treatises on planning given us this afternoon by the hon. member for Regina East and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman); there will be occasions to do that in a more intimate way. It is true this bill does not provide a complete framework
April 6, 1971

for planning, and one of the reasons is that we have no power to tell the industry what to do, to force it to do this or that.
We can advise, we can recommend, we can suggest, we can incite, we can push, but that is about all; we cannot make the decisions for businessmen. Then again, even in countries where decisions can be made by the government for industry, planning is not always a total success. The plans which the industry will have to present to the board will be wide in scope and will in some measure constitute a degree of planning. In making recommendations, the board will in fact have a good idea of what is happening in any particular sector of the industry concerned. I might add that the department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, will also be involved in more "active" planning.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has asked me if assistance benefits would be paid to workers. I want to assure him that it will be so, as the Board already has some requests and is getting ready to reach a decision. But as the member knows, there are all sorts of conditions to be fulfilled. Everyone will agree that this part of the bill is especially modern and valid from a social point of view.
The advice that hon. members have given us about the co-ordination between various departments are of course accepted.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) talked about the principle of pre-retirement benefits and spoke persuasively in its support. Obviously, we agree with him. He suggested that principle should be extended to other sectors of industry. He might have suggested further extension to the workers in the fishing industry and the agriculture industry. I agree with him. It would be nice to be able to do so. But if we multiply family allowances, if we double the amount of the old age pension, triple social assistance benefits and whatnot, "the cow may run dry". I refer to an old saying in French, l'Etat est une vache que tous ont le droit de traire mais que personne n'a l'obligation de nourrire.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-House of Commons-continuation of Speaker in position following next election-suggested discussion by party or House leaders; the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise)-Social Security-Quebec- alleged takeover by government of guaranteed income
Young Offenders Act
supplement; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski)-Indian Affairs-National Parks-Elk Island- animal starvation-failure of wildlife service to direct reduction in elk population commensurate with feed supplies.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are not up
to date.


Mr. Jerome:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I can report to Your Honour that there have been some discussions and there seems to be unanimous accord to dispense with the private members' hour today and to proceed forthwith to consideration of the young offenders' bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Goyer that Bill C-192, respecting young offenders and to repeal the Juvenile Delinquents Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Gilbert (p. 4577).
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: There is probably a disposition to have one vote on this motion, or two votes, the second one on the second reading, a little later on today. My speech will at least represent the final offering from the official opposition at this stage. I shall be as brief as I can but I should like to put six or seven points on record, points which I believe will have to be considered in the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
First, I accept the philosophy expressed in an earlier motion by the hon. member for Calgary North Mr. (Wool-liams) and, for essentially the same reasons as were given then, I shall be supporting the motion now before us in the name of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). It is comforting to us on this side to recall that in the course of his contribution to the debate, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Tolmie), who is the chairman of the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, gave us an indication that he would like to see the widest possible discussion take place when this bill reaches his committee. I agree that this should be the case, because we who are members of that committee are being inundated by floods of correspondence from all over Canada concerning the young offenders act. These expressions of opinion should be well-scouted before we can report such a measure back to the House.
Before I get to the five or six specific points I have in mind, may I say this? The minister should consider himself fortunate that he is a new minister. If this measure had been placed before us in its present form by a
4962

April 6, 1971
Young Offenders Act
minister who had been in office for a longer period, the debate would probably be going on a lot longer. But we desire to accommodate him and there is at least some indication that he will approach this subject with a flexible mind, perhaps because he inherited somebody else's problems and is not particularly wedded to the approach taken by that other person. Time will have to tell. I do not ask the minister to comment on this; we are giving a young minister the benefit of the doubt and we know that at least he will be co-operative.
The last message I, personally, received on this subject was from the United Community Services of the Greater Vancouver area. Speaking through their president, the Reverend R. A. Burrows, they sent to the Solicitor General and to the Chairman of the standing committee a request that the United Community Services, which shares the concern of many organizations that the young offenders act requires careful study and reconsideration, will have the opportunity to present its views to the committee, along with other groups.
Now, to proceed to some of the others. The first is from Professor B. F. Frost, head of the division of clinical diagnosis and special education, faculty of education at the University of Calgary. If I may quote from his submission in two particulars only, both of which are found on page 2, he says:
The act has been developed in a vacuum because the system of articulated rehabilitation agencies, necessary for the act to function, does not exist-
In respect of rehabilitation, there is no evidence in the act nor in the very day functioning of the provincial authorities that anything has been learned from the experience of the U.K., Holland and Sweden who are the acknowledged leaders in the field of the rehabilitation of juvenile delinquents. Study of the relevant laws of these countries as well as their institutions is mandatory if a reasonable system is to be established here.
So, right off the bat, we have two criticisms, criticisms that are repeated by other sources as well, one as to the quality of the law we are being asked to consider and the other as to the quality of the institutions in Canada that are available to help young people caught in the coils of the law.
Then, Professor H. R. S. Ryan of the faculty of law of Queen's University has this to say:
It is respectfully submitted that Canada should not return to a system of juvenile criminality which proved unsatisfactory in the past here and which the British have now abandoned. Instead, juvenile misconduct should be regarded as creating welfare and educational problems and dealt with on that basis.
That brings up a point that is echoed and re-echoed in the material we have received, namely that you must consider the child as a total person, against his family background and the background of society, and not treat him, as it were, in a vacuum.
Then, we have this paragraph from Mr. R. Couchman, chairman of the Troubled Child Committee of the Ontario Educational Association, who wrote the minister and sent copies of his letter to the rest of us:
-I would certainly hope that child welfare legislation and legislation affecting the delinquent child would complement the
positive approach being developed by Canadian educators. Unfortunately the proposed legislation shows little regard for the therapeutic requirements that must be built into such modem legal legislation.
So there is the view of a person in the educational field who sees the child in the total picture, and more particularly in the educational picture.
Then, we have Professor Ronald R. Price, of the faculty of law of Queen's University, who in his letter to us makes the criticism that the government of Canada was careful to consult with provincial governments as such, but that many of the provincial governments took a very narrow approach to consultation in preparing their own position and submissions. He says that many interested groups in a number of the provinces were not consulted at all by their own provincial government, and are very anxious to have an opportunity to make their views known.
I am about half way through the quotations I have decided to put on the record so that the minister and his officials can look at them over the Easter season and get some indication of the matters that bother some members of the committee.
Again, I have the views of Professor Frost, who makes this point:
Serious crimes against the person (e.g. murder, manslaughter, rape, etc.) committed by a young person of 16 years or older should be dealt with separately from other "offences". In this case, and in this case only, should the case be tried in adult court with the possibility that the adult court might refer the case to a juvenile and family court.
In all other cases the maximum age limit should be 18 years for both sexes.
Many of the submissions we received dealt with this very thorny problem of age, but I do not think at this stage of our proceedings, without having heard expert evidence in committee, it would be very helpful to scout that argument over and over again. But at least the paragraph I have just read into the record is one point that the members of the committee will want to follow up and be reassured about by the evidence; otherwise, we will want to make some changes in the provision regarding age.
A very significant contribution came to us from an assistant professor, John A. MacDonald, who I must say has a very good name. He is from the School of Social Work at the University of British Columbia and must have had a fair amount of legal training because his brief is peppered with legal references, though the gist of it really deals with the area of social welfare. At page 10 of his very thoughtful contribution he makes this point:
The bill contains punitive provisions which would have the effect of stigmatizing juvenile offenders and undermining the traditional separation of juvenile from adult offenders. These provisions are for the most part not supported by the Justice Committee report and a number appear to have been inserted in response to pressure from provincial authorities.
This gentleman can bet his bottom dollar that we will be getting answers to that particular point to his satisfaction. He went on to quote at page 11 of his brief from the

April 6, 1971

Department of Justice committee report, referred to a moment ago, as follows:
Long-term imprisonment has marked and detrimental effects on adults. Long-term confinement of youngsters may often be even more dangerous. We think that any rehabilitation of the juvenile that is likely to result from institutional commitment can be completed within the three-year period we suggest. If a juvenile is not reformed within three years by institutional experience, society should accept that risk unless it is prepared to allow youngsters to be held in what amounts to indefinite detention.
I think that recommendation by the Department of Justice committee was not easily arrived at. Probably the experts who dealt with that question gave it long and hard consideration before making up their minds on the approach that should be made. Reform the child within three years or take your chances with him, is really what they are saying. But the bill does not say that, and this is another reason that we on this side tend to treat the bill with some considerable suspicion. It is the reason we will want to have wholesale reform of the bill when it gets to committee.
My final quotation is from assistant professor K. Roy MacKenzie of the division of psychiatry, the University of Calgary School of Medicine, who takes particular objection to section 30(l)(k) and section 30(4), which contain, he says, the almost incomprehensible suggestion that the child be first sentenced as a child, and that the child then be subject to a renewed sentence when he reaches the age of 21. If Your Honour recalls the earlier debate, that point was made over and over again. How can you put a child into an institution for a few years when he knows his fate will not be decided until he is hauled into court as a young adult at the age of 21? This seemed to us to be absolutely monstrous, and something that is going to be scouted well and truly in committee.
To return to Professor MacKenzie's thoughtful comments, he makes this point:
This completely ignores the fact that most childhood difficulties stem from the pressures surrounding the child and that very frequently the child is drastically changed by the time he reaches 21 and the particular action which led to his earlier incarceration may no longer be reasonably applicable.
I have placed on the record some quotations that outline, in as fair a way as I can devise, the problems that bother this particular Member of Parliament, and which I think also bother other Members of Parliament, with regard to the young offenders act. We also received thoughtful submissions from the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Canadian Bar Association, but these were pretty well dealt with on another occasion, so I shall not place them on the record at this particular time.
Finally, I would say that the treatment of the youngster who goes astray is a highly emotional matter. Sometimes it becomes a question of semantics whether you should fasten the appellation of offender or of criminal on that person. I know that some people are very excited and say that this bill is really a criminal code for children. I think it will be difficult to sort our way through the emotional issues that surround this subject, but knowing the calibre of the members of the committee and the
Division
fact that we are given the widest terms of reference possible, I know we will do our best. I hope we can come back with a bill which will be substantially altered, and which will do that committee and the House of Commons proud.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The question is on the amendment. Those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.		Beaudoin Bell
The House divided	on the main motion (Mr. Goyer)	Benjamin Brewin
which was agreed to on the following division:		Burton
	YEAS	Cadieu Coates
	Messrs:	Code Comeau
Allmand	Beer	DinsdaleAnderson	Blair	DouglasAndras	Blouin	DowneyBarrett	Borrie	FairweatherBasford	Boulanger	FlemmingBechard	Buchanan	Forrestall
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
Messrs:
MacEachen
MacGuigan
McBride
McNulty
Mahoney
Major
Marceau
Morison
Nodi
O'Connell
Otto
Pelletier
Penner
Pepin
Perrault
Portelance
Pringle
Prud'homme
Reid
Richard
Richardson
Robinson
Rochon
Rock
Roy (Timmins)
Roy (Laval)
Serre
Smerchanski
Smith
(Northumberland-
Miramichi)
Smith (Saint-Jean) Stafford Stanbury Stewart
(Okanagan-Kootenay) St. Pierre Sulatycky Thomas
(Maisonneuve-
Rosemont)
Trudeau
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Walker
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whicher
Whiting
Yanakis-107.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Fortin
Gauthier
Gilbert
Gleave
Godin
Grills
Gundloek
Harding
Homer
Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand) Korchinski Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Laprise La Salle
April 6, 1971

Messrs:
Latulippe	Peters
Lewis	Ricard
Lundrigan	Ritchie
Maclnnis (Cape	Rodrigue
Breton-East Richmond)	Rondeau
Macquarrie	Rose
MacRae	Rowland
McCleave	Ryan
McCutcheon	Saltsman
McGrath	Scott
McKinley	Skoberg
Mather	Southam
Mazankowski	Stanfield
Muir	Tetrault
Murta	Thomas (Moncton)
Nesbitt	Thompson (Red Deer)
Noble	Winch
Ny strom	Yewchuk-72.
Paproski	
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the House that the Chair call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I might have permission to revert to motions I should like to inform the House about an error in the French version of the Canadian Wheat Board annual report which was tabled today.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: In French!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: In French!


Otto Emil Lang: I will have to hold on to that surprise for a little longer. I wish to inform the House that there is an error in the French version of the Wheat Board report. On page 5 it should read, "for the crop year ended July 31, 1970" and not, "for the crop year ended January 31, 1970." I apologize to the House for not having caught this error before the report was tabled. I, therefore, would like to table two corrected versions of the Canadian Wheat Board annual report in French.


James Aloysius McGrath: Since we have reverted to motions, Mr. Speaker, I ask consent of the House, under Standing Order 43, to table the report of the Atlantic Development Council released today.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 5, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose last day, clause 14 of Bill C-207 was being considered.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, our opposition to this clause of the bill is based on very sound arguments and on the experience we have had with the government since the outset of this Parliament. We have the roster system which clearly contravenes Standing Order 5 of this House. With the roster system, certain members of the House are permitted not to be in their place to answer questions put to the government by the elected representatives of the people. A responsible government, Mr. Chairman, is supposed to be responsible to Parliament, which is responsible to the people. The roster system is a complete denial of that practice.
We now have a new provision and innovation creeping into our governmental system. By the whim of the Prime Minister we are to have new ministers of state, without Parliament having a chance to express itself on whatever the Prime Minister wanted, he could conceivably appoint a minister of state to preside over a ministry which would be responsible for an area of jurisdiction that could be totally repugnant to Parliament. This particular clause of the bill permits the government to do just that.
We wonder if the government is trying to adopt a version of the British cabinet system which has an inner and outer cabinet. I understand that ministers of state in Great Britain are not Privy Councillors; the ministers of state are junior cabinet ministers. Our ministers of state are to be full-fledged members of the cabinet and will preside over ministries to be designated by the Prime Minister, ministries on which Parliament will not have

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
an opportunity to express itself. That is what we find objectionable about this particular clause of the bill.
We object to the increasing use of discretionary power by this government. We object to this government increasingly bringing in statutes which give ministers discretionary power. In this particular case we are being asked to give the Prime Minister discretionary power to appoint at will whatever ministries suit his fancy. He will be able to appoint the faithful who support him in the Liberal caucus. That is why we object to this particular clause of the bill. We object to another aspect as well. Concomitant with the government's illegal roster system, another obnoxious practice is creeping into this House, one which totally defies the responsibility of the government being responsible to Parliament. I refer to the increasing practice of ministerial statements being made outside this House at a time when the House is sitting. This is clearly against our tradition and practice. In my judgment it is a violation of the rights of this House.
We are used to the government issuing press releases to get around the responsibilty of having to make statements on motions. I suppose that practice must be condoned because of the demands placed upon the government by modern, fast communication. But in no way can we condone the practice which is creeping into our system-that of ministers making full-fledged statements of policy outside the House while the House is sitting. In our view, that shows complete contempt for Parliament. We wonder what the future of this institution will be if this government remains in power. This institution which houses the representatives of the people is supposed to be a debating forum. It is supposed to be a forum where the representatives of the people have the opportunity to question ministers of the Crown and the government on their responsibilities.
By rules brought in by this government and railroaded through the House, we have been denied the right to withhold supply. The estimates have been taken out of this House. No longer can we withhold supply from the government. Tomorrow, Mr. Chairman, Parliament will adjourn for ten days. When we return we will have the main estimates to consider in most of the standing committees of this House. These committees will be meeting simultaneously with House sittings. They will be undermanned by members of the government and the opposition because we can only spread ourselves so thin. We will be faced with a bevy of experts who will back up ministers and their deputy ministers.
We are supposed to meaningfully examine the estimates of departments, but it is a futile process because we cannot change anything. According to the new rules, at a certain hour on a certain day, regardless of the position of the estimates in any committee of this House, they will be deemed to have been passed. That is the position in which we will find ourselves at the end of May. That is what the Standing Orders say.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You do not understand the rules.


James Aloysius McGrath: It happened every other year, and I suspect it will happen this year. The estimates of the
Department of Fisheries and Forestry have not even been started. That standing committee is currently involved in examining a clean air bill. By the time we get to the main estimates of that department we will not have an opportunity properly to examine them. Notwithstanding the intervention of the President of the Treasury Board, at a certain hour on a certain day-I think May 20-all estimates will be deemed to have been passed.
We have lost the main power that Parliament once had. We have lost the traditional and long fought for right of Members of Parliament to withhold supply until satisfactory answers have been received from the government. Under the old rules, any member of this House could withhold supply if he had a particular grievance and was not satisfied with the way the government was handling the matter. We have now lost that right.
We are concerned about what is happening to this institution. We are concerned about the growth of the cabinet of this government, which has now reached record size. There are now almost 30 members of the cabinet. There are to be five additional members and perhaps as many parliamentary secretaries. We are arriving at a stage where the majority of the government will either be cabinet ministers or parliamentary secretaries. Therein lies the tale. Perhaps the government is having trouble with its members in caucus and that is why it is bringing in these innovations.
These are the matters which concern us, Mr. Chairman. These practices which the government is bringing in are having the effect of destroying the rights and privileges of this House. They are denying the concept of responsible government as we know it in this country. If the government is opting for a presidential system, why don't they openly say that this is what they have in mind and that they intend to bring it about by an evolutionary process, instead of doing it in this surreptitious manner? This is what the government is up to, I suspect.
I am particularly concerned about the release of important documents outside this House while the House is in session, and making statements of policy outside the House while the House is in session. I suppose every member of the cabinet has been guilty of this, including the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who made a statement in Vancouver about sealing-


Mr. Boulanger:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have a very serious point of order and I think this is the proper time at which to raise it. I hope the hon. member who has just sat down for a moment will understand it very well. I am going to read in English-


An hon. Member:: That won't help.


Prosper Boulanger: -Standing Order 34 concerning irrelevant or repetitious remarks. Paragraph 2 states clearly that such remarks are out of order and that a point of order may be raised. For the last three or four days the hon. member has been repetitious in every speech he has made. Every time he has got up it has been repetition, repetition, repetition.

April 6, 1971


An hon. Member:: That is the trouble with the point of order.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, if there is a Standing Order which must be followed tonight with regard to the hon. member who now has the floor, it is indeed that which deals with the disrespectful remarks he just made and the repetitions he has chosen to make for the last four or five days.
Therefore I respectfully suggest, Sir, that you make a ruling on this important point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maclnnis:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I notice there are a good many rule books on the other side. The hon. member referred to Standing Order 34(2). I will read it as it should be read.
Mr. Speaker or the chairman, having called the attention of the House or of the committee-
So the responsibility for referring first to repetitious remarks by any hon. member belongs to the Chair and is not a matter for an hon. member to raise. This is written right into the rule.


Mr. Deachman:: On the same subject, Mr. Chairman, the words do not seem to be the same as in the Standing Orders because this is how it reads:
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition ...
... again, and again, and again-
.. . may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if then the member still continues to speak ...
-keeps talking, keeps the House busy-
... Mr. Speaker shall name him ...
.. . That is, the name of the member-
.. . or, if in committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order- [English]


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair would like to thank hon. members who have expressed their views on the point of order. I will hear further argument on the point if hon. members wish, but I am prepared to make a ruling now. However, hon. members should stay with the point of order which has been raised.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. It arises from the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, or wherever he comes from in British Columbia, implying that what I said was not, in effect, what I read from the rule. I read only so far from Standing Order 34(2):
Mr. Speaker or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House-
That is where I paused. The responsibility for drawing the attention of members to repetition rests with the
Government Organization Act, 1970
Chair. I do not want to hear the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who has proven in the House before to be a liar-


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I am sure members of the committee realize we are engaged in an important debate and should not take up too much time on the point of order. As I indicated a few moments ago, I would like to rule on the point of order if hon. members would allow me to do so. It seems to me, with respect to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mercier, that as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has indicated it is really at the instance of the Chairman or of Mr. Speaker that an hon. member is asked not to be repetitious. From my own experience in the House, it seems that over the years there has been a good deal of repetition, perhaps for the purpose of emphasizing points which hon. members wish to make.
I would think, though, with respect, that the point of order was well taken and I would ask the hon. member for St. John's East and other hon. members, in view of the fact that the point with which we are concerned tonight is not so much the terms of the Standing Order as the general relevancy of the debate, to confine their arguments at least to part IV of the bill, dealing with the establishment of ministries and ministers of state.


Prosper Boulanger: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Its purpose is to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that here on the government side we practice what we preach. As you will have noticed, I just spoke in English, as a Quebecker, and my hon. friend, as a good British Columbian, spoke in French.


Donald MacInnis: And neither one of you said anything.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that if this bill were passed more ministers would be able to circumvent the rules of the House by making statements outside the House while the House was sitting, or by releasing important documents and reports outside the House when those documents ought properly to be tabled in the House. And more ministers would submit themselves to the illegal roster system, thereby depriving other hon. members of the opportunity of discharging their responsibility to their constituents by asking questions at the appropriate time.
Today the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion journeyed to the city of Halifax to release an important document which should have been released first in this House and to issue, together with that document, a statement. This illustrates the contempt which that particular minister feels for this institution. The report he issued today had been prepared by a government agency, the Atlantic Development Council. The document was an important one for the four Atlantic provinces, calling, as it did, for a ten-year strategy of development. It completely denies the present policy of the government and shows that policy to be one which is of little benefit to
4968

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
the disadvantaged regions of this country, in particular the Atlantic provinces.
I say this with particular reference to the creation of employment in the Atlantic provinces. Which are the two provinces getting least benefit from this program? They are the two with the highest rates of unemployment in the country, namely, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, one with 11 per cent unemployment and the other with 15 per cent.
This House was denied the right to have the document tabled today. Members were denied the opportunity of responding to it and of replying to the statement made in tabling it. A statement was made outside the House, notwithstanding the fact that the House was sitting. This document was released today in the city of Halifax one hour before the House was to begin its sitting. I submit this is clearly in contempt of Parliament. It shows complete contempt for the traditions and ancient privileges of this institution. This is a document of tremendous importance to the Atlantic Provinces. For example, chapter 1 refers to the economy of the Atlantic provinces, with which it deals in great detail. In chapter 2 there is a resume of the main recommendations-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I call Your Honour's attention to citation 159 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules which provides, amongst other things, that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House if it can be done without injury to the public interest. Paragraph 4 of that citation provides:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the House. Mr. Patterson, member for the electoral district of Essex, and Mr. Cockburn, member for the electoral district of Northumberland, having, in the course of the debate on a motion for an order of the House and the amendment thereto, read extracts from certain official papers in their possession, and relating to the question under consideration, Mr. Mackenzie raised the point of order that official papers, when cited by an honourable member, ought to be laid on the table of the House. Mr. Speaker ruled: "That the point of order was well taken, and that the papers cited by the honourable members for Essex and Northumberland should be placed in the possession of the House".
It is true that Your Honour is sitting in committee, but I suggest that under that provision there is a direct, mandatory requirement that when an hon. member sees fit in the course of debate to cite from what are in effect official papers-and this document can only be considered, of course, an official paper-they should be laid on the table of the House and made available to all hon. members.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order raised by my hon. friend from Peace River may I say he anticipated me because it was my intention to ask for the consent of the committee to comply with the expressed wish of the Prime Minister that I table this document. I was not permitted the opportunity to do so today, for reasons which I will not go into, notwithstanding the fact that I had been asked personally by the Prime Minister

on the floor of the House to table the document. I endeavoured, in the opportunity presented to me today under Standing Order 41(2), to comply with the Prime Minister's wish that I table the document. I am concerned that members of the government have not seen it, let alone members of the House. I am sure that the Prime Minister is as anxious to see the document as we are. Certainly, I am sure no member of the government would withhold consent to my tabling this important and very valuable document.
Consequently, supported by the citation from Beau-chesne placed on the record by my hon. friend from Peace River, and in accordance with the expressed desire this afternoon of the right hon. Prime Minister, I am very pleased and honoured to be able to lay on the table of the House this very important document for the edification of the government and members of this House.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair is prepared to make a ruling. Are there any other hon. members who wish to contribute to the point of order?


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, concerning the point of order, I must point out that-
The hon. member has just moved that the committee accept the tabling of the document. In my opinion, the document should be tabled, if warranted, at the Committee on Regional Development. That committee is having hearings during this part of the session. The hon. member should submit the document to the committee in charge of reviewing the operations of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I do not feel that this is the right time to table the document in the House.
* [English]


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I have heard the argument of the House leader for the official opposition that there may be some procedure by which the document referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East can *be tabled at this stage of the proceedings. I must say, I have very grave doubts that this can be done while the [DOT]House is sitting in committee of the whole. The hon. member for St. John's East made reference to the wish of the Prime Minister. I cannot assess the position in that respect because I have no knowledge of it. However, it seems to me that in committee of the whole we must follow the procedures of the committee. We must concern ourselves with our terms of reference. The committee is discussing clause 14 of Bill C-207, dealing with ministers and ministries of state.
As I indicated when the point of order was raised a few moments ago, there is some doubt in my mind about the relevancy of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East. Be that as it may, I think in committee we have been relatively generous in the matter of relevancy. However, I do not think there is any procedure, with great respect, by which this document could be tabled in committee of the whole at this time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I did contemplate, in light of the ruling you have made, moving a motion that the
April 6, 1971

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to have this document tabled. But in light of the fact that this might cause difficulty I think I should ask the committee to appeal the decision that Your Honour has made.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East has the floor. There may be another opportunity for the hon. member for Peace River to move the motion to which he has referred, but at the present time the hon. member for St. John's East has the floor.


Gerald William Baldwin: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I rose on a point of order to start with.


Mr. Basford:: Who is talking of the rules of Parliament now? This is disgraceful conduct.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I do not think there can be any quarrel about this. It seems to me that the hon. member for Peace River has gained the floor on a point of order for the purpose of moving a motion. There may be other opportunities for him to move the motion, but it seems to me he cannot take the floor on a point of order to move the motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, you are quite correct, but I think that Your Honour will agree that I first rose on a point of order when the hon. member for St. John's East made his statement. On that point of order Your Honour made a ruling. Under those circumstances, I initiated the discussion. I submit, with all due respect, that I am entitled to appeal the decision that Your Honour has made.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, if I could speak to this matter for a moment I may be able to find a way out of this impasse.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Peace River may find an opportunity to move the motion, but I have indicated that the hon. member for St. John's East has the floor; and as long as he has the floor I think I must acknowledge his right to speak.


Gerald William Baldwin: With due respect, Mr. Chairman, I must appeal your decision not to allow me to appeal your decision.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, my intervention, which you so rightly ruled you would hear, was to suggest that perhaps the committee, which is master of its own conduct within the rules of the House, might wish to give me unanimous consent to table this document and in that way comply with the Prime Minister's request.


Some hon. Members:: No.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, it would appear that unanimous consent is not forthcoming. I regret that this is so. The hon. member for Gaspe, for example, should be as interested as anyone in getting this report. He comes from one of the most disadvantaged areas in the country. For that reason I would hope the committee would recon-
Government Organization Act, 1970 sider its refusal and through you give me unanimous consent officially to table this document today.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Chairman, I rise on the same point of order.
For the information of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) I must tell him that all members received copies of the document in today's mail. There is therefore no need to make an issue of-


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Gaspe said "all members". This is not correct. I have not received any such copy. With regard to the ruling given by the Chair, I wish to seek guidance from the Chair. How will the committee of the whole operate in the future if Beauchesne's rules do not apply? We are in committee of the whole. It appears that in disallowing the argument advanced by the hon. member for Peace River the authority of Beauchesne is no longer applicable in committee of the whole. Is this committee to operate without the rules of Parliament?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is an appeal.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair does not want to reiterate the ruling. Hon. members may not agree with it, but as I indicated earlier I am aware of no procedure whereby under the circumstances which we have tonight in committee of the whole a document can be tabled.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, you have made a ruling, it is your right to make that ruling and I respect it. But I also respect my rights and the right of any other hon. member to appeal that ruling. I raised a point of order to start with. It was my point of order on which the discussion was initiated. Your Honour, in the breadth of your discretion, disallowed my point of order. I am now appealing your refusal to accept the point of order which I raised. Surely when I raise a point of order and Your Honour decides against it, I am entitled to appeal that decision.


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the hon. member for Peace River is quite correct. The point which the Chair tried to make was that when the hon. member gained the floor on a point of order to appeal the ruling, the hon. member for St. John's East had the floor. The hon. member for St. John's East concluded his remarks, I gave the floor to the hon. member for Peace River subsequent to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Gaspe, and I now take it from the hon. member's remarks that having obtained the floor quite properly in the sequence of events, he is appealing the ruling. If I am correct in that, I think the hon. member has the right to appeal the ruling. Of course, under the rules the appeal will be submitted to Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Your Honour is correct. You can consider that the appeal has been made and that the machinery has now been launched.


Prosper Boulanger: That is what I call mockery of the House.
4970

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Gerald William Baldwin: This is what the rules provide. Read them.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair and read the question as follows:
The question is an appeal of a decision of the Chairman of the committee of the whole under the provisions of section 4 of Standing Order 55, as follows:
When clause 14 of Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, was being considered in committee of the whole the hon. member for Peace River raised a point of order to the effect that a document referred to in committee of the whole should be laid upon the table.
The Chairman ruled that there was no known procedure whereby a document could be laid upon the table of the committee of the whole since the committee was bound by its order of reference which in the present instance was clause 14 of Bill C-207.
Whereupon the hon. member for Peace River appealed to Mr. Speaker from the decision of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: If hon. members think it would be of advantage to the proceedings in this chamber to give citations or advice to the Chair in relation to the point of order which has been raised, I will be pleased to hear such argument, after which a decision will be given.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I shall try to establish the various facts which I think must be established in order to sustain the onus of proof upon me, and I admit there is such an onus. The first question is whether this is an official document. The document is called "ADC, A Strategy for the Economic Development of the Atlantic Region, 19711981, Atlantic Development Council". The first page contains a letter addressed to the Hon. Jean Marchand, P.C.,
M.P., Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Ottawa, Ontario. It states:
Dear Mr. Marchand:
I have the honour of submitting to you on behalf of the Atlantic Development Council-
A council established under legislation.
-our proposals for a strategy for the economic development of the Atlantic region.
The council presents this strategy in the hope that it will contribute to accelerated economic development in the Atlantic region in the 1970s.
I simply leave this branch of my case by saying I submit that this establishes that the document is an official paper. I would then refer Your Honour to citation 159, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, paragraph 3, which states:
It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest.
It goes on to deal with certain instances. Then paragraph 4 states:
Official papers quoted during a debate should be laid on the table of the House. Mr. Patterson, member for the electoral district of Essex, and Mr. Cockburn, member for the electoral district of Northumberland, having, in the course of the debate on a motion for an order of the House and the amendment
thereto, read extracts from certain official papers in their possession, and relating to the question under consideration, Mr. Mackenzie raised the point of order that official papers, when cited by an honourable member, ought to be laid on the table of the House. Mr. Speaker ruled: ''That the point of order was well taken, and that the papers cited by the honourable members for Essex and Northumberland should be placed in the possession of the House."
I admit that what the chairman of the committee pointed out is a problem Your Honour, myself and other hon. members will have to face, that is, we were not having a debate on a bill in the House but in committee of the whole. I think this raises a moot point. If the ruling of the chairman of the committee, is to be upheld, is it the position that any hon. member during the course of a debate-there is no doubt this was a debate in committee of the whole-can cite official papers without being subject to the requirement of having those official papers laid on the table of the House?
It may well be that we will have to be vigilant and alert to find a way in which this can be done. It may well be that the committee would have to resolve itself into the House so that the documents could be laid on the table. However, I submit that the rule is clear, positive and categorical-that if official documents are quoted in a debate they must, when requested, be tabled. I rest my case upon this simple point and hope that justice, equity and fairness will permit Your Honour to see the logic and justice of the case I have made.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would merely like to add a few words to those of my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I do not think there is any distinction whatsoever-I believe Your Honour would agree with me-in the nature of debate that takes place whether in committee or when Your Honour is in the chair when we are sitting in formal session. Debate is debate. Therefore, when a member of the House, be he minister or otherwise, quotes from a public document I suggest, with the greatest deference, that the rule is the same. The circumstances are the same and whether we are in committee or in the House in formal session makes little difference.
The reference is to a public document during debate. I am sure that if the minister when discussing a clause in a bill were to make reference to a public document,the House could call for it to be tabled. Therefore I would say that under the present circumstances the House can call for the document which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) was quoting, because it is a public document. In addition, I would submit to Your Honour that Standing Order 55(1) has direct application to the present circumstances. It refers to the application of Standing Orders to sittings while in committee of the whole and states:
The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in committees of the whole House so far as may be applicable-
Then the rule states the exception, which in no way touches upon this particular question. So there are no exceptions which concern the tabling of papers. Therefore I would put it to Your Honour that whether we are

April 6, 1971

in committee or in formal session in the House makes no difference. This is a public document, and whether the document is referred to by a member of the government, a government backbencher or a member of the opposition makes little difference: the hon. member can call for the document to be tabled.
To that extent I put it to Your Honour that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) was perfectly correct, and therefore the hon. member for St. John's East should be called upon to table the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that a number of hon. members to the right of the Chair seem to be anxious to participate in the debate and, I assume, to give advice to the Chair along the lines that the point of order should not be accepted and the appeal should not be allowed. However, in all honesty I must tell hon. members that I am now prepared to give a ruling and I cannot think of anything that could be said by hon. members to my right which would influence me to change my course of action, having heard the points made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
If there are other arguments to be submitted for the guidance of the Chair by hon. members who wish to support the point of order and who think the appeal should be allowed, I am perfectly prepared to hear them and as a result I might be otherwise convinced; but I have to tell hon. members that I am not convinced at all by the arguments already advanced.
The hon. member for Peace River suggests that he has the onus of proof. He was perhaps generous in this regard. I do not think he necessarily has the onus of proof; I think it is a burden to be shared equally on both sides of the question. The matter should be looked at objectively by the Chair with this point in mind. Hon. members have suggested that because a public document, an official document, has been quoted by an hon. member, it should be tabled in the House. I suggest to hon. members that this has never been a rule of the House and I would be very surprised if any precedent could be quoted in support of the contention advanced by the hon. member for Peace River and by the hon. member for Edmonton West.
Hon. members well know, perhaps even better than the Chair, that documents can be tabled in the House under certain circumstances. If hon. members will turn to citation 209 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition they will find the following passage;
Papers are laid before the House in pursuance of
(1)	Provisions of an act of Parliament;
(2)	An order of the House;
(3)	An address to the Crown;
(4)	The command of the Crown;
(5)	Standing Orders of the House.
Standing Orders of the House relating to the tabling of documents are the Standing Orders under which the hon.
Government Organization Act, 1970
member for St. John's East earlier today attempted to table the document in question. Here I refer to Standing Order 41(2) as follows:
A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may, in his place in the House, state that he proposes to lay upon the table of the House, any report or other papers dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government-
I think hon. members know that this has reference to the tabling of documents on motions by a minister or by a parliamentary secretary on behalf of a minister.
The point is made that a document, having been referred to in debate, should be tabled. The rule in this respect is, again, well known. I refer hon. members to May's Seventeenth Edition, page 458:
Another rule or principle of debate may here be added. A minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the table. This restraint is similar to the rule of evidence in courts of law, which prevents counsel from citing documents which have not been produced in evidence.
With due deference, I suggest to hon. members that the rule is clear, that it applies to an official document quoted in debate-not merely referred to, but cited and quoted in debate-and referred to in support of an argument by a minister of the Crown. This rule has never been otherwise interpreted by Speakers and has never been deemed by the House to be applicable to reference in debate to a document, official or otherwise, by an hon. member.
Even if the document in question is admitted to be an official document-and I do not quarrel with this interpretation by the hon. member for Peace River-this imposes no obligation and does not, I suggest, give to the hon. member who has quoted or referred to the document the right to table it. I suggest to hon. members that we would have a rather overcrowded table if every time an hon. member referred to an official document he was called upon to produce the document and place it on the table of the House. This has never been done and it has never been accepted that such is a rule of the House.
I suggest to hon. members, with respect, that the ruling of the Chairman of the committee was in accordance with the Standing Orders and with the practices of the House. Therefore I rule that the appeal cannot be allowed. The committee will now resume discussion of the bill that was before it.
And the House having resumed in committee:


Russell Clayton Honey: House again in committee of the whole on Bill C-207.
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Chairman, before clause 14 is passed, I wish to express the arguments that I was unable to put forward when I last took part in the debate since my time was up.

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
, Proposed clause 14 provides for the establishment of ministries of state by proclamation by the governor in council.
Clause 14 of the bill provides that ministries of state will be established by, and I quote:
-the Governor in Council... by proclamation-
Clause 15 in Part IV of the same bill states that the establishment of a ministry of state will be announced by proclamation.
A proclamation establishing a Ministry of State shall
(a)	state the name of the Ministry;
(b)	specify the matter or matters in relation to which the Minister, etc.-
That is to say that clause 15 is derived from the same Concept as clause 14: namely, resorting to proclamation rather than passing legislation.
Mr. Chairman, clause 16 deals with amendments to the contents, definition or purpose of the ministry. Under clause 16, these amendments could be made by proclamation. In effect, this clause reads as follows and I quote:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation, from time to time, change the name of a Ministry of State or vary any matter set out in the proclamation establishing the Ministry.
And this is not all, Mr. Chairman. The same principle is applied further. Clause 18 deals with the termination of a ministry of state. How will this termination be made? What method wifi be used to eliminate a ministry of state? Still by proclamation. Clause 18 is drawn up as follows:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation, terminate the existence of a Ministry of State.
This means that in clauses 14, 15, 16 and 18, the government is clearly stating what it has in mind when asking us to adopt Part IV of the bill. Basically, the government would like Parliament to delegate part of its already fairly reduced powers to the executive power to enable it, as regard these specific questions, not to have to go through Parliament but to act on its own authority, by proclamation instead of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) stated yesterday in the House that Parliament cannot control the activities of commissions such as the Royal Commission on the status of women since no minister is actually responsible for it. This was basically his point. He argued that a minister had to be responsible before the House for the Royal Commission on the status of women, for instance, or for the Prices and Incomes Commission or any other commission.
Mr Chairman, I should like to make it very clear for the President of the Treasury Board. That is precisely what we want, that a minister be responsible for the Crown corporations and all organizations, agencies or departments created by this government.
So, to be logical, it would be necessary for the President of the Privy Council to tell us precisely what Crown corporations or agencies will come under the jurisdiction of this or that minister. It is important to know they take good care not to tell us in precisely what area those

bodies will be created. We are being asked for blanket authority to create ministries whose terms of reference in particular fields the government will specify as they please, as circumstances may require.
Mr. Chairman, one cannot discuss things unknown to him. The argument used by the President of the Treasury Council was very weak, I believe, and I had hoped he would give better reasons for clauses 14 to 18. There must be serious reasons not to use Parliament but to resort instead to proclamations. In order to justify the creation of ministries of state and the appointment of new ministers the President of the Treasury Board pointed to the fact among the 80 government agencies or departments, many are not really responsible to Parliament, except for the annual report they present at the close of the financial year.
He thus proved that numerous powers had already been handed over to those creatures of the government. Fundamentally, the argument put forward by the President of the Treasury Board showed to what extent that administration escaped the control of Parliament.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council proposed that the House grant him a broad permission to create ministries of state.
He took care not to tell us exactly in what fields these ministries would operate.
Mr. Chairman, this is a serious lapse, and I feel that the President of the Treasury Board could rise and very simply and quite frankly give us some details.
I do not stand here to hold up the passage of this bill but only in the hope of being enlightened on clauses 14 to 18 and on the reasons why the government does not intend to proceed by legislation but rather by proclamation and asks the House for delegated powers.
An eminent statesman once said: "Give us the tools and we will do the job." We are ready to give the tools to this government, but we want to know to what use it will put them.
We want Parliament to establish these ministries of state through legislation. I want these ministries of state to be established through legislation according to the normal practice of the House. If the government really intends to amend the definition, the name, the responsibilities, or the structures, as indicated in clause 16, I want it to proceed not by proclamation but by way of legislation. If the government wants to abolish a ministry of state or another, as it can do under clause 18, it should do it through normal and ordinary procedure, that is through legislation rather than proclamation.
Our hon. opposites have not given us the answer to these questions. Why, in the case of 29 other departments, has the government submitted to the will of Parliament, proceeded through the normal and ordinary procedure while now, by means of clauses 14 to 18 of part IV, it will no longer proceed through legislation but by proclamation, independently of needs or problems raised by Parliament, independently of the opinion of parliamentarians of any party? At this level, Mr. Chairman, we are all equal and we all have the same rights
April 6, 1971

and the same privilege of knowing exactly what is going on.
Mr. Chairman, facing this problem the government would like to have all this done through exceptional measures, either by proclamation, after receiving general authorization from the House of Commons. This is what a vote in favour of clauses 14 to 18 will mean-blanket authority granted to the government to act as it pleases through delegation of powers.
Mr. Chairman, we would grant the government the over-all authorization it seeks if it were willing to proceed, as it should, in the establishment and administration of these ministries, by telling us in what definite fields they will operate, but this answer is not given to us.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It cannot be given, Mr. Chairman.


André-Gilles Fortin: If we were given this answer, Mr. Chairman, we would certainly be in a position to co-operate. But we cannot go blindly on.
In view of this uncertainty and the dark in which we are kept, I cannot agree. This is why, Mr. Chairman, I want to express my fierce opposition to the fact that Parliament keeps on delegating its authority to the executive, because we do not know just how far this government will ask us to go and how far we will actually go.
Mr. Chairman, there must be a balance between the executive, legislative and judicial powers. The legislative power is increasingly delegating its authority to the executive to enable it to work more effectively. However, it is not proven that this system of delegation of power really serves the interests of the people of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, we now have a government of technocrats, of specialists and scholars instead of a human government. We have a government which constantly increases the number of inquiry commissions, departments, agencies, ministries-in fact, there are more than 80 of them-and appointments, ostensibly to bring the people to participate in the administration of the state. Unfortunately, the people participate less and less, and I shall give a very specific exemple to this effect.
One day, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) rose and told the House: The government has just published a white paper on tax reform, which is going to change the whole tax structure and system. He said also that this white paper was published to obtain the views of the people. He said: We will take into consideration the views that will be expressed, the people will have an opportunity to submit their views to the government.
The days went by and some opposition members asked the Minister of Finance whether he was hearing from many Canadians and whether their views were favourable ones. The minister contented himself with rising, smiling while rocking back and forth and resuming his seat as usual. An opposition member rose and asked the same question. The Minister of Finance then gave the following answer: The opposition would like very much to know how popular the Liberal party is in Canada.
Government Organization Act, 1970
That, Mr. Chairman, is the kind of attitude that proves the government does not really want more participation in the formulation of legislation, in the administration of the common weal. It is an excellent purpose, Mr. Chairman, to want more participation by the people in the formulation of legislation, and that is not what I blame the government for.
Mr. Chairman, my concern about these ministries of state, and I have said so again-


Mr. Bechard:: And you are going to say so once more.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, if only the Parliamentary Secretary would stop disturbing me.


Albert Béchard: He does not disturb much!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, if a crisis should occur in a particular field,-I would not want it to happen,-and should a ministry of state serve as a pretext to the government to do nothing, to hide its inability to get things done, would the government be able to say what could happen?
What does the government do when it is faced with a problem? It creates a Royal Commission of Inquiry and the results are nil. Nothing happens.
We would like to know how far these ministries of state can go. What authority will they have? In what way will they differ from other departments established through the normal legislative procedure?
Mr. Chairman, as long as we do not obtain clear and fair answers to these questions, the government has no right to suggest that the opposition is filibustering, because we are convinced that we are doing our work as members of this House, which is to ask the government to account for public expenses.
The President of the Privy Council may well tell us later that hon. members can easily exercise such control through the question period and the annual reports of departments and agencies.
Mr. Chairman, since I was elected to this House, I put more than 300 questions on the Order Paper about the management and status of Crown corporations and I made in this way a detailed study on the control exercised by Parliament over these corporations. Today, I can tell the President of the Treasury Board that, according to the findings of that study, parliamentarians have less and less control over Crown corporations.
Mr. Chairman, it can easily be proved that control by Parliament over Crown corporations has become nonexistent, and that its control over departmental administration is only bluff, since we are only informed of what the government wants us to know.
I have asked, for instance, for the production of papers concerning the Department of Public Works, with regard to the construction of a federal building in Victoriaville, which the Liberals have been promising since 1952. I have had that notice of motion put on the order paper in October and it was only a year and some months later that the papers, although not all of them, were provided.

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Mr. Chairman, this is an example of the carelessness of the administration. And yet, a member should be the first to be informed of the achievements of a department in his riding. But this is not the case. When a member-and let us put aside party politics-tries to find out about the plans of a department, of officials or technocrats in his riding, he is wasting his time. He goes from one technocrat to another and standing on a two-foot thick carpet, he learns absolutely nothing!
They say that it is a departmental or interdepartmental secret, or still, they say politely: This is none of your business.
Yet, people have democratically elected the member so that he will keep in touch with the authorities concerned and, without any partisan motive, report to his constituents on the administration of the government.
I have written at least a dozen letters to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), asking him about the progress being made in the expropriation proceedings concerning the federal building in Victoriaville. I got no reply, except one from his private secretary, acknowledging receipt of mine and telling me that she would bring my inquiry to the minister's knowledge. That is the kind of control Parliament has over a department even when a member's riding is concerned. This is ridiculous.
1 understand the President of the Treasury Board has valid motives and is honest, but I wish to tell him that the system is inadequate, and I am not prepared to crawl in order to create four more ministries about whose establishment, transformation or abolition we shall have nothing to say, and about which we shall never know what is going on if ever one of them developped programs for our ridings.
Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely senseless. The construction of a federal building in Victoriaville is very important to me and to my fellow citizens in Lotbiniere and Victoriaville-and I say this without any partisanship. All the people of my area are shocked because we have been promised a federal building since 1952. The supplies have been voted, as one can see in the estimates. An amount of some $697,000 was voted two years ago, but no building has been erected. I wrote to the department to know if there had been expropriations, but I got no reply. In a letter to the minister I asked how work was progressing, but I have not yet received an answer. Now, I am being asked to approve a bill seeking to create ministries of state about which Parliament will not be able to give its opinion regarding their establishment, their modification, the restriction of their powers or their abolition. Our fears are quite understandable.
That is why I reject those clauses as long as we do not get information-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, my intervention will be quite brief. I should like to say a few words in response to representations made by the hon. member for St.
John's East and also by le depute de Lotbiniere. First, the hon. member for St. John's East has raised what might better be described as grievances rather than observations on the bill under study. Although perhaps the grievances were not relevant, they ought to be answered.
The hon. member objected to what he referred to as the illegal roster system. He supported the notion of illegality by quoting Standing Order 5 which calls for hon. members to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given by the House. I suppose that one could conclude from this Standing Order that ministers who are not on duty in the House on a particular day are absent without permission and, consequently, are offending Standing Order 5. This kind of interpretation of Standing Order 5 would apply to very large numbers. For example, the hon. member's party would be in a state of illegality and in contravention of the rules of this House if that were the correct interpretation of the rule. I am sure the members of the committee would agree that this is not the way the rule is to be interpreted.
In so far as the roster system is concerned, it is in effect an assurance given by the Prime Minister that the ministry will be so organized that each of the ministers will attend at the question period on three of the five sitting days of a week. The roster system is not designed to absent but to ensure the attendance of ministers on at least three of the five sitting days of the week unless they are out of the city of Ottawa on official business. On those three days, that system takes precedence over House or other government business. In this light it would be hard to argue that the hon. member even has a grievance.
The hon. member raised one other matter which I think deserves comment. He complained that under our new rules it is no longer possible to withhold supply. He cited the case of the old days where, if I understood him correctly, if a member was not satisfied or did not get his way he could indefinitely, presumably forever, hold up supply for the government in the service of the country. As I understood it, that is a plea for what is properly referred to as the tyranny of the minority. I do not think our rules and practices should lend themselves to that kind of tyranny. They are liable to be abused in the same way as is sometimes seen as manifestations of the tyranny of the majority. Both can occur, and both are equally dangerous. In so far as the hon. member regrets the disappearance of this phenomenon, he is crying about what I am glad to say is a lost cause.

When the hon. member for Lotbiniere mentioned the President of the Privy Council, I believe he meant the President of the Treasury Board because he was referring to what I said. He claimed that yesterday I suggested setting up ministries of state to better supervise Crown corporations and boards created from time to time by the government. He mentioned the example I gave concer-

April 6, 1971

ning the problem of the status of women. I am not in favour of those ministries to better supervise Crown corporations. What I tried to explain yesterday was this: from time to time, unexpected and serious problems crop up suddenly, which are of national portent and which do not fall within the jurisdiction of an existing department. Again I mention the problem of the situation of women in Canada which, so to speak, concerns most of the departments of the government and therefore no specific department.
It will therefore be understood that certain problems come under the jurisdiction of all departments in general, but of none in particular. And in order to formulate a sound and useful policy to solve those problems, it is necessary to establish a ministry of state which will be entrusted with the task of preparing a policy. That ministry will then administer and implement that policy. If any new ministry must implement a policy established and approved by Parliament, it might be that after achieving its purpose, it will disappear. Indeed, it is not the wish of the government to see a proliferation of bureaucrats and departments, and if a ministry of state has survived its usefulness, it will be suppressed. We have enough officials, we must not take on any more. One must distinguish between a real department and a ministry of state. In theory a department is created through legislation, and that is what we want to do. As regards the creation of a ministry of state that would be relatively small, that would look after policy-making, that would not have many functions, it may not be as necessary to flollow the procedure applied for the establishment of a real department. One must distinguish between the two. Departments from now on will have to be established through legislation. On the other hand, a ministry of state may be established in order to achieve precise purposes and abolished once the purpose has been achieved.
That is what is meant by clauses 14 to 20. If the hon. member can distinguish between a ministry of state and a department and if he can understand that departments will be established as before, through legislation, I believe he could accept easily enough the creation of ministries of state through proclamation.


Mr. Bell:: I should like to ask the minister a question. I appreciate he is the first one who has tried to justify the roster system. In the first part of his response to my hon. friend from St. John's East he said that ministers who are not here are in the same position as members who are not here. Does he make no distinction between a minister who announces formally that he will not be present and a member who may be behind the curtain or in the building somewhere? Is there not a flouting of the Standing Order by a minister who announces publicly that without permission he intends to be absent? Does the hon. gentleman not see a definite distinction here?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I see a difference, but I cannot see that clandestine sneaking behind the curtain is any worse
Government Organization Act, 1970 than stating one's intentions publicly. Doing in secret what is wrong is not really much better than doing publicly what is wrong.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister not also distinguish between the responsibility of a cabinet minister and that of any other member of the House and keep this in mind when he refers to the roster system? Would he also, since he has alibied the roster system quite well, explain to the House the practice of ministers not attending the House unless they are on the roster and are given permission to attend during the question period? I emphasize the words "given permission to attend" when they are not on the roster.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I appreciate the hon. member's emphasis on those words, though I am not sure why he emphasized them or who is in the process of granting this permission.


Donald MacInnis: For the edification of the minister I would suggest he get in touch with the Prime Minister, if possible, and with the Minister of Fisheries. Let him look at what has happened in the past in this respect. No matter how the minister defines Standing Order 5, it is not a question of being absent voluntarily or absent on government business; it is a case of the roster system being imposed upon ministers who do not and cannot attend on the days on which their names do not appear on the roster.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister seems to have missed the point with regard to Standing Order 5. I suppose this is one of our oldest rules, and surely its purpose is to preclude the possibility of anybody preventing a member of the House from attending. What the minister seems to ignore is that the Prime Minister is violating that rule by directing a number of his colleagues, on any one day, to stay out of the House, clearly in contravention of Standing Order 5.


Donald MacInnis: He does not seem to know what the Prime Minister is doing.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: You will forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but I am not sure whether this is really relevant to the bill. I apologize for being out of order. However, let me say that I am a member of the ministry.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I will try to explain what a member of the ministry is. I have never been directed by the Prime Minister to stay out of the House. Indeed, I have on occasions been in the House during question period on days other than those on which I am required to attend in accordance with the roster. I have come into the House on those occasions feeling that attendance in this House was appropriate and should have the highest priority on my time. Let me assure the hon. member that I did not have to seek the permission of the Prime Minister and I do not believe I shall have to seek the Prime Minister's permission to do so in future. This notion that members

April 6, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
are forbidden to enter the House by the Prime Minister is nothing but an unsubstantiated canard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I hope we will not proceed too far on this point. I believe there is some relevancy attached to it. The subject of the question period and the roster system has been raised by hon. members in debate. In a sense it is relevant. The committee is now being asked to approve the appointment of ministers of state and I think some importance attaches to what is at issue. I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton^ East Richmond and then the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster, but I hope we will not spend what is left of the sitting discussing the roster system.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a question of privilege. I do so prepared to stake my seat on the statement I have just made, providing the minister has the guts to stake his seat on the denial he has made of what I said. The precedent is already established on the record of this House. Whether or not the minister himself has been requested or instructed by the Prime Minister to remain out of the House when he is not on the roster, I say that ministers have been so requested-the record will prove it-and I will stake my seat upon what is contained in the written record if the minister is prepared to stake his denial in the same way.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I stand on what I said, that I as a member of the ministry and a minister of the Crown have been in the House on days during the question period other than my duty days in accordance with the roster; that I did not, that I do not have to-and I am sure I shall not have to-seek the permission of the Prime Minister in order to do this. If the hon. gentleman has loose in his head some idea that there is some curious system which he believes in, he is entitled to his beliefs. I am just saying what I know from my personal experience.


Donald MacInnis: I apologize to the minister. I did not at any time say that the minister was the member of the government I had in mind. I did not deny the statement the minister has made but I said, and I will repeat it, that I will stake my seat on this premise that it is already recorded in the Hansard the statement which indicated that a member of the government was instructed to stay out of the House on a day on which he was not on the roster system. Again I say to the minister that I am not denying what he says, but if he intends to deny what I am saying he should stake his seat on it, because I will stake my seat on what I am saying.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest we might terminate this discussion and that we do not waste the time of this House, or my time, by trying to deny what the hon. gentleman is saying.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister agree, once and for all, now that the matter has been brought up, to formally raise it with the Speaker? I know His Honour has avoided ruling on this matter when it has been brought
up during the question period, but now we have it in the open and we shall be concerned with it to the extent that we wonder whether these new ministers will ever appear here; we think they may be civil servants and businessmen who will never be elected to Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: We want to know these things. Will these ministers of state be required to be here? Does the minister not agree we should formally get a decision from the Speaker on this entire roster system and settle the matter once and for all?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. gentleman has asked whether the ministers of state will appear in the House. Let me assure him that the individuals appointed under this proposed legislation will have all the qualifications in respect of membership of this House that any other minister would have.


Thomas Miller Bell: There will never be an appointment of a person who is not a Member of Parliament to be a minister of state; is that the assurance?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The same kind of people will be appointed to head departments, ministries of state and to be ministers without portfolio as has been the practice in the past.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, on the same question-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for Oxford.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether the minister who has just taken his seat would deal with one matter. In view of the fact that the party of which he is a member, in former days when I was a member of the House appointed a minister from Montreal who was not a member of the House-I refer to Mr. Marler who was Minister of Transport for a good many months before being elected to this chamber-would he give us an assurance that none of these ministers of state will be persons outside this House?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I can only repeat my earlier statement and give the assurance that the appointment of departmental ministers, ministers of state and ministers without portfolio will follow the practice of the past.


Donald MacInnis: Is the minister-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. I indicated a few moments ago that I thought this was a helpful interchange and I do not want, unless hon. members would like me to do so, to curtail it at this point. I have been trying to recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who has a contribution to make-


Mr. Lundrigan:: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

April 6, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: -but if hon. members want to continue the cross-examination, if I may call it that, of the President of the Treasury Board, it may be useful. I recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, is the President of the Treasury Board aware of anybody in the present government who is not a member of this House?


An hon. Member:: No.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I am not sure we are advancing the work of the committee by this sort of informal interchange. I will recognize the President of the Treasury Board. Has the hon. member for Lotbiniere a question?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I wish to put a very specific question to the hon. President of the Treasury Board.
He said yesterday in his speech, and I quote:
To again refer to the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, at the present time there is no minister to whom the members of the House can point the finger of responsibility: it is diffused.
Which means we need a minister in charge of these general policies.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday my hon. colleague for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) put the following question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson):
Mr. Speaker, could the hon. minister tell us whether he intends to lower the discount rates of the Bank of Canada again so that chartered banks also bring down their interest rates for a better balanced economy?
Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury board knows as well as I do that the Bank of Canada is placed by law under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Finance. Now let us look at the minister's answer:
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter for decision by the Governor of the Bank of Canada. If he has any such intentions he will, of course, notify the public in the normal way and would be in consultation with me . ..
Mr. Chairman, this one instance of the lack of parliamentary control and the minister of Finance-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With respect, the hon. member took the floor to ask a question of the President of the Treasury Board. Would he please ask his question.


André-Gilles Fortin: I was coming to the point, Mr. Chairman, a point which the President of the Treasury Board does not seem to be missing. This demonstrates how a member is denied the right to know anything about this government's policies and stresses the fact that the minister is not actually responsible.
Is this the kind of responsibility in store for the future ministers in charge of a ministry, or will they be subject to a stricter responsibility and tighter parliamentary control?
Business of the House


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is well aware of the fact that the Bank of Canada Act states quite clearly the duties, functions and responsibilities of the Bank itself and of its Governor. What the Minister of Finance had in mind the other day was that under the statute approved by Parliament the responsibility for policy questions does not lie with the government but with the Governor.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Would hon. members resume their seats. If the hon. member for Lotbiniere has a supplementary question I will recognize him, but it seems we are entering very substantially into debate and may be denying other hon. members the opportunity to take the floor. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, in view of the explanations just given by the hon. President of the Treasury Board, let me ask if this means that under the law, the Governor of the Bank of Canada is not responsible before Parliament for his decisions or for his influence on the Canadian economy through the Minister of Finance.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere is well aware that it is not up to me to interpret the existing laws. He is seeking legal advice and I suggest that he reads the statutes relating to the Bank of Canada.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to ask the government House leader what we will be doing tomorrow, so that we may be adequately prepared?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I had better resist the temptation to make a comment on that point so as not to halt the progress being made in this House. Tomorrow I had in mind beginning with the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, on the understanding that because of the intensive preparation the speeches will be short, to the point and few in number. Following that we would continue with the present bill which some hon. members find so exhilarating, others depressing.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask the President of the Privy Council whether he could tell us if the House could expect to enjoy the presence in the chamber tomorrow of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, so that the House will be given the opportunity of directing questions to the minister on the statement

April 6, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
that he made today, and perhaps the minister might even be disposed to table the report.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether he is on the roster, but I will make a special effort to produce him whether he is on or off the roster.


Gerald William Baldwin: Will you table him?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, March 23, as recorded in Hansard at page 4512, I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. gentleman consider holding discussions with the leaders of the other parties in the House, or ask the House leaders to hold such discussions, concerning the possibility of our taking appropriate steps so that after the next election we will still have as Speaker of this House, on a continuing basis, the distinguished gentleman who now occupies the chair?
At that point Hansard has this notation:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Which, being interpreted, means that there was applause. I am very happy that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) in his capacity as government House leader is here to respond to my question as I put it once again tonight. I was not surprised that His Honour the Speaker did not let us stay on it the other day when I asked the question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I may say that this has been noted in a number of publications, notably in an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press on Saturday, April 3. That editorial said:
It may well be that the proposal, coming in the middle of question period, took Mr. Trudeau by surprise. Obviously it is one that deserves a considered response.
The same editorial went on to say:
Mr. Knowles, however, was well advised to raise the matter at this time because there is danger that consideration, if deferred too long, may be futile. The closer we draw to a general election, the greater is the probability that the issue will be decided not be serious consultations but by untoward political events.
That indeed is the reason for my raising the question again tonight and expressing to my friend, the government House leader, the hope that he might be here, as he is, to answer it. Perhaps I might read two more sentences from the Winnipeg Free Press editorial for they are sentences with which we all agree. They read:
For three years, the House has been ruled by a Speaker who was not elected to Parliament as the candidate of a party. Never in our history has the chair been held in such respect.
It is because all of us in this House value greatly the leadership and the guidance of the present occupant of the chair that I raise this point again tonight. Perhaps I might be permitted to point out for the record that the Mr. Speaker to whom I am referring is not in the chair at the moment but, rather, Your Honour Mr. Deputy Speaker, which makes it easier for us to speak in glowing terms about His Honour the Speaker of this House of Commons.
It seems to me that the point in the Winnipeg Free Press editorial is well taken. This is a matter that we should not leave until a month or two before the next election. We have a Speaker of whom we are all extremely proud, one who guides this House effectively, with tremendous impartiality, and I think there is complete agreement in the House and it would be most desirable to have His Honour the present Speaker preside over us in the next Parliament. There are various ways by which this can be achieved. I have put forward a proposal in the form of a public bill, but that is not the only way it can be done and in rising here tonight I am not speaking with respect to that bill. I simply want the assurance that the matter of doing something will be considered. I am really asking for no more at this time than I put in my question to the Prime Minister on March 23, namely, that appropriate discussions on this matter not be delayed.
I suggest two levels at which discussions should take place. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can call in the leaders of the other parties and have such a discussion, or if he should feel it more appropriate, at least as a beginning, he could ask the House leaders of the various parties to have that discussion. I am sure I speak for the House leaders on this side of the chamber when I say we are quite willing to do so.
Therefore I put it forward tonight, Sir, without trying to pin down any specific way of dealing with the problem but simply to ask the government House leader-and I hope he will do it-to give the assurance that appropriate discussions will be held soon so that something may be done about this important matter while there is yet time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be quite brief because of the short time available. I respond to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) first of all by saying that in the analysis of the operations of the House of Commons that are frequently conducted, sometimes the influence of the Speaker in establishing the mood of the House is overlooked. It is a fact, nevertheless, that in addition to the other parts of the House, the government and opposition parties, the Speaker wields an influence which may be as great if not greater at times than that wielded by any of the other parts of this institution.
I have had the opportunity to observe four Speakers in this House and I believe each has made a valuable contribution to the institution. In general, I think we can be satisfied that in Canada the speakership as an institution has operated effectively over the years. Because we have as a House acted to strengthen the hand of the Speaker,

April 6, 1971

one of the most important moves being to abolish appeals to the House from Speakers' rulings, a status has been ensured for the Speaker which he had not enjoyed.
I share the hon. member's feelings about the present incumbent and the feelings expressed in the editorial he quoted. I believe it was because of an appreciation of his qualities that the House at the beginning of this Parliament again unanimously selected him to be the presiding officer of the House. Because of that expectation, in the last federal election he ran as an independent candidate in his constituency and, as I understand it, was unopposed by any of the parties in an official sense. I believe a candidate ran against him but this candidate was not sponsored by any of the leaders presently in this House. That was a general manifestation of the desire of the political process to maintain the present Speaker in office. I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not ruled out that procedure as one of the options or appropriate steps he would suggest as a way to ensure the continued occupancy of the chair by the present incumbent.
Before the question was asked, and since, I have attempted to study some of the literature on the subject of a permanent speakership. It has been a difficult subject. As my hon. friend knows, at one time the British established a select committee to determine how appropriate steps could be taken to reach the goal of a permanent speakership. Men like Winston Churchill were on that committee, but the final result was that the system then in vogue was recommended for retention. It so happened that many Speakers of the British House continued in office despite the intrusion of elections, which they invariably won. The British system would demonstrate that the Speaker, certainly in Britain, has had no difficulty in maintaining his seat and the electorate has understood his importance in the system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that I must interrupt the minister. As a matter of fact, I have been a little generous and he has had a little more time than he is entitled to under the Standing Orders.
^ ^ $



SOCIAL SECURITY-QUEBEC-ALLEGED APPROPRIATION OF GUARANTEED INCOME PENSION SUPPLEMENT BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abiiibi):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 last, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) if there was an agreement between the Quebec government and the federal government since the Quebec government was taking over the increase in the guaranteed minimum income supplement paid to our senior citizens.
I had then no time to explain but I will do it tonight. The hon. members will remember that before the Christmas recess, the House adopted a legislation increas-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
ing from $31.83 to $55 per month the guaranteed income supplement for senior citizens aged 65 or more and without any other income. This involved therefore a monthly increase of $23.17.
Now, in the Province of Quebec, the Social Security Act, better known as the Social Welfare Act, provided for a supplement, especially when only the husband or the wife had reached retirement age.
This supplement varied, I repeat, from $1 to $30 per month, and sometimes a little more.
But as soon as the federal legislation increasing the guaranteed income supplement was passed, the Quebec government took steps to take away from old people a portion or all of the supplement granted, so that a couple or a single person did not receive more than before.
I will quote as an example the case of a lady from La Sarre, who had been granted by Quebec, after many attempts, a supplement of $20 a month. As early as December 1970, the government of Quebec took away from her this supplement of $20 which she required to meet her needs. After a few representations to the provincial department involved, it agreed to restore this supplement. But, as early as the day after the cheque was received, the officials of the La Sarre office took it away from this lady through means that I will call disgusting.
I could quote many similar cases where almost everybody received a supplement from the province of Quebec. The supplements have been cancelled or reduced according to the increased guaranteed income supplement from Ottawa. I am aware that my colleagues in the House know also of similar cases and are shocked by the Quebec government's attitude towards older people. This means that the Quebec government appropriates, so to speak, the increase granted by the federal government, since the older people will not get more money than they did before.
Therefore, I should like to ask the minister if there was an understanding between both governments for Quebec to proceed in such a way; it seems an indirect means by which a province is granted larger revenues.
Since the federal government cannot interfere directly with the decisions taken by the provincial governments as regards social security, perhaps the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) should at least try to come to an understanding with the provinces with a view, first of all, to gradually to lowering the age for eligibility to the old age security pension down to 60, as was the case when the retirement age was lowered from 70 to 65.
Besides, the government should grant the old age security pension to any person whose spouse receives such pension, even though that person has not reached the age provided in the act. This would dispel much worry and hardship for those couples in which only one spouse gets a pension.
If we intend to establish a really just society, let us avoid inequities and provide as much satisfaction as possible to those who, during their whole life, contributed to the development of their country, and this sometimes in

April 6, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
wretched conditions. At least, let us recognize the fact and let us provide them with a little well-being on their retirement, and spare them the feeling of being crushed and a burden to others. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that nobody will have to stint in order to provide more security for those people.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's reference to the guaranteed income supplement to the old people in Quebec suggests that he misunderstood the matter. No pressions were put on Quebec to have it administer the guaranteed income supplement for older people.
Since we are on this subject, I should like to mention that the federal government increased by over 50 per cent the amount of the income supplement for older people in Canada. Since legislation to that effect was enacted in December, the increases in the supplement will ensure that no qualified married couple will receive less than $255 per month and no qualified single person, less than $135. Moreover, these increased benefits came into force at the beginning of this month.



NATIONAL PARKS-ELK ISLAND-ANIMAL STARVATION-FAILURE OF WILDLIFE SERVICE TO DIRECT REDUCTION IN ELK POPULATION COMMENSURATE WITH FEED SUPPLIES

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in raising the question of the starvation of animals in Elk Island National Park is simply to impress upon the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) the request that a full and complete investigation be conducted into the actions of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the parks administration with respect to the discharge of their duties and responsibilities; also, of course, to seek an assurance from the minister that what transpired in Elk Island Park during last winter will not be allowed to recur.
I raised the matter on March 2, 1971, when as reported at page 3865 of Hansard I asked whether the minister was aware of the situation in Elk Island Park and whether action was being taken toward alleviating the situation there. The minister replied that he was aware of it; the problem was due to the early winter, heavy snowfalls and hardening of the top layer. He referred to the fact that a number of animals had already died and said:
-the officials of my department have arranged for the conveyance of six tons of feed daily in the park, in order to help the animals to survive throughout the winter which has been as hard for them as for us.
The assurance was given by the minister that a feeding program was to take place. However, upon checking with the officials of the park and Canadian Wildlife Service personnel it was pointed out that a feeding program was against sound management of wildlife principles, particularly at a time when the animals were suffering from gross malnutrition. It is obvious, therefore, that a feeding
program was not conducted. There was a feeding program of a sort, but not pertaining to the elk, and this is the question with which I am basically concerned.
In my opinion, the park administration and the Canadian Wildlife Service attempted to mislead the public into believing that politicians, self-styled experts and the public were becoming overemotional and panic-stricken. They merely suggested that nature in its raw form was cruel and that a natural culling-out process was desirable even though it meant that animals would suffer. I suppose one could accept this if the park contained all the attributes of a natural habitat. I suppose one could accept it more if there were abundant supplies of natural feed in the park. But this is not the case. I have examined the situation personally with the assistance of biologists who are familiar with the feeding and maintenance of wildlife in a park such as Elk Island.
Then, of course, the situation was compounded by a bad winter. That is the only argument that the members of the Canadian Wildlife Service and the park officials have put forward. They contend that the whole difficulty has resulted from a severe winter. We examined the park, and it is clearly evident that there is insufficient food available to support a population of something like 1,500 animals. This leaves two courses open to the authorities. They can either follow a population reduction process or undertake a feeding program. The Canadian Wildlife Service, according to information that I have received, recommended neither course. I understand that the park administration and the Canadian Wildlife Service has stuck to the argument that if they were to commence a feeding program they would be going against principles of sound wildlife management, and have rejected that course.
With regard to reduction of the elk population, this usually takes place in the form of a fall slaughter. The meat is processed and distributed to needy people, to hospitals, to Indians and Metis. Elk Island has an excellent abattoir and processing facilities. This could have been done easily. One slaughter was conducted in 1969. Even though it was obvious that supplies of food were glaringly short in 1970, no appreciable reduction in the wildlife population was recommended in 1970. It therefore seems to me that there has been a glaring lack of proper evaluation. I would go so far as to say that there has been a dereliction of duty, either on the part of the Canadian Wildlife Service or the park administration, or at least there has been lack of co-ordination. I do not believe that developments such as this should be allowed to take place. I do not believe we should tolerate them in this day and age.
This reminds me of a situation that developed only 20 miles from Elk Island Park. A farmer was brought to court and charged with starving his horses which were left unattended and without adequate feed. That is much the same type of situation as we have here. That man was charged, and yet in a park being administered by federal officials this sort of thing has been allowed to

April 6, 1971

happen. May I refer to another situation which seems to be paradoxical. As a result of emotion and the hue and cry of the public we face a situation in which the seal industry may be practically destroyed because people are concerned about cruelty. But in Elk Island Park animals are deliberately being allowed to die, to suffer from starvation, as a result of the administration of federal officials. I say that this is a case for the humane society to investigate and of course, for the minister himself to look into.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In my opinion there has been a dereliction of duty. I believe that the Canadian Wildlife Service and the park administration must accept full responsibility for what is happening and not pass it off as something that has happened simply because of a hard winter. I have lived in the area all my life and have never seen a situation like this in 35 years. So I say that they are responsible for mismanaging and for estimating inaccurately what the animal population ought to be in relation to the available food supply. I urge the parliamentary secretary to use his influence and good offices and impress upon the minister the necessity of looking into the situation and investigating it thoroughly in order that we may prevent a recurrence of this situation.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to draw the hon. member's representations to the attention of the appropriate individuals. However, as the hon. member has indicated, the animal population of Elk Island Park is controlled through the periodic slaughter of surplus animals. It was indicated that the last such slaughter took place in the fall of 1969. In the fall of 1970, one year later, studies indicated that the animal population had not grown to a sufficient extent to warrant another kill. At that point officials were anticipating normal winter conditions.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Unfortunately, this winter has been a particularly severe one. Although large areas of the park still contain adequate forage, there are limited areas which have been overgrazed and overbrowsed. The main problem this winter has been occasioned by a heavy crusting on top of the snow. The initial crusting occurred after a thaw in January but really severe conditions did not develop until after a thaw which occurred in mid-February. This crusting condition made it very difficult for the animals to move about in search of food.


Mr. Paproski:: We know the weather report. Get on with it.


J. Judd Buchanan: Consequently, the animals became virtually penned into very small areas by the crusted snow with the resultant overgrazing of the limited areas in which they became corralled. Park officials first became concerned about this situation and inaugurated a feeding program on February 6. As the condition became more severe, the amount of feed was increased until it reached between seven and eight tons per day. The weaker animals are always subject to winter stress and there is usually a mortality rate of approximately 4 per cent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was more than double this year.


J. Judd Buchanan: Because of the severe conditions it is expected that this mortality will amount to approximately 8 per cent this year. The total number of animals in the park is approximately 1,500. We feel this condition resulted mainly because of the heavy crusting which was not anticipated. I do not think it is reasonable to expect that the officials of the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 7, 1971