1971-05-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Goode.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, there is a first time for everything and in my 31 years in this House this will be the first time I have moved a motion for adjournment. Under Standing Order 43 I wish to ask for leave to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It has to do with the census to be taken shortly and the glaring and flagrant omissions in the questions on both the short and long forms of the questionnaire.
In 1961, during my period of office as Prime Minister, 1 felt strongly at the time of the last census when the form was being approved that there should be provision for those who wished to describe themselves as Canadians to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: A section to that effect was accordingly included which read as follows: "Country of Citizenship: Are you a Canadian? If not, of what country are you a national or a citizen?" That question has now been deleted and a retrogressive step has been taken which will have the effect of putting off for ten years at least the right of Canadians to so describe themselves.
Second, according to the 1961 census the numerical order according to population on the basis of racial origin was as follows: English, French, German, Ukrainian and Italian. However, under section 5 of the present questionnaire, which is entitled "Mother Tongue, Language First Spoken and Still Understood", English, French, German and Italian are set out, with others to be specified. The explanation given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on Friday at page 6036 of Hansard is that the reason, if I can understand the mischievous parade of facetious fatuities, is that on form 2A, the short one which goes to two-thirds of all households, the space limits special provision to only four racial origins whose mother tongues are numerically the largest according to the views of DBS, not according to the 1961 census.
There can be no question that the government has deliberately decided to omit those whose language is Ukrainian from the questionnaire. The reason given by the minister is that limitation of space prevented it being done. That is not a valid excuse, since there is ample space to include Ukrainian. Those of Ukrainian origin will fall to a lower category according to population, he believes, than in 1961. That explanation is untenable and unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate very much to interrupt the right hon. gentleman but he will appreciate that under the Standing Order he must indicate what the motion is. There are a number of precedents and rulings from the Chair to indicate that there should be no debate at this point. I have suggested to the House from time to time that, since Standing Order 43 does not make it possible for another hon. member or for someone on behalf of the government to reply to an argument in connection with a motion such as this one, it might not be according to the spirit of the Standing Order to have argument. So I invite the right hon. gentleman to indicate as soon as possible what the motion is for which he seeks the unanimous consent of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have transgressed but I had to give an explanation; otherwise the motion would have been meaningless. The omission I have spoken about with reference to people of Ukrainian origin has been strongly objected to. The Ukrainian Canadian Committee and others have raised their objection to the Acting Prime Minister and to others because of the discriminatory nature of this omission. Again section 16 of the questionnaire asks, "What is your religion", and although the Ukrainian Greek Orthodox Church is the largest Greek Orthodox denomination in Canada, it has been specifically omitted from the questionnaire. I wish, Sir, pursuant to Standing Order 43, to ask for leave to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be authorized to look into the changes and omissions above stated and be empowered to make such recommendations for changes in the census forms to meet the objections I have referred to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. This motion has been submitted for the consideration of the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. The Chair will therefore inquire whether there is unanimous consent for the putting of the motion that has been proposed.

May 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


John George Diefenbaker: It was opposed by Liberal party members and only by Liberals.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us about any arrangement regarding aid for the refugees from East Pakistan now in West Bengal? Is anything effective being arranged to assist these refugees who are now reported by the government of India to number in the millions? What is Canada doing in this connection?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I said in reply to a similar question at the end of last week, the government is giving sympathetic consideration to the request that has been received for international aid for the Pakistan refugees who are in India. This effort is being co-ordinated through the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees, and we are now in the process of deciding what sum of money it would be appropriate for Canada to contribute.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs anything to report with regard to the possibility of tension along the border between India and Pakistan? Is the government taking any position with regard to this situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government recognizes that the movement of refugees across the border from Pakistan into India is in itself a cause of very great tension. We have been advising both the Indian and Pakistani governments to do everything they can to avoid an escalation of this conflict. The problem, however, is extremely serious and we recognize it as such. For the time being at least we feel that the most effective thing we can do is provide some aid to the refugees who are there.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what the position of the government is toward the government of Pakistan. For example, does the government of Canada believe that pressure should be put on the government of Pakistan to achieve a settlement through the World Bank, for example, refusing to give any additional time with regard to payments that are due? Does the government of Canada believe it should become involved in pressure
of this sort or, on the other hand, does it feel it should remain aloof and keep its hands off as far as Pakistan is concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the situation is that the government of Pakistan has unilaterally declared a moratorium. The various countries concerned have been studying this situation and deciding how best to cope with what appears to be the bankruptcy of the Pakistan government. As far as aid is concerned, it is a very difficult question of judgment how far to go in providing aid under these circumstances. Like Canada, I think that most countries of the world are operating very carefully. We certainly do not want to cause additional hardship to any of the people of Pakistan, in the east or west, by denying projects that can be of immediate assistance. Nevertheless, it is recognized that the aid must be seen to be going toward helping the people on both sides.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is an effort being made to assure that Canadian aid is not used to bolster the military repression of East Pakistan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Canadian Pacific Railway has reduced, almost to the point of elimination, the pass privileges accorded its employees and pensioners, and in view of the fact that these privileges have been regarded as part of the earnings of Canadian Pacific employees, will the minister take up this matter with either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian Transport Commission in the hope that this situation can be rectified?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will. I was not aware that this situation had occurred. I quite agree with the hon. member that the very least a pensioner can have is the ability to travel on the railway which he served for so long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the answer of the minister, but will he take note of the fact that the reduction of pass privileges applies to employees as well as to pensioners?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should have also indicated that I would think it is not a matter for the Canadian Transport Commission. It is a matter of appealing to the good sense, if you like, of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I will try to do that.

May 25, 1971



HARBOURS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister of Public Works a question resulting from his statement as reported in this morning's papers and which I consider very detrimental to the best interests of the port of Montreal.
In order to clarify the situation, will the minister make a full statement in the House today or in the next few days so that hon. members be informed of the measures which the government is considering in this area?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I was speaking in the Maritimes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is no excuse.


Arthur Laing: -when I made reference to-


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you go to Assiniboia?


Arthur Laing: -a report in the possession of my department. I never at any time made any reference to the port of Montreal, directly, indirectly or in any way whatsoever. If it is the desire of the media and other organizations to editorialize on the basis of a statement I made,, that is their right, and of course they will have to take the responsibility in doing so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member for Sainte-Marie want to put a supplementary question?


Georges-J. Valade: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Public Works table the statement he made in Newfoundland and have it published as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, with deference to the Chair, I believe the minister was about to give a reply when you gave the floor to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace.
Inquiries of the Ministry



MONTREAL-PRIORITY IN DEVELOPMENT OF PORTS POLICY

Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Would the minister assure the House that he will not give priority to other ports over the port of Montreal in the development of our ports policy?


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


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Laprairie on a supplementary and will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster in a moment, also on a supplementary.


Mr. Ian Waison (Laprairie):: Can the minister tell us whether the report to which he is said to have referred was prepared by his department alone or in collaboration with the Department of Transport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is not in order. I would think that the question originally asked by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie was in order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I suggest to the hon. member and to all hon. members that the only way in which hon. members can ask questions about a statement made outside the House is, of course, the traditional and well-known way, by inquiring whether what was said by a minister outside the House represents government policy. Hon. members may, of course, refer to the substance of the matter without necessarily alluding to the speech made outside the House. In this light the question originally asked was in order, but the supplementary asked by the hon. member for Laprairie is not in order from a procedural point of view.


Thomas Miller Bell: Having heard the minister deal with the port of Montreal and knowing he loves all the ports of the Maritimes equally as much and is fearlessly returning there this week may I ask whether he will assure the House that all ports in the Maritimes will be treated equally in this matter?



PRINCE RUPERT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. When will he be in a position to make an announcement about the most important west coast port and its development, namely, Prince Rupert?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: hope an announcement or some progress report can be made within a matter of weeks. I have today dispatched a letter to the premier of British Columbia inviting him to meet with me to discuss this matter at a date of his choosing.

May 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



INFLATION-CONSTITUTIONAL POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO INTRODUCE PRICE AND WAGE CONTROLS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a question in light of the growing danger of inflation and the doubts with respect to what the government's policy is. Has the government sought legal advice-I am not asking what the advice is-as to the jurisdiction of the Federal government with regard to the imposition of wage and price controls?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I indicated the other day in the House it is our view that in the kind of circumstances which would justify wage and price controls we would have jurisdiction.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has the government discussed with the provincial governments the question of whether they would delegate their rights and co-operate with the federal government? I am asking for information purposes.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Prices and Incomes Commission at one time discussed with the provinces whether they wished to exercise restraint or to impose controls under their jurisdiction, but as I recall it the response was negative.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, if I can get his attention. Is he in a position today to reply to the question I asked him on Friday regarding the Paul Maney Laboratories and the extent to which his department is providing some assistance in order to prevent the company being sold to foreign interests?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, two points only. The company has recently submitted an application for a PIDA loan which is being processed as rapidly as possible. I also understand that a United States based company in Canada is considering making an offer to purchase this company.


Max Saltsman: Would the minister indicate whether it is his intention to ensure that this company remains in Canadian hands as one of the few remaining Canadian drug companies not under foreign ownership?


Mr. Pepin:: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the programs of my department can be used for that purpose, yes, but there are other things that cannot be corrected by programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, however good they are.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Adrien Lamberi (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the announcement on March 30, 1971, of a new policy with regard to the dairy industry for the current year, the minister suggested that improvements could be brought up during the forthcoming months. Is he now in a position to tell us whether such improvements with respect to prices, will be made for the benefit of industrial milk producers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to announce any changes, but I am in a position to report that improvements in the dairy situation, both in Canada and in international markets have been going on very satisfactorily.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker.
I accept the minister's answer but this is what I want to know: How soon will the industrial milk producers benefit from it?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The date is not particularly important because any immediate improvement could be realized at the level of the holdback. Whether or not a change is made during the next few weeks or at some later time, this improvement will accrue to the producers anyway.



SUPPLY OF MILK FOR MANUFACTURE OF CHEESE

['Mr. Speaker, conservation will be the main theme for discussion at these meetings. The Russian government will be represented there by its top officials, and I am sure these representatives of the U.S.S.R. will continue to participate very effectively in ICNAF.\nInquiries of the Ministry']
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the supply of milk for the manufacture of cheese is drying up fast, and is the minister going to do anything about it?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that this question was asked a few days ago but I am not sure whether it was replied to by the hon. minister. It is my impression that it was, but if it was not the minister could reply to the hon. member for Huron.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, may I say that neither the minister nor the dairy commission has control over the allocation of milk to cheese factories or other processors.



Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Soufh Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.

May 25, 1971

The Prime Minister has stated in Moscow that the protocol between Canada and Russia was necessary in face of the overpowering presence of the United States of America which is a danger to our national identity. I want to dissociate myself as a Canadian from the Prime Minister's views-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that he cannot make a statement at this time. If hon. members took the opportunity of the question period to make statements such as the one the hon. member is making now, I suggest that that would be the end of the question period. The hon. member has the floor not for the purpose of making a statement but for the purpose of asking a question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister which country initiated the idea of a Russia-Canada protocol, and in talks with the Russians has the Prime Minister raised the position that Russian fishing practices off our coast are presently a danger to our fish resources and asked for immediate Russian cooperation in this area?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions here. The protocol, which as I said the other day seems to me to be a useful supplement to the consultations going on between our two countries, was mutually agreed upon as a very useful thing to do at this time. I do not know who suggested it first. I think it arose out of discussion about the importance of the mission of the Prime Minister, and it was agreed that regular consultation would enable Canada and the Russians to make their views known to the other country on such questions as the one the hon. member has raised, namely, fishing and the conservation of fishery resources. Otherwise we would have to wait until the visits of prime ministers or foreign ministers, when there could be regular consultation between their officials and ours whenever we felt this was desirable.


John George Diefenbaker: What is our ambassador there for, decoration?


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Fisheries. Will he inform the House what position Canada will take at the ICNAF meetings which are about to take place in Halifax, and what effect the new Soviet-Canadi-an protocol will have on our position at those meetings since Russia is one of the chief offenders in the overexploitation of our fisheries resources?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, conservation will be the main theme for discussion at these meetings. The Russian government will be represented there by its top officials, and I am sure these representatives of the U.S.S.R. will continue to participate very effectively in ICNAF.
Inquiries of the Ministry



REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER TO SOVIET


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Acting Prime Minister. During the time the Prime Minister has been in Russia has he had any conversation with the government of the Soviet Union, or does he intend to, about bringing that nation into the North Pacific convention in respect of salmon, halibut and herring off the Pacific coast in order that that nation as well will cease taking salmon on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will be at home at the end of this week. There will be an opportunity then for members to hear his report and to question him on the matters he has raised in Moscow.



REPRESENTATIONS BY PRIME MINISTER TO SOVIET GOVERNMENT ON EXPORT OF RUSSIAN TRACTORS TO CANADA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. While the Prime Minister is in Russia will he take up the question of the possible expansion of the shipment of Russian tractors to Canada, which would help the Russians in their balance of payments position as well as helping Canadian farmers to get cheaper tractors?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister posed that question in such specific terms, but it is known that the Soviet Union has been exporting tractors to Canada and that they have been selling them. If they want to sell more they are welcome.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarih (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In order to avoid the use of tankers for the transportation of oil on the west coast and the ecological problems that might be created by a pipeline, has the government of Canada given consideration to discussing with the government of British Columbia and the government of Alaska the extension of the Pacific Great Eastern railway to Prudhoe Bay in order that unit trains could be used in place of a pipeline for the transportation of oil?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer as quickly as I can. We have had a study under way for several months in respect of the extension of rail line services into northern British Columbia and the Yukon. So far as I am aware we have not had representations from either the United States government or the government of Alaska about any further extension, but I am sure we would be very pleased to talk to them if any such overtures were made.

Inquiries of the Ministry FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
May 25, 1971



AGENDA OF JUNE MEETING-DISCUSSION OF INTERPROVINCIAL FREE TRADE

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is there any disagreement over the agenda for the forthcoming constitutional conference in June and, if not, will the Acting Prime Minister table the tentative agenda in the House in order that there can be a focus for public discussion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is now agreement on the agenda. I will check to be quite sure and see whether it would be possible to obtain agreement of all the parties to the conference to release it.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, will constitutional clarification in respect of free trade between provinces be considered at the conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the principal purpose of the conference will be to carry forward the work that was so well begun in the hope that we will be able to agree on a package proposal for constitutional reform. It was agreed previously that the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government should not be the main part of that package. The practical question of these restraints is one that is, of course, under consideration at all times. It is before the courts and we have put forward a bill which I think would go some distance in helping to solve the immediate problem.
PTranslation]



GOVERNMENT POSITION RESPECTING FORMULA TO AMEND CONSTITUTION

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister clarify for the benefit of the House one point he raised in his answer: will the federal government refuse to discuss any subject other than the formula for amending the Constitution, or does it intend to consider the substance of the amendments?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course we cannot refuse to discuss anything the provinces insist upon discussing, but I do hope we can make progress along the general lines that were agreed to by all governments at the last conference. I am sure hon. members of the House would like to see progress made in order that we can bring our constitution to Canada and deal with practical questions here among ourselves without having to depend upon another legislature.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether during his discussions with the provinces he took up the question of support prices for hogs in view of the fact that two provinces are now subsidizing their hog producers? Has he discussed the possibility of price support under the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and how this could be done effectively?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had a review made of prices in this current year and compared them with the ten-year moving average on which they are based. They were still above 80 per cent of that ten-year average. As I pointed out to the hon. member a few days ago, we want to be helpful in this situation, if we can change the effective dates of the hog marketing year. But I can also report that indications are that hog prices will start to move up in late July or August.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the
minister to inform the House as to the basis of his forecast that hog prices will increase in August. Would he tell us whose crystal ball he was using?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am using no one's crystal ball. I am basing this forecast on the statistics we have from both Canada and the United States which indicate that farrowings started a very sharp downward trend about two and a half months ago.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the problem of Pakistan and India and the refugees. The Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to be a little general in his previous replies. I should like to ask particularly about the refugees who are apparently there now in large numbers. When does the government of Canada propose to make a decision as to what aid it will render these refugees?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the matter is under discussion at the moment among the various departments and I am hoping that within the next few days we will make a decision as to the amount.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one further supplementary question regarding Pakistan which I understood the minister to suggest was bankrupt because it had declared a moratorium. Is it the policy of the government to continue simply to watch the situation, in which event the government of Pakistan might just disintegrate, or does

May 25, 1971

the government of Canada propose to participate in the taking of some decisions? In other words, is it the policy of the minister simply to let nature take its course in the hope that somehow the thing will work out, or has he a policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have had a number of discussions recently with the body that has been co-ordinating this problem, namely, the World Bank. It is an extremely difficult problem, and if the hon. member knows of any simple solution to it I would be very happy to hear it. No one else in the world seems to have an easy solution. We are all doing our best to meet two problems, that of the refugees in India and also the condition of Pakistan itself and the conflicts that now separate the two parts. This is one of the most serious international issues the world has been faced with; we are doing our best in an attempt to arrive at reasonable solutions, and that is the best we can do.



AIR CANADA


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Air Canada is downgrading service from eastern Canada to Saskatoon, does the minister intend to take immediate steps to provide adequate service by another airline?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would need to know the specific routes in question to see whether they in effect come within what might be described as the regional air policy, but the objective is to get better air service for all parts of the country.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Does the Minister of Transport intend to introduce regulations to prohibit the Prime Minister and other politicians from flying planes that have captive passengers aboard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CENSUS


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with a question raised as a question of privilege by the hon. member for Churchill last week. In connection with the census which begins on June 1 can he explain to the House and to the people of Canada why all Canadians will not be allowed to send their returns directly to the department as will be done in cities?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have a note from DBS which says that either the mail-back or pick-up system by
Inquiries of the Ministry
census representatives assures confidentiality, but the pick-up system is employed in localities where, for instance, the mail service is insufficient or telephone lines are shared, proving unsatisfactory for telephone followup when difficulties are experienced when completing the questionnaire before mailing it back. So the system is justified by very practical considerations and there is no discrimination here against any group in the process.


William Marvin Howe: When these rules and regulations were drawn up did the minister have a discussion with his colleague in the next seat, the Postmaster General.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister if he foresees any military threat from the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would enlighten me.


Donald MacInnis: Gladly, Mr. Speaker, and I must do it on a point of order in order to keep myself in order. I would suggest that the Acting Prime Minister keep up with the statement made by the Prime Minister while visiting Russia when he lumped together the cultural threat, the economic threat and the military threat from the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of recent reports that research in the United States on arsenic indicates it could be a highly dangerous pollutant if allowed to escape into lakes and rivers, could the minister indicate whether any department of government has undertaken any testing of our waterways for possible arsenic pollution and its effect on fish?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, some research work has been undertaken and the program is being stepped up.


Randolph Harding: Has the government set a schedule of permissible levels of arsenic in food for human consumption and have arsenic content standards been set for any effluent discharged into any of our waterways?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly think so but I will make inquiries from the Department of National Health and Welfare.
607fi

May 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CENSUS



FAILURE TO INCLUDE &quot;CANADIAN&quot; AS DESIGNATION OF ORIGIN

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. How does a Canadian answer the census question about his origin, and how many generations does it take for one to become a Canadian for statistical purposes?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, a number of things-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in order. The hon. member is asking the minister how many generations it takes to become a Canadian. I doubt whether a question asked in those terms is in order.
* *
*



FISHERIES


Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the meeting held between the minister and representatives of the farm machinery companies last Friday relative to the Barber Commission report, can the minister indicate whether there may be any hope of a move toward more equitable pricing of farm machinery as a result of the Friday meeting?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I could say it would be directly as a result of Friday's meeting, but it was a useful meeting in that there were additional explanations given from both sides of the table respecting some of the findings and recommendations in the report.



NATIONAL PARKS


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries whether he has had any protest from the government of Newfoundland over the new salmon regulations, and in view of the invitation by Premier Smallwood to the Newfoundland fishermen to test the new regulations by defying the law with the support of the Newfoundland government, does the government propose to change the regulations or enter into some discussions with the Newfoundland government?



MONT TREMBLANT-DISCUSSION RESPECTING POSSIBLE TRANSFER TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliefte):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
As a petition is circulating in the areas surrounding Mont Tremblant Park in the province of Quebec requesting the nationalization of this park and as the member for Labelle approves of such an initiative, could the minister tell us if his department or himself are favourable to such a move and whether he has had discussions with his Quebec counterpart on the transfer of this park to the federal government?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the new regulations were discussed with the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland. I had a personal telephone conversation with the Premier of Newfoundland last week about the regulations. I stressed to him that they were reasonable, that they would be enforced, that there were some misunderstandings, and that there are local appeal committees to deal with individual cases. I think the whole question is being exaggerated.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Justice. Is the Acting Minister of Justice considering reinvoking the temporary public order act to accommodate for the pseudo-violence of the premier as the election approaches in the province in Newfoundland in view of his statement that the fishermen of the province are advised to break the law and that legal counsel would be provided for them in the event they did so, despite the fact that this is sort of a ridiculous statement from a public official?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed with provincial authorities several possibilities in the province of Quebec. As to this particular project or any other, we are not in a position to reveal their characteristics at the present time.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Can the minister specifically tel] us whether he has discussed that project?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot say so, Mr. Speaker.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Since Mrs. Kirkland-Casgrain, the Quebec Minister of Tourism, has rejected that proposal, at least if we are to believe the newspaper reports, is the minister in a position to tell us whether it is a definite and official position of the Quebec government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have not recently communicated with Mrs. Casgrain to discuss her statement.
May 25, 1971



THE CENSUS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A moment ago he explained there were large areas across Canada where the Post Office is so inefficient and ineffective that the census questionnaires could not be entrusted to it for delivery. Would he let the House and also the Postmaster General know what proportion of Canada is in that category.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I was not saying that. I was saying that each return must be checked by regional officials of DBS and that the officials who are checking must be in a position to ask further questions and seek clarification very rapidly. If they have to wait for mail deliveries to be made, however fast they may be, in rural areas or if they have to use telephones which more than one person are using, it would be very difficult to maintain the confidentiality and have the returns on time. I was trying to provide a reasonable explanation, but I see my hon. friend does not want to be reasonable today, or at any other time for that matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have heard the reinterpretation of a statement that was capable of only one meaning, namely, that a large part of the Post Office service in Canada is out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that these returns will have to be checked by the staff of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. How can he account for the information put out to householders who do not have to mail their returns to DBS but have to return them to the census commissioners for perusal by the census commissioner in each of the small localities?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and is really supplementary to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Have Great Britain and the United States suspended their development aid to Pakistan and has Canada considered the same course of action?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that any of the main donor countries have suspended their aid to Pakistan.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In a recent letter to the minister in charge of the Post Office the minister stated that no compensation would be paid for parcels stolen from postal boxes in the Riverside and Walkley Road areas in Ottawa during the Christmas season. I want to ask the minister if he thinks the people of Canada should use the federal mail to send Christmas gifts, or is it the attitude of the government that it does not give a damn about the poor people in senior citizens' homes who are still waiting for some of their gifts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That, of course, is not a question.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilion West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in order to find out what the government's priorities may be. In view of the fact that before he left on his Russian visit the Prime Minister indicated that perhaps some arrangement could be reached between the provinces and the federal government to terminate the high unemployment that the country now faces, is this item now on the agenda, and has the federal government been involved with each province in order to use its influence to see that this matter is discussed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question was rather obscure. I think the hon. gentleman was asking whether this matter was on the agenda of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference. I believe the Prime Minister made it quite clear that if the provinces wished these matters to be discussed they could be added to the agenda, at the end of the agenda, so as not to supplant the discussion of constitutional reform which has made such great progress in recent months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Has the Acting Prime Minister received any direction from the provinces on whether or not this would be a proper course to follow and that because of its importance unemployment should be on the agenda?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not had any direct answer to this question yet. The Minister of Justice is just about to make a tour of all the provincial capitals to discuss preparations for the conference, and perhaps this will provide another opportunity for the matter to be discussed. But, as I say, the federal government is quite happy to have a discussion at the forthcoming conference on these matters, and I am sure they will be discussed. However, I hope the hon. gentleman will agree with me that constitutional reform, on which we have made quite extraordinary progress, should not be supplanted by any other subject.

May 25, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-Easi Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government have any projects on the planning board to provide 100,000 jobs in the north?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member lor Waterloo.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, a question of privilege, or in whatever way this may be acceptable. During his visit to Russia the Prime Minister has made a statement to the effect that he is prepared to send 100,000 young Canadians north. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, on what projects?


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



INDUSTRY


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he had an opportunity to conclude his examination of the brief of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and can he say whether he is prepared to accept the union recommendation for the establishment of a regulatory body for that industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I met with the gentlemen referred to in the question and we had a discussion on these matters. I suggested that that particular recommendation would mark a very substantial change in the political and administrative set-up of the country, and I personally was not in a position that day to make a decision on that matter.


Max Saltsman: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We have gone beyond the end of the question period, but perhaps with consent the Leader of the Opposition might be allowed to ask a question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question, one that I asked him last week following an indication that the position of Russia with regard to a balanced reduction of forces had changed in recent months. I asked the minister if he could indicate to the House what change there had been in the Russian position. He did not seem to know at that time. I wonder if he has since had an opportunity to find out, and is he now prepared to indicate briefly, in answer to this very important question, how and to what extent
the Russian position with regard to a reduction of forces
has changed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Soviet Union has changed. I regret I did not follow this up to get a sample of the kind of statements that were being made some months ago and those that are being made today to show the extent to which the position has changed, but indeed I think it is fair to say that there has been a notable advance in this field on both sides, and I do hope we can have some very fruitful discussions in Lisbon.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 7, 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. When the committee rose on Wednesday, April 7, 1971, clause 14 of the bill, with an amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board, was being considered. The amendment is as follows:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 22 and 23 on page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons, establish a Ministry of State for that"
Shall the amendment carry?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment has been the subject of discussion between the house leaders of the various parties and has resulted in an order of the House, which was adopted last week, providing for a rather different dispensation than is indicated in this particular amendment. With the permission of the committee I would withdraw the amendment and propose another one in its place.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that the President of the Treasury Board has permission to withdraw the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: It is so ordered.
Amendment withdrawn.

May 25, 1971


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I should like to move then, in lieu of that particular amendment, the following:
That Bill C-207 be amended
(a)	by striking out clause 17 on page 6;
(b)	by renumbering clause 18 as clause 17; and
(c)	by adding thereto immediately after clause 17, as so renumbered, the following clause:
18	(1) An order in council authorizing the issuance of a proclamation under section 14 or 16 shall not be made until the proposed text of the order in council has been laid before the House of Commons by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the making of the order in council has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(2) Where the proposed text of an order in council has been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to subsection (1), a motion in the House of Commons proposed by a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in accordance with the rules of the House, praying that the making of the order in council be approved, shall be debated in the House for not more than seven hours, after which time the question shall be decided in accordance with the rules of the House.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have a copy of the amendment?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I apologize for the absence of copies, Mr. Chairman. They should have been here and I am sure they will be along in a moment. The proposed wording I hope does give effect to the order the House adopted last week.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Chairman, having listened to it I think it does give effect to an understanding reached through the usual channels with regard to the terms of various amendments which were to be made. For the sake of facilitating debate, because I am sure there will be a little discussion on these matters on clause 14, and since the amendment deals with the deletion of clause 17 and the substitution of another clause, I hope that we might be allowed to deal with Part IV in total. We were following this course at the time of adjournment, and I am just asking for a continuation of that practice.
We opposed this bill for a number of reasons, Mr. Chairman. My hon. friend from the Atlantic provinces opposed the part of it which dealt with the deletion of the word "fisheries" but I will not go into that now. We opposed those parts of the bill which gave the right to create a large number of newly minted and paid officials of the government who would be drawn from this House, because we felt this would create difficulties which I will go into later when discussing another part of the bill.
We also, and this is most important, opposed the right of the government to create ministries of state at their own free will, to change those ministries, to abolish them and create new ministries in their place. It was our view, and one which resulted in this party providing substantial opposition to the proposal, that this did away with what must be one of the most important aspects of the continuance of democratic government, that of parliamentary supremacy. To a large extent this amendment
Government Organization Act, 1970 does away with this repugnant feature of the bill. While it is not perfect, I think we can accept it on the basis on which it is offered. We never get everything we want, but we felt that the discussions which took place were on a very fair level and an opportunity was given to all parties to express their viewpoint.
These negotiations carried on from April 7, the last day on which this bill was before the House and, in spite of what the Prime Minister had to say on some other occasions in this House, they were genuine, continuing discussions and negotiations in an attempt to work out a compromise. It was felt that the opposition should not be compelled to give up something which in our opinion was exceedingly important, that is, the right of Parliament to be supreme on issues of this kind but there was also the need of any government from time to time to rearrange its various portfolios and ministries as it should feel them best adapted to the needs of the day.
This illustrates the course which the opposition can take; it can oppose reasonably and vote against certain measures. As a matter of fact, before this bill is through it is our intention, in the limited time left, to oppose and vote against certain aspects of the bill. It is inherent in the opposition, and in fact it is part of its duty, to oppose measures which are repugnant, especially measures which strike at the heart of parliamentary democracy, namely the right of Parliament to be supreme. It should oppose measures of that kind to an extent and, if necessary, for a period which would permit the people of the country to be aroused and alarmed at what any government could attempt to do.
There is no doubt that the very first speech made from this side of the House by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and the first speech that I made in this House on this matter, made it absolutely clear that with respect to this aspect of the bill there would be the most formidable and the most pertinacious opposition. I refer to that part of the bill which gave to the government the right to make those changes, to create new ministries and new departments without recourse to Parliament. When the government proceeded, therefore, they knew what they were facing. I am glad that we have reached this sort of arrangement. It is essential for those who criticize and claim that Parliament is failing, that it is not doing its job, to realize that, as a result of honest discussion, an accommodation was reached whereby the opposition parties where able to find a way to secure acceptance of the principle of parliamentary supremacy. The government, in due course, will be able to secure passage of those parts of the bill which it considers necessary for proper functioning and administrative efficiency. The order made provides for this.
We had some very difficult discussions and some compromises all the way around. I give full credit to my hon. colleagues the President of the Privy Council, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Lotbiniere, as well as those who have been associated with reaching this compromise. It might have been difficult with another person as government House leader, but in this case it worked out quite effectively.

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Before concluding and giving others an opportunity to present their points of view, I wish to say something else. Over the last few days we have heard quite a lot about the defects of parliamentary government. We have heard something of the failure of the opposition to do its duty resulting in the necessity for backbenchers on the government side of the House to fill in and do the job. That suggestion bears right on this issue, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Trinity, the hon. member for Duvernay, the hon. member for York West-I think it is-and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich have been extremely vocal on this particular matter. I have examined the record of the debate on this bill and those hon. gentlemen who have had much to say about the defects of the Opposition have been silent on some matters. Not one of them stood up to defend the right to parliamentary government and the necessity for this chamber to be supreme. Not one of them, and these remarks apply to other bills that have come before the House, stood up in this chamber and defended the need for an auditor general who would be free and independent and report to this House as a free and independent agent. Not one of them stood up when amendments were moved in an attempt to secure passage of the statutory instruments legislation. I just mention these facts in passing, Mr. Chairman. It is about time some of those hon. gentlemen who are so vocal put their votes where their mouths are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: When hon. gentlemen see fit to oppose the role of the opposition, they ought to bear in mind that the opposition brought about a reasonable termination of a difficult debate on a difficult bill. I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will bear that well in mind in future. That is all I have to say about that.
We accept the amendment. The amendment offered now is a good amendment. It has been offered in the proper form, and not in the form originally offered by the minister. Our problem is, as the Chair will realize, that at present there is not in our Standing Orders a definition of affirmative and negative resolutions. Ultimately, when the regulations of the statutory instruments Act and the terms of reference of the scrutiny committee are agreed to, there will be those definitions.
At present the amendment provides that there shall not be established a ministry of state unless and until a proclamation has been laid on the table of the House and there has been opportunity to debate of some seven hours or less. That, I hope, will permit hon. members who feel that the department should not be created, or that it should be created in terms other than those proposed in the proclamation, to express their point of view. Then, if they feel that the proposal should be changed, they can urge changes upon the government. The amendment provides, in the final analysis, that the initiation ministries of state is the responsibility of the government, but their final creation is the responsibility of parliament. I think the amendment is good.
I do not object to the other amendment with regard to the deletion of that clause limiting the number of such ministries to five. The government has that power now. If the government wishes to create any number of new departments, it has the right to do so. It must do so by bringing in legislation. Perhaps this is a simpler and more efficient way of dealing with the matter, provided that it is done by proclamation and that the proclamation is laid on the table of the House. It is true that if this were done by legislative proposal there would be the usual opportunity for hon. members in opposition to propose changes and alterations and to move amendments.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, after this amendment has been passed, as I assume it will be, that if at some time in future ministries of state are created, apart from the two which are the subject of the House order, there will be full discussion and debate when the matters come into the House and that the Chair will look with some leniency upon any attempt by opposition members to amend motions of this kind. I know that the Chair cannot decide in advance what course of action it will take, be just as hon. members of the House do not know what their course of action will be. I hope, however, that a proclamation setting up in some detail establishment of a ministry of state will be susceptible to reasonable debate in this House and to reasonable amendment. That would take the place of a statute. Its terms of reference may be fairly difficult and complex and those hon. members who want to make suggestions and alterations should have an opportunity of doing so. I simply file that as a caveat. Perhaps we shall have to wait for one or two years before we have an opportunity to test this.
Having said that, I repeat that I am glad to see this amendment. I am glad to see it introduced through cooperation and understanding, and I am glad to see that it underlines the fundamental principle which we in this House should never forget: that, since we are the representatives of the people of Canada, the final say on matters of this kind should always lie in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, as I read this amendment, it implements to the letter the agreement worked out by the House leaders with respect to this phase of the bill. We, therefore, are happy to indicate our support of the amendment and will vote for the clause as amended in this respect.
I do not wish to engage in any contest with my good friend the hon. member for Peace River as to who fought the hardest against the unlimited powers that were contained in this bill before the amendment was proposed. May I just say that the record is clear that members of this party made it equally clear that we could not accept an arrangement that would have added, as this bill did, to the enormous powers of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Selkirk spoke on this matter, and so did I in the course of my remarks on second reading. We made our position very clear. We said that one of the things wrong with Parliament at present is that too much power is being put into the hands of one man, and we simply could not countenance this addition to that enormous

May 25, 1971

power. Statements about the power of the Prime Minister have been made in recent days by hon. members sitting to the right of the Chair and, indeed, by one or two who have been pretty close to the citadels of power and who were aware of what they were saying.
Before this amendment was proposed, this bill gave the Prime Minister complete power to set up ministries of state with ministers presiding over them, in other words new departments of government, without any reference to Parliament whatsoever. Under this amendment that situation has now been changed. Any new departments, which is after all what there would be if we set up ministries of state with ministers presiding over them, can be established only after there has been the explicit approval of Parliament after debate on the floor of the House of Commons.
I am glad that the amendment refers not only to proclamations under clause 14 but also to proclamations under clause 16. Clause 14 is the one under which a new minister and ministry of state can be established. Clause 16 is the clause under which the name of a minister or ministry of state can be varied. It would have been unfortunate if clause 16 had not been included. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is no need to spin out this debate. We support the amendment.
We on this side are being very modest. This could be a time when we could jump around and say how we have won the battle which the opposition has waged. The fact is we are pleased. I think there will go down in history the words that the President of the Privy Council used when he referred the other day to the retreat that had been made on his side. He said it was a retreat that he enjoyed. We are all happy. We have reached agreement. That is fine. Let us support the amendment and get on to the other clauses of the bill.
There was one statement by the hon. member for Peace River that I would like to amend slightly. He spoke of this amendment giving to those in opposition the right to have the last word as to whether the government sets up a new ministry of state. May I just say that this amendment places that right where it ought to be, not just in the hands of the opposition, but in the hands of Parliament. We are pleased to note the growing uneasiness among members who sit to Your Honour's right over the power of the government. I think members on that side are as happy as we are that the battle was sustained and that the House leaders got together and reached an accord so that we now have a provision under which this attempt by the Prime Minister to add to his enormous powers has been clipped. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, we welcome the amendment. It will have our support.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I inadvertently referred to the hon. member for York Centre. I want to give credit to all members by correctly stating their constituencies. It was the hon. member for York West I had in mind when I referred to members who should put their votes where their mouths are.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 17 and 18, as amended, agreed to.
Russell Clayton Honey: Shall the committee revert to clause 14 under this Part?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: The committee now has for consideration clause 14.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 22 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 23-Other Ministers of State
Mr. McCulcheon:: I wish to direct one or two questions to the minister in connection with clause 23. In all of this discussion, there has been no mention of the tremendous increase in cost for these extra ministers. I would like to throw out one or two thoughts that I have on this subject. Possibly the minister can comment on these.
At this moment there is a proposition before the House with regard to increased salaries of Members of Parliament. Why is so much weight given to the suggestion that another minister is going to be appointed? Why is this necessary as far as the salary range is concerned? If the increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament is approved, this should be adequate. The government might take a lead from industry in this regard and give these individuals the title and authority without the additional salary. These ministries could be used as a training ground. If the individuals can cut the mustard, they could be advanced to full status. Here is an opportunity for the government to save a little money and at the same time recognize budding talent, but that budding talent should prove itself in the same way as is done in business. I just throw out this suggestion for the minister's comments. Why would something of that order not be favoured by the government? Why should a person be more important just because he is drawing an extra salary?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In answer to the last question, which I understand to be why should a man have greater importance just because he is drawing extra salary, I think it is generally acknowledged in both the private and public sectors that remuneration should be provided adequate to the responsibilities which a man is being asked to discharge. In our kind of social economic environment, we normally measure by differential in salary, the difference in responsibilities and the onerousness of the duties the man is going to have to carry out.
I do not think the hon. member will argue that the responsibilities which the nominated ministers of state

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 will be called upon to perform are greater than those of the ordinary otherwise not specially rewarded Member of Parliament. Therefore, there should be some supplementary stipend over and above that of an ordinary member of the House of Commons. Undoubtedly, one could say that although they will have additional responsibilities, they will also have additional dignity and this additional dignity should be adequate compensation. I am not sure that this is in line with our general philosophy of rewarding a man in monetary terms commensurate with his responsibilities. Therefore, I cannot accept the suggestion that we would save money by merely suggesting to the ministers who are appointed that they should accept the additional responsibilities and regard the added dignity which is attached to the position as adequate compensation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the President of the Treasury Board one or two questions on this issue. I will probably have more to say after the minister answers. I do not mean that as a threat. I would like to know just what the intentions of the government are with regard to the cabinet structure. At the present time there are ministers who are responsible for a department and who report to the House accordingly. There are also ministers without portfolio. In future there are to be two new positions, ministers of state who will be responsible for a ministry of state and ministers of state who will be responsible for assisting other ministers. In other words, four classes of minister will be on the executive council. To what extent will each share in the decision-making process? Is it the intention to adopt a new cabinet structure making provision for a small, inner cabinet?
I have in mind, of course, the remarks made by the hon. member for Trinity who is most concerned about this aspect. Some of the rest of us are concerned about it as well. What will be the ranking of the cabinet in future? What is the general intention? These are questions of some consequence, because I do not think it can be said that the administrative competence of the government has been so high that the House can afford to pass a measure of this kind without inquiring in detail as to the government's intentions. I am particularly interested in the ranking and duties of these ministers. I know that these duties are to some extent outlined in the legislation. But what are the government's intentions? Are they strictly honourable?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: With regard to the last question, I can answer it very shortly and very positively. Yes. There has probably been sufficient indication given concerning the functions and the place of these new ministers to enable me to answer the other questions.
As far as ranking is concerned, they will all be members of the Queen's Privy Council when appointed and will rank according to the rules of precedence of that body. They will, in accordance with our current convention, be members of the cabinet as are all ministers. To
the best of my knowledge there has been no plan announced to form different levels or tiers of cabinet. As I believe the House is aware, the Prime Minister has endeavoured to decentralize the work of the cabinet and make it more effective by providing for particular consideration of most areas by small groups of ministers, cabinet committees, prior to decision-taking or resolution by the cabinet as a whole. The ministers to be appointed ministers of state with a ministry, or ministers of state without a ministry, or ministers without portfolio will fit into that pattern and it is not proposed to establish different levels of cabinet.
The duties of these ministers are outlined fairly well in a general way in the proposed legislation. In the case of ministers of state, they will be appointed to preside over a ministry of state and they will fulfil duties similar to those of ministers with departments for whose supervision they are responsible. The nature of those responsibilities will be indicated either in the form of a draft bill in the case of a department or by way of a draft order in council in the case if ministers of state.
I hope this explanation will enlighten the hon. gentleman sufficiently for him to be able to see that there is no new revolutionary process contemplated here.


Gerald William Baldwin: I shudder at the words "revolutionary process" used by the President of the Treasury Board because I must say, honestly and objectively, that the cabinet changes so far introduced by the Prime Minister have been nothing less than a complete disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Gerald William Baldwin: When we look at the results, it is. I am not talking about the personnel, those who have been promoted, or who have kept their positions. I am talking about the administrative incompetence we have observed from this side of the House. I do not know about hon. members sitting on the back rows opposite. Since they see only the backs of the ministers perhaps they do not observe what we observe over here. But as far as we are concerned, the changes have been nothing short of disastrous and I intend to prove this statement beyond a shadow of a doubt. The blundering, the stumbling, the over rigidity of the cabinet committee structure, the examples of ministers falling over each other's feet, the duplication, triplication and quadruplication of ministers' responsibilities, the lack of liaison, and so on have been astonishing. It is necessary for me to establish this statement because the intentions of the government are still in doubt. The President of the Treasury Board told us he did not know how many new ministers would be appointed. My guess is that there will be quite a number.
When the apologists for the government start on their work they talk, because there is nothing else for them to say, about the marvellous efficiency of the present administration. That is absolute nonsense. When this session opened on October 8 last year His Excellency referred to a number of measures which the government intended to put forward. These were subsequently outlined in greater detail by the Prime Minister when he gave a list in the House of some 68 measures which were

May 25, 1971

to be the subject of legislation. Some would necessitate more than one bill. In addition to this list, which can be found in Hansard of October 8 or 9, a number of further measures were mentioned. So at least 75 legislative proposals were, probably, to be dealt with by Parliament.
What has happened? I have compiled a list of the legislation which has been dealt with in the House from October 8, 1970 to April 7, 1971, when the Easter recess began. I have chosen these dates because an examination of the period they comprise will support beyond doubt my allegation of gross administrative ineptness on the part of the government. I have looked up the length of time taken on each bill. There were two measures which took considerable time. One is the bill before us today. I shall not go into that now; we have had our debates on that subject and the reasons have been clearly set forth. I see the Postmaster General nodding his head. He agrees with me, I think, that there are good reasons for the length of time our discussions have taken. Another measure upon which a great deal of time was spent was the public order emergency legislation. I will simply remind hon. members that the Minister of Justice, introducing the bill, launched an attack of considerable severity against the New Democratic Party. It was his right to do so, but he exercised it in such a way as to ensure there would likely be a long and bitter debate, as in fact was the case.
Excepting those two bills, what has been the situation? From October 8 to April 7, 16 bills were passed which took approximately one day or less. Six bills took approximately two days or less, two bills took between three and five days and then, of course, there were the other two bills I have dealt with, the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act and this particular bill. So this House did its job on the measures which it received.
What has happened to the rest of the bills? Some were introduced in the other place and some here, but by April 7 to my recollection there were at least 20 measures which it had been indicated by the government, through the lips of His Excellency, were essential to the proper social and economic progress of this country but which had not yet seen the light of day in this House. Some were important bills that have not yet been introduced. However, over 20 had not been introduced into this House at that time, including the established programs (interim arrangements) act, the pilotage legislation, a bill respecting the maritime code, a bill to amend the Combines Investigation Act, the resource administration legislation, a bill to amend section 51 of the British North America Act, the computer facilities ownership legislation, a bill to amend the Immigration Appeal Board Act, a bill to amend the Criminal Code (right to privacy), a bill respecting the security review board, a bill to amend the Citizenship Act, a bill to amend the Bankruptcy Act, a bill to amend the National Parks Act, a bill respecting cigarette advertising, a bill amending the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act, a bill to amend the Representation Commission Act, and the ports legislation,
Government Organization Act, 1970 which may have been introduced in the other place, though I do not think so.


An hon. Member:: What about Bill C-176, the marketing act?


Gerald William Baldwin: But for the stupidity and obstinacy of members on the other side of the House, this bill has not got as far as it should. Because of confusion among the members of the cabinet and divisions of opinion, because of the proliferation of cabinet committees, and because of all these other things that can be characterized as nothing but gross administrative incompetency, none of these measures that I have mentioned had seen the light of day by April 7. Surely, any reasonable body of hon. gentlemen charged with the administration of this country should introduce on the first day of any session those measures which they say are necessary, in their opinion, for the well-being of this country. Each bill should be prepared and available in printed form. It is not as if many of these were new measures. I have heard the need for some of these bills kicked around the halls of this place for several years.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that when he takes advantage of this legislation to establish new ministries of state and to appoint new ministers of state he should look very carefully at the system he has created, one which as far as this House is concerned is a nightmare. I also think it is about time that the Prime Minister and his friends took a look at the cabinet structure and called in some parliamentary, government and efficiency experts to revise these procedures so as to produce a simple legislative form, and to have available on the first day of any session all bills they needed for the session. Then Parliament will have ample time to study the measures in question.
I think we can take parliamentary notice of the fact that owing to the house committee system there are problems in this House. I am not going into this subject any more; enough has been said and it will probably be brought forward again on other occasions, hopefully in the procedure committee. But as a result of the committee structure that is inflicted upon us and a lot of other difficulties that have been created, it is absolutely essential for the effective administration of this country and for the handling of the affairs of Parliament that bills be ready for presentation on the first day of every session and be introduced and given first reading at that time. This will give members of the opposition as well as members of the public, who after all are far more interested in them than anybody else, ample opportunity to examine and consider them and to promote public debate upon them.
If this is one, then after these bills are introduced in the House there will be adequate opportunity for reflection, for consideration to be given to them, thus enabling the kind of debate that should take place. I say this in all kindliness. Although there are some members of the cabinet and in the government party who believe this, I know the trouble stems from the office of the Prime Minister

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 itself. I am in good company; some members on the other side of the House have in recent weeks seen fit to support our views in this regard. The problem lies with the rigid approach of the Prime Minister to the question of securing parliamentary approval of the legislation that is required in operating the affairs of this country.
I hope these remarks will be considered by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues. Let me say the government has a sorry record in its dealing with this House and Parliament and in its attempts to secure the approval that it should have, after adequate debate and discussion, of measures because they have not been exposed in ample time to enable everyone to be well informed about them. This has not been the case ever since this Parliament met, and it certainly has not been the case during the course of this last session.
I now take my seat, having uttered those words in the spirit of utmost kindness and I hope they will be taken into account and heeded by the govenment. If there are some hon. members on the government side who are anxious to spring to the defence of the government as a model of administrative efficiency, then let them do so. If they do not, we must take it that they have some of the same doubts that I have.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Russell Clayton Honey: I might ask the committee for advice at this point. We have completed Part IV. We could now go to Part V or revert to section 2, to which an amendment is outstanding. Is it the consensus of the committee that we deal with Part V?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 25-Maximum numbers.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 25 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, you really did not think that clause 25 was going to carry as easily as all that, did you?


Mr. McCleave:: Why not? Hope springs eternal around here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The present arrangement is that the number of parliamentary secretaries in existence at any one time shall not exceed 16, which I think is pretty generous. I do not see why we should extend this number to a number that is even beyond what we think it might be. If clause 25 passes we may well be authorizing 28 or even 30 parliamentary secretaries. I suppose there will be that many votes for the clause on the other side of the committee, but nevertheless we think that the legislation should stay the way it is. Therefore, when debate on clause 25 has concluded we should like a vote on the clause so that all those who want to maintain efficiency in government and to keep down expense will be able to vote against the clause.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said succinctly what I would have said in much more extended terms. There is, of course, a place for parliamentary secretaries, and I see the hopeful looks and gleams in the eyes of hon. members sitting opposite. I would judge that the discipline of the Whip was not needed this afternoon in view of the number of hon. members sitting opposite hopefully awaiting an accolate. I see hon. members there who might well grace the offices of parliamentary secretary. I only repeat what I have said before. There now can be by the Act 28 parliamentary secretaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If this passes there might be 28 or 30.


Gerald William Baldwin: There might be 28 or 30, but there are 28 now. There are 28 existing ornaments of the Privy Council, with two more appointments possible, plus an unknown number of ministers of state who will be operating in assisting capacities. I must say that I shudder for the future of this country.


Mr. MacEachen:: This is an "exparticipatory"
democracy.


Gerald William Baldwin: I simply want to file a caveat so that at the commencement of the next session when I get up and say I told you so, and there will be opportunity to do that with the action or the lack of it on the part of this government, I will have at least laid my cards on the table. Under the circumstances, I think we have no alternative but to vote against this particular measure.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River lead me to ask whether the government will give an assurance that we can expect a little more from these parliamentary secretaries than we have been getting. I have been in opposition for quite a while, and I am tired of this silly and subservient attitude of some of these parliamentary secretaries. They should be given more responsibility in order to force them into action, or they should be told that if they are to continue in their jobs Parliament expects more from them.
I speak with a great deal of authority on this matter of parliamentary secretaries. I was appointed a parliamentary secretary in 1958 when a certain other government took over, and in 1962 I was still a parliamentary secretary.


Gerald William Baldwin: And a good one, too.


Thomas Miller Bell: I know it is very hard to get a promotion as a parliamentary secretary, and unless we do a little more for these positions we will all suffer here in Parliament. As everybody knows, we are having difficulty manning committees. I do not see why some of these parliamentary secretaries could not be induced to take the 18 minute walk to the West Block to attend some of these

May 25. 1971

committee meetings. I know they would not contribute very much, but at least their bodies would be there and could be counted in order to make up a quorum. If we press on with this measure, I think some responsible member of the government should give us full assurance that a real effort is going to be made to get these parliamentary secretaries moving. I have in mind the existing ones, those who will probably be removed and those who will be promoted.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I had hoped I might be enlightened here this afternoon about something that has intrigued me. The Prime Minister, when talking in Kiev, referred to the similarity between the system of government in that country and in Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what bothers us.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rather imagined that as a result of that, this bill might have been held up until the Prime Minister returned to suggest certain amendments in light of his experience.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to go to Siberia?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I must say that the Prime Minister's remarks were a little obscure. I had hoped the Acting Prime Minister, with his great precision and facility for enlightenment on questions of this sort, would have risen in his place this afternoon and explained what this was all about, and whether in fact the Prime Minister has made a great discovery while abroad, and whether this bill, if passed in its present form, will be satisfactory to the right hon. gentleman when he returns.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the contentions voiced by the hon. member for Saint John-Laneaster in respect of committees. I should like to draw to the attention of the committee, especially the government House leader, that while we are discussing this important clause dealing with parliamentary secretaries, there is a meeting taking place of more than one standing committee of the House which would naturally require the attendance of parliamentary secretaries since they are supposed to be exemplary members of the House. They, being dedicated members of the House, I imagine want to support the committee.
Today's Votes and Proceedings indicates that the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was to meet today at 3.30 p.m. One of the hon. members to appear before that committee is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. This is regrettable because I am sure he would like to be in the House during the discussion of this important clause of a bill which deals with parliamentary secretaries.
The Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration was to meet today at 3.30 p.m. I am sure the presence of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, is required at that meeting. I am sure there are other committees meeting today. Some met this morning, and I am sure they are continuing those meetings this afternoon.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I have raised this point before and I do so again. Obviously, some action must be initiated by the government House leader to assure the proper organization of committees so that they do not sit while the House is sitting.	If	committees must	sit	while the House is	insession	they should only sit	for	a very good reason.	Inother words, there should be an urgent or pressing matter,	or	a very important	bill to be discussed. Theseshould	be	the only reasons	for	granting permission	to
committees to sit while the House is in session.
Let me suggest also to the government House leader that it is about time we defined the rules of the House for the benefit of standing committees. Committees are governed by the rules of the House of Commons, and in my view this must preclude standing committees of this House sitting and hearing evidence without a quorum. This practice has crept into our standing committees and it is one which should be stopped. On many occasions witnesses have been heard when only four members of a standing committee were in attendance. This is a ridiculous situation, and under these circumstances the committee is not legally in session. I note that Your Honour is about to rise. I have just about concluded this part of my remarks and I ask your indulgence for any transgression on your patience and charity.
In dealing with this clause of the bill, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether it is the intention of the government to continue the practice whereby parliamentary secretaries are appointed for only one year. I should like to see a return to the practice under which parliamentary secretaries are appointed at pleasure, the same as members of the cabinet.


Gerald William Baldwin: You should say at leisure.


James Aloysius McGrath: I say that out of the very high regard, respect and sympathy I have for some former parliamentary secretaries who are outstanding members of this House, many of whom are good friends of mine. I think the fact that most of their appointments were not renewed by the government will place them in a very difficult position in their constituencies, as, it has in this House. Off the top of my head, I can think of members of the House such as the hon. member for Essex, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, the hon. member for York Centre, who did such an outstanding job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, and the hon. member for Victoria who did such a fine job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. We wonder why it was necessary to make these changes. Perhaps it is about time we seriously considered the proposition of reverting to the original system whereby parliamentary secretaries were appointed at pleasure in order to avoid members of the House being embarrassed by not having their appointments renewed by the government. I ask this question of the President of the Treasury Board in the hope that perhaps he can enlighten the committee on it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, while the President of the Treasury Board is reflecting on that-

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question?


Gerald William Baldwin: No. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I yield.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the debate and since I receive answers every time I ask questions of the minister, I should like to impose again on his good nature. We are now to have regular ministers as we know them today. Then, we are to have ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries. How many persons will this involve; how many government members will be involved? Will there be 65 or 70 people, or how many? We do not have that answer. Another question which came to my mind was alluded to by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. It concerns the appointment of these people for a full term. Although it would depend on the minister's answer, I can see difficulties in the future. It seems to me the government is making its decision on the basis of the present membership in the House of Commons. If as I suspect there will be 65 or 70 people on whom hands are laid, this will mean there will be 80 to 85 left out. In 1963, and again in 1965, the government members numbered only 133 or 134.
If a similar situation were to develop-and I believe it could develop pretty rapidly-will we still play musical chairs? The point is this that in a House in which the government party had fewer members there will not be much choice after the cream has been taken off the top; not much material will remain. So, I am led to believe the government is really not looking for talent particularly but for a possible means of rewarding the faithful. I wonder if the minister, in his good natured way, would answer the question I threw out at the start of my remarks.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: For just a moment, Mr. Chairman, may I pursue the arithmetic that

May 25, 1971

has been the subject of discussion in the last little while, by pointing out that we would be buying a pig in poke if we were to endorse a clause which says that the number of parliamentary secretaries can be the equal of the number of ministers who hold offices for which salaries are provided in section 4 of the Salaries Act. We do not know how many there will be. It could be quite large if that number increases. However, the point I wanted to raise is in the form of a question I would like to put to the President of the Treasury Board.
I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether there has been any study-and I have in mind an academic, philosophical study, not just a legalistic approach-into the question of what this does to the concept of the independence of Parliament? As I am sure the President of the Treasury Board is aware, there are a number of sections in the Senate and House of Commons Act which have over them that title "Independence of Parliament." The general theme of the sections that come under that heading is that persons cannot hold offices of emolument under the Crown and sit as members of the House of Commons, and there are parallel provisions for members of the Senate. We have amended the legislation a dozen times to meet this principle.
Once upon a time when a member was appointed to the cabinet following a general election, he had to resign his seat and go back and get elected again in the constituency that elected him on general election day. We abolished that by putting a specific section in the Senate and House of Commons Act which says that nothing in this act renders ineligible any persons who hold certain cabinet posts, and they are all listed. We have other provisions to make it legal for persons to be Ministers without Portfolio, or to be ministers of state, or to be parliamentary secretaries, despite the general rule that Members of Parliament should not be getting additional money by the holding of an office of emolument under the Crown. As I say, I would not even try to make a legalistic point. I would not try to raise a point of order and say that this connot be done because it has been taken care of in so many ways. But surely there was some foundation for the original concept that led to this group of sections entitled "Independence of Parliament". Surely, the idea was that people who sit in this house and have to make decisions and cast votes should not be influenced by the fact that some of them are getting additional money from the government.
I have had correspondence with one or two professors of political science who are quite worried about this. I will not name them publicly, although I would be glad to give the names to the minister. In this correspondence I have played the role of Devil's Advocate. I have pointed out that so long as somewhere in the act there is a clause that says, notwithstanding the other provisions this is legal, that legalizes the situation. But back come letters from my professorial friends saying that surely the whole idea of the independence of Parliament is that people should not be in a position where they are, in a sense, obligated to the government.
If you have a House of Commons in which there is a majority party of 150 or so-I believe that is the number
Government Organization Act, 1970 at the present time-and if up to 60 of them are on the extra payroll of the government, and if about 25 or 30 of them are there for a couple of years and another 25 or 30 take their place, aren't we getting into a situation where the whole idea that members should not be influenced in a monetary way is somewhat shattered? I am not simply asking the minister did he check with the Department of Justice, is this legal, and have all the loopholes been plugged? I am asking whether there has been a philosophical or academic consideration of this question, bearing in mind what I am sure is the desire of the President of the Treasury Board, that there be no weakening of the independence of Parliament?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge there has been no such specific study in depth although a number of people have thought about this particular problem from time to time, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicates, some of them within the government as well as those he has knowledge of outside. However, if there has been a formal study I am unaware of it, but as a matter of interest might make inquiry.
I am rather at a loss to understand his suggestion that because a man gets paid for doing a job this in some way threatens his independence of judgment. Basically what I think the hon. gentleman is looking at is what is known as a conflict of interest, that is where the public interest which is supposed to be predominant and to pre-occupy Members of Parliament-and I am glad to say in most cases does-would be in conflict with the individual's private interest, and he would be tempted at least to opt, when casting his vote, in favour of his private interest. However, Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how an arrangement to compensate members of the government side who are appointed as parliamentary secretaries, and consequently have increased duties, in any way will subvert their independence or give rise to a conflict of interest.
a (4:20 p.m.)
In the ordinary course of events a member of the party supporting the government will want to see that its views get the kind of support that they undoubtedly merit. Whether he is paid or not he will wish to provide that kind of support, and this particular influence is neither increased nor decreased by reward. I am not too sure what particular conflicts gave rise to this general provision, unless it was felt that Members of Parliament should not at the same time be public servants or what is known as civil servants, in effect directing themselves from a seat in the House of Commons. Perhaps there is also a disinclination to allow, as is provided by other sections, public servants of Canada to receive rewards from the Crown while at the same time passing judgment on the validity of its actions. We have severely restrictive clauses on the relationship of Members of Parliament to the general handling of contracts and I think this is because of a desire to avoid conflict of interest.
In this particular case, however, compensating Members of Parliament who undertake special duties no more falls afoul of the conflict of interest rule than, perhaps.

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
compensating Members of Parliament. I could use the argument of the hon. member to observe, in philosophical terms, that hon. members should serve gratis. I am not sure that in our present context this suggestion would be a very useful one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the attention the President of the Treasury Board has given to my observations. I was interested in his statement that there had been no in-depth study made of this matter. I hope that one of these new ministers of state or new parliamentary secretaries for whom there might not be other work, might be assigned to this interesting study.
I do not quarrel with the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board that in terms of the ordinary definition of words, "conflict of interest" and "independence of Members of Parliament" may seem to be the same thing. I want to emphasize, however, that in the context of these discussions conflict of interest usually refers to the situation where a Member of Parliament is paid an indemnity for serving the people generally and has an outside interest as a director of a company-in other words, has an interest with a profit-making organization outside Parliament. There have been studies in depth of this question and copies of such a study were tabled a year or two ago by the present Minister of National Defence who then held another portfolio.
Under the heading of "Members of Parliament" as it appears in the Senate and House of Commons Act, the reference is not to a conflict between what one does here and what one does in private business, but rather to a conflict between one's position as a person of complete independence on the floor of Parliament and yet having income given to him as an extra by the government.
I appreciate the fact that the President of the Treasury Board engaged in a bit of a philosophical discussion, as did I, but we did not end with the same conclusion. I do not take it so easily that this does not influence members on the government side of the House. I think when the government has 50 or 60 members on its pay roll in the course of a couple of years or 75 or 90 members on its payroll in the course of a Parliament, it may make the boys on that side feel a little more like supporting the government, although in their better judgment they know that they should not do so.
We shall not get anywhere on this discussion, so I would just suggest that as there has been a study of the question of conflict of interest, which is the conflict between what one does here and what one does in the private business world, there should also be a study on the independence of Parliament, making sure that there is no conflict between what one does here as a Member of Parliament and one's obligations to the government that gives the extra job.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I disagree with so much of what has been said on both sides that I am tempted to get into the debate this afternoon. I used to be a parliamentary secretary so I know some of the problems of that particular breed. I think parliamentary secretaries
are useful if they can serve a minister without tripping over the deputy minister's cat and have a willingness to work. Some ministers can profit from having a parliamentary secretary. I was attached to an outstanding minister, the Hon. E. Davey Fulton when he was minister of public works and spokesman in this House for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and he allowed me to work.
Looking at the other side of the House I can see that a parliamentary secretary would be very useful to the Minister of Finance, particularly if he knew anything about finance, because the minister does not. A parliamentary secretary would be useful to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as is the present parliamentary secretary because we can ask him questions and get short answers that we understand. There are other ministers, however, to whom parliamentary secretaries would not be of much value and so I have to support the amendment because I do not think we should give this government carte blanche with regard to the number appointed.
I think this would hurt committee attendance to some degree, particularly when a parliamentary secretary has finished his term, is pushed back into the shadows and no longer has much interest in this place. This is what has happened to a few former parliamentary secretaries, despite the Prime Minister's intention to give everyone on his side a whirl at a job which provides additional pay.
I disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when he says that preaching for these calls may unduly inhibit Members of Parliament. There are a few who will today for such appointments, and I have seen them do it in the past but their number is few. When the hon. member suggests that there should be some examination on the effect of conflict of interest on parliamentary secretaries, I wonder how such an examination could be carried out. Would it be done with lie detectors or some sort of instrument that could peer into whatever brains Members of Parliament have to find out what motivates them? I think this is an insult and as such is not worthy of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. In other words, I think that we as Members of Parliament are not so easily seduced.
Those members who can perform a useful function for a minister should be appointed and given an opportunity to fit into the work of the department. A parliamentary secretary can be of use. If he is not to be given some kind of authority, if he is not to be given some kind of welcome and if he is to be treated as someone the minister would rather see walking down the other side of the street, then I say to the Prime Minister, for God's sake and for the sake of the treasury, keep those parliamentary secretaries away from that type of minister. In looking at some of the ministers opposite, and quite a number of them are present this afternoon, perhaps assessing the talent that they may wish to see serving them, I say, take this seriously. I think also, Sir, that appointments of that kind should be made from both sides of the House. I know that the whip of the official opposition is in the position of a parliamentary secretary

May 25, 1971

in that he, along with the government whip, enjoys some special advantages.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Monetary advantages. I think those advantages should be given to others. The House leaders for the official opposition, for the New Democratic Party and for the Creditistes perform special functions in this House, and I think they should be given special rewards. Otherwise, when they come up against that formidable fellow, the President of the Privy Council, they will find that he outpecks them by $10,000 a year. In the scheme of things money means something in the operation of Parliament and the status of people. So Sir, I submit that we need to take a fresh look at this. Assuming that the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is Parliament and the status of people. So, Sir, I submit that the Prime Minister will not run hog wild with this power and that he will use it with discretion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just asked for a vote against the clause.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I beg your pardon. I am advised that it is simply a matter of voting against the clause. I assume that the hon. member's suggestion will be defeated. I hope that the Prime Minister will exercise discretion and not go right to the limit in appointing the numbers that he is entitled to appoint. I hope, when the next reorganization bill comes around, and they seem to come around about every two years and more often than Halley's comet, that the government will consider some of the appointments in the areas I have suggested.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, may I make a few comments and give a little advice. I know advice is something the government does not like getting and does not take. I see ministers sitting on the government side of the House to whom I have given advice. If they had taken it, the advice would have had beneficial effects for both the ministry and the country. My first piece of advice is this. In bringing about these interesting rearrangements and proposals which the President of the Treasury Board has in mind, I point out that the government has a limited amount of time in which to engage in that experiment. They should make the most of that time. An interesting event will probably take place next year which will terminate the capacity of the government for making appointments of any kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is wishful thinking and not a prophesy.


Gerald William Baldwin: I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that he appoint as many members as possible to those positions. We recognize that most backbenchers on the government side of the House have not been useful to Parliament as backbenchers. It may be that the extra knowledge they will gain from being parliamentary
Government Organization Act, 1970 secretaries or ministers of state will permit them, when they come to this side of the House, to play a much more effective and efficient part than they play at present.
My second piece of advice is this: The government should try to appoint to those positions backbenchers who are independent minded. I know it is exceedingly difficult for the government to find backbenchers who are truly independent.


An hon. Member:: There are a few.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are a few who voiced their views at one time but, like good little Liberal lambs, they went bleating back to the fold. They have not been independent for very long. It is essential for backbenchers to be independent. If there is anything this government needs, it is a fair amount of independence on the part of its backbenchers as well as in the executive. It needs independence among cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries.
I see ministers sitting opposite me who have expressed individual and distinct opinions. They did not do that because they were independent minded but because they did not know what the others in the cabinet were doing. They were confused, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested. So, I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board, to the President of the Privy Council and to the Prime Minister, that they should search diligently and see if they cannot find members among the backbenchers on the government side who are independent and who will retain that independence. I am sure that that would make for better government. There is lots of room for improvement. I offer this advice and criticism in the hope that it will be accepted.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask a question and do a little reminiscing. I wonder if the minister could verify this story. When the present government leader in the Senate was a parliamentary secretary, he put out so many statements and did so much work that he completely overshadowed his minister and embarrassed the government of the day. When they discovered that it would be difficult to remove him, they decided that the best thing to do was to appoint him to the cabinet.
The Depuiy Chairman: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Clause 25 agreed to: Yeas, 35: nays, 21.
On clause 28


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before clause 28 carries may I ask the President of the Treasury Board why, in the construction of this bill, one amendment to the Salaries Act is that which is before us in clause 28, whereas there is another amendment to the Salaries Act in Schedule B, page 18 of the bill. Why could not all amendments to the Salaries Act have been put in one place?
6090

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer it that it is a matter of drafting convenience in that clause 28 of the current bill provides a substantive new section in the Salaries Act, which did not exist before, whereas the schedules are amendments that do not represent substantial changes but represent changes in nomenclature, and so forth.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 29:	Appropriations based on 1970-71
Estimates.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I indicated last time we were considering this bill that, by reason of the amendments made to the interim supply bill, it would be necessary to amend clause 29 of this bill and make provision for supply during the interim period until June 30 for the ministry of fisheries and forestry. After that, supply would have to be provided, as this bill intends, for the new department of the environment. Consequently, I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 20 and 21 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"31st day of March, 1972, based on Estimates 1971-72 to
defray the expenses of the"
The new clause, as amended, will read:
The provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1972, based on Estimates 1971-72 to defray the expenses of the public service of Canada within any department, branch or other part of the public service

As I indicated, the purpose of this will be to make provisional supply consequent with the new department of the environment as now contained in the main estimates as amended by the interim supply bill.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have some general remarks to make. This is probably the appropriate time to make them. Two of my colleagues also want to make some remarks on this general subject. I wonder if it might be more expeditious to do so when we revert to Part I, clause 2. I make that suggestion. I hope that when we revert to that, I will be given an opportunity to say a few words.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The Chair is in agreement with the hon. member that he make his remarks when we revert to clause 2.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 33 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 34-Commencement
Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister a question? When is it proposed to proclaim this measure?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In the interest of efficient administration,
Mr. Chairman, the answer is as quickly as possible. For some time the government has been arguing that bringing this act into operation is a matter of considerable
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
public importance. We want to do it as rapidly as possible. After consideration of this bill by the Senate, which I hope will not be long, it will be proclaimed as soon as possible.
In connection with the proclamation provided in clause 34, another item mentioned related to the effective date of discharge from the public service in order to enable public servants to qualify for early retirement, particularly with the changes in organization contemplated at defence forces bases in Manitoba. We wish to have clause 27 of the bill given effect from the end of the fiscal year rather than from some date in May or June of the current year. In order to give effect to that desire, and I think this arrangement has the support of the House, I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 14 and 15 on page 15 and substituting the following:
Commence- "34. (1) This Act, except section 27, shall come ment	into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
Idem	(2) Section 27 shall come into force on April
30, 1971."
If this amendment is passed along with the bill, Mr. Chairman, it will be possible for the employment of those at these bases which I have in mind to terminate in accordance with the plan shortly after the end of the fiscal year and for them to qualify for the early retirement provisions which they otherwise would not be able to do.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few comments at this stage. The formula used by the minister is acceptable. It is certainly much more acceptable them one used on another occasion when we gave permission to have parts of a bill proclaimed and then found that little snippets were taken out of the breathalyser law and other snippets were left. In this instance, the minister has stated his case frankly. For that he is to be thanked.
The minister made this request of some of us before. We are not surprised that it is now coming forth. Generally speaking. I think it can be accepted by the official opposition. At some stage before we vote on this amendment, will the minister indicate whether any other classes of people will or could be affected by what we are being asked to do with regard to clause 27.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There is no specific class or group of people in mind other than those I have mentioned. When the bill was originally drafted, a plan to close some armed forces bases in the Prairie provinces was approved on the understanding that the people who are going to be released according to the timetable of this plan would be able to avail themselves of the provisions of these amendments. Obviously, there are other persons in the government who, if the amendments were not made, would have left the government service between March 31, 1971 and the date of proclamation, whenever that is in the future, who would not be able to take advantage of these early retirement provisions. I do not know who they might be but now they will be able to retire as a consequence of what has been specifically made necessary
May 25, 1971

6(m
in order to enable us, in all justice, to proceed with the closures in western Canada at the end of the fiscal year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The amendment which the President of the Treasury Board has moved is of course in keeping with the commitment he made on April 7 as reported in Hansard at page 5013. But I wonder whether it would not also be necessary to make an amendment to clause 27(3), bearing in mind that according to clause 34, section 27 shall come into force on April 30, 1971. Clause 27(3) still reads "after the coming into force of this Act." Is there not a conflict which will have to be resolved by making a consequential change in subclause (3) of clause 27? Otherwise, you will have two different dates. You have clause 34 saying section 27 shall come into force on April 30, 1971, but over on page 12 in lines 3 to 10 you have a clause which reads that these benefits shall apply only in respect to persons who cease to be employed in the Public Service after the coming into force of this act. Do you not want that to read "after the coming into force of this section" as provided in clause 34? I seem to be having trouble getting my point across to the minister, though it is a simple one. I want to be sure that his commitment is to be carried into law.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I should like to be sure, too. But I have been assured by the drafters in the Department of Justice that the purpose we are trying to accomplish, namely, making available these early retirement provisions to those who would have retired before the date of the proclamation of the act as a whole, and subsequent to March 30-


Stanley Howard Knowles: April 30.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -will, in fact, be accomplished. Sorry if I got the date wrong. Yes, that is correct, April 30. I do not claim to be an expert drafter, but I am told it is not necessary to change the wording in subclause (3) to achieve this purpose.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Since I last rose I have done what I should have done earlier,-that is-I have looked at the second page of the document which was handed to us after the minister had moved his amendment to clause 34. I find the amendment to clause 27 is already there for the minister to move, that the bill be amended by striking out line 10 on page 12, and so on. I was more correct than I realized.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I stand corrected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, then that after we have dealt with clause 34 we shall revert to clause 27 and that the minister will move the other amendment which he has in his hands after all.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Today we heard the shocking revelation that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has no faith in the operation of the Post Office.
Government Organization Act, 1970 This situation was brought about by letting a minister of communications look after its affairs. Clause 26 of the bill before us provides for a full time Postmaster General. Since the minister who is piloting this bill through the House is now prepared to amend clause 27, making it retroactive until April 30, I would ask him this question: why in the world cannot the government include provision for retroactivity in the case of the Postmaster General?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I put that forward as a serious proposition because I have great respect for this minister's ability. He should be in that job and on it fulltime. I think the least the government could do for him would be to make his appointment retroactive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I share the views of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken in relation to the abilities of my colleague who has been carrying out the duties of Postmaster General. I, too, would like to see this appointment made retroactive. The fact of the matter is that the government feels, perhaps, it has greater obligation to those of its public servants who are being let out of work as a consequence of internal reorganization than it has to one of our own members in relation to retroactivity. I am not sure what date one would select for retroactive purposes. If we were to do this for a minister there might be suggestions in relation to those so close to the ministry that we were looking after ourselves and not doing so well for those for whom we are perhaps responsible. I should like to take advice, which I shall do, as to whether the kind of amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman would be possible without a further message from His Excellency. I will inquire about this.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: It is the understanding of the Chair that it might be desirable to revert, now, to clause 27, if I correctly understood the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Does the committee agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 27


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out line 10 on page 12 and substituting the following: "force of this section".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once again, I should like to say that I welcome the amendment. It is now clear that between this clause, as amended, and clause 34, as amended, the provisions for early retirement on immediate annuities will apply to public servants who were on strength up to and including April 30.
24107-35 i

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I was glad to hear the minister say that, although the particular groups that the government had in mind when it sought this change were the groups of civilian employees who were dismissed from certain bases in Manitoba on April 30, nevertheless it is so worded that it will cover anyone in the public service who was on strength on April 30. The minister must be aware that there are a number of individuals who, when they saw this legislation coming many months ago, began to make their plans accordingly. I know of a number of who, on the strength of the minister's announcement on April 7, arranged to make their retirement on April 30, and they will be glad when this amendment has been carried and the legislation put through all its stages so they can get the benefit of the early retirement set out in this bill.
When we were debating clause 27 some weeks ago the minister dealt with a number of subjects that had been raised. We had a vote on a matter on which we did not see eye to eye and we lost the vote. Nevertheless, there was one aspect of the whole matter concerning which the minister was kind enough to say my arguments had impressed him. That admission from him is to be found on page 4748 of Hansard, where he said:
I cannot help but be moved by the eloquent plea ot the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
One has to watch out when something like that is said, but the plea I made on that occasion had to do with the escalation of the pensions of members of the armed forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police who retire before the age of 60. I am going to be as brief as I can and I am not going to rehash the whole debate on Bill C-194 of last session. The fact is that the major argument that the government used on that occasion for not permitting the escalation of the pensions of these two groups who took their pensions prior to age 60 was that 60 was the earliest age at which a public servant could have his pension escalated. There are a few exceptions to that, such as persons on pension because of ill health; but the general rule was that public servants could not and would not get their pensions escalated until they reached age 60, and that therefore RCMP and armed forces personnel must not ask for their pensions to be escalated prior to age 60.
Now, however, Mr. Chairman, under the terms of this bill, Bill C-207, we are providing that certain public servants who retire before the age of 60 can get their pensions escalated annually starting right away. We make this provision by a combination of clauses in Bill C-207, in Bill C-194 of last session and the Public Service Superannuation Act. Therefore, I contend that if by breaking this barrier we have now decided it is possible for public servants who retire before age 60 to enjoy the benefit of having their pensions escalated right away, there is no longer any moral ground for denying the same right to retired members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I made this argument at some length when we debated this matter on March 30 and the minister, as I have already said, was kind enough not only to listen to my
argument but to say that he was impressed by it. He ended his statement with these words:
It would be my hope that any imbalance that the passage of these amendments might bring about the relationship of pensioners in the public service and the two forces could be rectified.
The two forces referred to by the minister are, of course, the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
My purpose in rising at this moment, since we are back on clause 27, is to ask the minister whether, since his commitment on March 30, he has come up with any formula to redress this imbalance. One of the things the minister said to me on March 30 was that that legislation was not before us at the present time. I would draw to his attention the fact that in the present bill, on page 17 of schedule B, we are in fact correcting something that was done in last year's Bill C-194. We have corrected an oversight which had to do with certain Members of Parliament who hold positions as parliamentary secretaries, second deputy speakers or what-have-you.
My point is that in Bill C-207 we are correcting an oversight in last year's Bill C-194. It is precisely that same Bill C-194 that denied these escalations of pensions to members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Therefore, I suggest that a parallel correction be made in the schedule of this bill. The legislation is before us; the matter is in front of us right now. Since, as I say, the government has broken the 60 year age barrier and made provision that some public servants who retire early under the provisions of this bill will enjoy an escalation of their pensions beginning right away, I contend the same should be done for members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In light of the commitment that the President of the Treasury Board gave me on March 30 that it was his hope that any imbalance could be rectified, can he now say whether he is in a position to do this job of rectification today?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, since the hon. gentleman quoted my remarks when we last discussed this bill, may I point out that I said that I was moved rather than impressed by his point. I make a subtle distinction between these two words. I would prefer the term "moved" to "impressed", in that while I can accept the logic of his point I am not entirely sure of the premise on which it is based. At the moment, the ministers concerned, namely the Solicitor General and the Minister of National Defence, are looking at the question of whether in fact an imbalance will be created as the hon. gentleman suggests, or whether there is some other explanation and, if so, what is the best way of proceeding to correct the imbalance. I am told that answers to these questions will not be available for some time.
As the hon. gentleman knows, some of the most complicated pieces of legislation on the statute books are legislative enactments relating to superannuation and pensions. Unfortunately, we have relatively few experts in the government service, even though they are

May 25, 1971

extremely highly qualified, and so perhaps a study of these particular problems does not move as rapidly as we would like. It is "in train", and certainly I am not in a position today, nor will I be in the next couple of weeks, to give an adequate answer to the hon. gentleman's representation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say I
readily accept the minister's correction of the word I used. He had not said I impressed him, he had said I moved him. I am only too happy to accept the correction so as to be not only literally correct, but also because that is what I wanted to do. It really does not matter to me whether I impress him, but I should like to move him.
Perhaps I can take some consolation from what the President of the Treasury Board has now said, namely that a study of this matter is "in train". I know how complicated these pension matters are, as I have been working in this field as an amateur on the floor of this House for quite a few years. I know that every piece of pension legislation is extremely complicated and one has to look at the relations between any one piece of legislation and several others. But I do not think this problem is quite as complicated as the minister makes out.
If the minister will go back and read the statements he made when he announced the increase in pensions to retired civil servants, and I think the date was December 19, 1969, and if he will read all the debates that have taken place since, he will see that the one main argument advanced for not escalating the pensions of armed forces and RCMP personnel prior to age 60 was that this was not being done for public servants until age 60.
I have to say that in those days, although I made a case, I could not go very far with it because there was a certain logic to his position. Now, he has broken that position. It is no longer true that healthy civil servants retiring prior to age 60 do not get the escalation. It has been true right along that a public servant who is retired because of ill health and put on immediate pension gets the escalation. It is also true that an RCMP officer or a person from the armed forces who has to retire early because of ill health can get the escalation. We have a parallelism there.
Let us consider the superannuation of the healthy. A deputy minister or a public servant at any level can, under the provisions of this bill, retire between ages 55 and 60, and in certain other cases between 50 and 55. When that happens those people, despite their younger age, being under 60, qualify for annual escalation. AH I am asking is that we be consistent and say that since we have changed the rules in respect of healthy public servants, let us change the same rule in respect of healthy members of the RCMP and the armed forces.
I have used the word "healthy" simply to imply, as I must, that those who are retired because of ill health have already been looked after. Let me say there are many instances in respect of these people where they have retired in good health but who cannot get other work, sometimes because of health or because of an unemployment situation such as exists today. Letters I
Government Organization Act, 1970
receive indicate there are a good many examples of suffering in this area. I know the general philosophy has been that these special provisions to enable RCMP and armed forces people to retire early presented a different story. They can retire at 50 or 51, or even under 50 if they have the right number of years of service, and since they were so young they could go back to work. Try to go back to work today.
My argument in the main rests on the principle of consistency, which I hope appeals to the President of the Treasury Board. We have changed the rules so far as public servants are concerned. I do not think the minister now has any leg to stand on if he does not change the rules for the others as well. I am glad this is "in train" as I suppose this is an accomplishment to have achieved that since March 30. I just hope that the train does not move too slowly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, during the initial debate on this clause of the bill I drew the minister's attention to the plight of certain federal civil servants in the province of Newfoundland who came under the jurisdiction of the government of Canada as a consequence of the union of Newfoundland with Canada in 1949. Those people are covered under a special clause or term of union, I think clause 39.
When I brought the matter to the minister's attention originally he pointed out that this would require, under the terms of this clause, special action on the part of the government of Newfoundland. The minister said the initiative had to come from the province. He was sympathetic and said he would look into the situation.
Since that time the matter has been raised in the Newfoundland legislature. The government of that province quite properly responded by indicating it did not know of the new provisions of this act or the amendments now before the committee because they were still before the House of Commons. I should like the government, and particularly the President of the Treasury Board, to give us an assurance that when we pass this bill and it becomes law he will transmit this information to the government of Newfoundland with a view to correcting this anomalous situation which exists at the present time in that certain federal civil servants are excluded from the provisions of this bill as a consequence of term 39 of the union of Newfoundland with Canada.
There are a number of civil servants who are affected by this, and they are naturally quite concerned. They want equal rights with their fellow civil servants. They are concerned more particularly because the tenure of the government of Newfoundland has reached a constitutional limitation. The government has only until December of this year before there must be an election. I am afraid that this matter might get lost in the shuffle. I, therefore, ask the President of the Treasury Board if he is prepared to give this commitment to the committee and to those civil servants affected? I hope the minister or one of his officers will get in touch with the Newfoundland government to advise it of the changes in the Superannuation Act, suggesting that the Newfoundland

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 government take the necessary action in order that these civil servants can be brought within the provisions of the amended act.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I asked for a commitment from the minister as this is a very important matter. There are a number of senior people involved. These are people who would be entitled to the benefits of this provision but are now at the mercy of the government of Newfoundland. I should like to feel that the minister will officially inform the government of Newfoundland of amendments to the Superannuation Act, advising that government what action should be taken to bring these civil servants under it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. gentleman will understand that I would be glad to transmit officially and, if you like, formally not only the proclamation of this act, when that occurs, but also all the provisions of the new statute for whatever action by the government of Newfoundland might be appropriate.
I think, however, I would have some hesitancy in attempting to tell that government how to behave in matters which, under the terms of the Act of Union, are within their jurisdiction rather than ours. Perhaps it ill becomes one government to give lectures to another. We seek to proceed on the basis of co-operation on the assumption that in joint matters each government will behave responsibly and intelligently.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I do not know if my remarks are completely appropriate, following the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East, but there are a number of public servants in the province who were employed by the provincial government prior to 1949, or at least in the employ of organizations other than the federal government. Recently, I wrote the President of the Treasury Board asking for the names of people who would be affected by any amendments to the Superannuation Act so that these people could buy back their time prior to 1949 as full fledged members of the public service. Many of these people went to work as public servants in 1939 and right down through 1940 to 1949. Not being classified as fully fledged members of the public service until after 1949, they lost out severely in respect of superannuation. I understand that efforts are being made or that an agreement is being arrived at whereby they can buy back their time prior to 1949 and thus enhance their position.
I contacted the Treasury Board and was informed by the Acting President a few weeks ago that the names of the individuals affected could not be made available to me. I receive letters from these people, basically from Gander where there are 500 people with the Department of Transport or other departments which serve the aviation needs of that airport. They ask me to advise them of
their present status in view of the fact that they went to work in 1939, 1943, 1946, or whatever the case may be. In order to communicate their wishes to the Treasury Board, I need to know the names and status of these people. I wonder whether the minister could have an official of his department make available the names of public servants who would be affected by such a change in their status. I understand that already a good deal of good work has been done. I think it would be useful to public servants-it is of no interest to me personally-if we could know where they stand and how the Treasury Board and the provincial authorities combined are able to help them in respect of their problems.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The request to provide a list of public servants who would be affected by this legislation is rather a difficult one to answer. I think perhaps the government has an obligation to see that all those on whom this new legislation will have an impact are advised of their new rights and options. We are undertaking to do this or will undertake to do it internally. What the hon. member in effect is asking for, however, is a list of the public service voters in his constituency.
Public servants in the employ of the federal government, whether they were transferred from the Public Service of Newfoundland or have entered the Public Service of Canada in other ways, will all be affected but in different ways. As I suggested, I think that rather than providing the hon. member with a list of all public servants in Newfoundland, the government has an obligation to advise the individuals directly and precisely of his rights and obligations.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Treasury Board obviously is pretty knowledgeable in this area and I am sure knows what he is talking about. However, I believe the number of people involved would be 150 public employees of the federal government in the province of Newfoundland. I understand that is the number, although it might be more or less. The problem to which I am referring does not involved every public servant in the Public Service of Canada. These people qualify under the specific terms of the union of the province with Canada which was consummated in 1949. There are only a handful of people involved. Certainly, the Treasury Board could make available their names. These names should be made available if we are to make representation on their behalf. I am wondering if we cannot get this information because the matter is considered to be very complex, whether there is a written agreement or whether there is some idiosyncrasy involved. What is the reason we cannot obtain the names of these people? I want to know.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think any member may inquire on behalf of a member of the public service what the general provisions are. But I am not sure it would be appropriate for the government to release information regarding the financial status of any public servant in response to a general demand for an analysis of the individual's financial circumstances. Now, if the

May 25, 1971

hon. gentleman is asking for a list of those individuals who were in the Public Service of Newfoundland and who transferred to the service of Canada, which involves only about 150 in number, then if it would help him to have such a list I will see if this can be provided although I am not quite sure how it would help him to have the names of those people. If the representations are of a general nature, he could make the appropriate representations on their behalf without knowing their names. If the representations are of a particular nature relating to an individual's circumstances, then obviously he must know the name and the individual's particular circumstances. I suggest it would be wrong for the government to divulge from its records, on a gratuitous basis, the particular financial circumstances of someone in the public service.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the minister is certainly misrepresenting my request. I am not looking for the financial status of the individual. I am not looking for information concerning his income or how much pension he has accumulated. I am sure the minister understands what I am trying to say. Let us assume there are 150, 300 or 350 people who are in a position where they could buy back their time previous to 1949 on some sort of a federal or provincial pension basis. Is the Treasury Board going to make all these people aware of their position, which is not part of the government's philosophy at the moment? For instance, is John Doe to be told that he went to work in 1943 and that the new scheme permits him for X number of dollars from him and for X number of dollars from the federal treasury and X number of dollars from the provincial treasury to buy back those years which will give him a pension of such and such?
Does the President of the Treasury Board intend to do this? This is the information I request. I want to make sure that all the people affected will be made aware of their rights. I want to know whether a person has the right to buy back his time and how many years he can buy back. I am not interested in how much he owes IAC or how much he will receive from the treasury if he should retire in a year or so.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, is this information available?


Gérald Laniel: Does the hon. member wish the floor again?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, having now clarified the type of information I am looking for, which involves the pensionable status and the number of years these people can buy back in the event they can buy back their time, I am asking whether this information can be made available to the federal representatives of the people of the province.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps the easiest thing is for me to have a private discussion with the hon.
Government Organization Act, 1970 member. What he wants is a list of names of people and also their pension status. I suggest that this is private information. Perhaps we can come to some kind of agreement as to what the government can properly provide to him without at the same time violating the privacy of those in the public service of Canada.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The question is on the amendment, moved by the President of the Treasury Board, to clause 27. Does the committee wish me to read the amendment again?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you read it, because it is an important amendment. We have had a good deal of discussion since it was moved, and I think people who read Hansard would like to know what we are voting on.


Gérald Laniel: Then I have pleasure in reading it again. Moved by the President of the Treasury Board:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out line 10 on page 12 and substituting the following:
"force of this section."
Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 27 as amended carry?


Some hon. members:: Carried.
Clause 27 as amended agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Is it the wish of the committee that we revert to clause 2 before discussing schedule A and schedule B? The Chair feels that it would be proper to return to clause 2.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: On February 16 when the committee was studying clause 2 an amendment was proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. The Chair feels that the amendment should be read at this time for the benefit of hon. members. It was as follows:
That clause 2 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out the words "Department of the Environment" where they first appear, immediately after clause 1 on page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "Department of Fisheries and the Environment".


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with the discussions leading up to the order of the House to which I referred earlier, the government gave an undertaking to provide an amendment to give effect to the representations made by the hon. member for St. John's East, supported by others, which resulted in this amendment to clause 2.

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
We have already considered and passed clause 3, but with the consent of the committee I would like to reopen clause 3 and propose an amendment thereto which I think will give effect to the representations of the hon. member for St. John's East and enable him to withdraw his amendment.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree to stand clause 2 and the amendment thereto at this time and revert to clause 3?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Clause 2 stood.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now study clause 3.
On clause 3-Department established.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, for the reasons I have indicated, and in accordance with the order of the House, I would like to move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereto immediately after subclause (2) of clause 3 on page 1 the following subclause:
"(3) The Minister of the Environment is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada."


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, before I put forward my arguments I wish to suggest to the President of the Treasury Board that in order to be consistent it will be necessary to bring in an additional amendment to clause 4, because otherwise we will have a Minister of Fisheries and no Deputy Minister of Fisheries. Is he prepared to take that into consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, it was not proposed, as I understand it that we should have a Deputy Minister of Fisheries, and in order to have a Deputy Minister of Fisheries it is necessary to have a Department of Fisheries. This does provide for a minister, but not for a Deputy Minister of Fisheries as such. If one amends clause 4, then I suggest it would be necessary to have a Department of Fisheries.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, that is really the crux of the matter. That is what prompted me to move my amendment back on February 16. An amendment had been moved earlier by my colleague from South Shore asking for two deputy ministers and it was subsequently defeated by the committee. It seems to me that if there is to be a Minister of Fisheries, as the amendment calls for, it follows that there should be a consequential amendment to clause 4 stating:
The Governor in Council may appoint an officer called the Deputy Minister of Fisheries... to hold office during pleasure.
The minister says there will be no Department of Fisheries. As I understand it, the department shall be known as the department of the environment. But there shall be a Minister of Fisheries, and surely he must preside over something. He must be a Minister of Fisheries not in name only; he must be a Minister of Fisheries presiding over a Department of Fisheries. I am not trying to be difficult, Mr. Chairman, and all I am suggesting is

that one follows on the other. If by this amendment you
are going to create the office of Minister of Fisheries, then it follows that the Deputy Minister of the Environment shall also be known as the Deputy Minister of Fisheries.
Our reasons for putting this forward have been outlined. They are a matter of record but it might be worth while to bring the question into focus by referring to the events that have transpired since the amendment was first introduced back on February 16. What we have experienced since that time has caused us to be concerned over the direction of the government with respect to the fishing industry. For example, I think it is logical to raise the question: What is to become of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry? Does the nomenclature of that committee change to the "Standing Committee on the Environment"? Is this House to be deprived of a Standing Committee on Fisheries, something it has had for the past 100 years? That is particularly important, Mr. Chairman because we have been occupied in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for the last few weeks with a bill which has absolutely nothing to do with fisheries. The committee has been engaged in a clause by clause study of the clean air bill, a very important bill but one which properly should have been referred to the Special Committee on Environmental Pollution.
We find ourselves today in the position of having had only one full day in which to examine the estimates of the department. Under the new rules we will probably get only one more day, and we have been told that it is unlikely we will have an opportunity to examine the estimates. Under the new rules they must be referred back to the House, therefore without proper examination and debate.
If this is what we can expect in future, Mr. Chairman, then I am afraid our fears are well-founded and that this industry which faces so many problems today will not get the attention it deserves. Granted, we will have an opportunity as a consequence of this amendment to direct questions to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in the House and there shall continue to be in Canada a Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, albeit one who wears two hats. He will be preoccupied with his responsibilities as minister of the environment. By virtue of that preoccupation and the responsibilities that the new department has taken unto itself, I suggest that very little time will be given to the fishing industry.
Before passage of this bill I hope we can extract from the government House leader an undertaking that there will be no changes in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that it will continue to exist and have responsibility for examining the estimates, that it will continue to have the privilege of having before it the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry in order to examine fisheries policy.
The question is, who will look after the interests of the fishing industry with respect to the International Com-
May 25, 1971

mission on the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries? The minister will be involved in matters of pollution, he will be involved in the clean air bill, he will be involved in responsibility for the meteorological service of Canada and a number of other things. Have his responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Forestry not been sufficient for a full-time job? Why has this ministry simply become a division of the new department? What about the 13,000 employees and the $200 million budget?
As I have already said, the primary responsibility of the minister of the environment will be to deal with matters of the environment, to combat water, air and soil pollution. There are so many policy decisions to be taken with respect to the fishing industry that I repeat the question, will the minister be so preoccupied with his vast new responsibilities that these decisions will be further postponed?
We are on the eve of the ICNAF conference which this year will take place in Halifax. Very important decisions will have to be made and, hopefully, consequential policy decisions will have to be made following that conference. The minister has assured us today that Canada's position at the conference will primarily be concerned with conservation, as very well it should be. Because of our lack of concern in this important area, the fishing industry is facing a crisis as serious as any in its long history. Many species of fish are threatened with extinction. My colleague the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has been actively involved in this matter and probably will have more to say about it.
This morning in committee we heard evidence to the effect that if action is not taken soon, thousands of jobs will be lost because of Canada's failure to conclude a satisfactory conservation agreement with the countries which fish off our shores. The question of our position within ICNAF was raised. Obviously, we are one of the leading members of that body since we have a greater stake in the North Atlantic fisheries than any other country.
In order to try to obtain an agreement with the Danes, however, with respect to their overfishing of Atlantic salmon off Greenland, the minister has to go hat in hand to Denmark in June. Yet he tells us that Canada will be preoccupied with matters of conservation at the ICNAF meeting. We cannot seem to resolve within ICNAF this question of the Danes. Why is it necessary to go outside that body to get the Danes to agree to measures to preserve this Canadian resource? I say "Canadian resource" because the North Atlantic salmon, generally speaking, spawns in Canadian rivers, enjoys the protection of the Canadian government and is supported by substantial funds from the Canadian taxpayer-but it is exploited by the Danes before returning to our rivers.
The minister recently promulgated new regulations with respect to the conservation of the North Atlantic salmon, yet we are told there was no consultation with the government of Newfoundland. We have this on the admission of the Premier himself and from evidence presented in the committee. Where did the minister get his advice when he drew up these regulations which are
Government Organization Act, 1970 now being challenged by the government of Newfoundland?
We have the spectacle of the Premier of Newfoundland standing in the legislature telling the fishermen of that province to defy this law because it is not in the best interests of Newfoundland's industry-"If you defy this law we will provide you with counsel and will support you if the department dares bring you before the courts." That is the consequence of lack of consultation with the government and the industry concerned. If that situation prevails now, what can we expect in a few years' time when the minister is totally involved with matters of the environment?
To come back to where I started, Mr. Chairman, up to this time the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has been a full-time job and has required all the attention of the present minister. It has required all the attention of his officials and of thousands of employees within the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. There are some 13,000 in all. What, Mr. Chairman, can we expect in future?
We have good reason to be concerned. We are told that we approach the ICNAF meeting in a mood of concern about matters relating to conservation. We are doing so at a time when the Prime Minister of our country is in the Soviet Union, and at a time when a protocol has been signed with that country. Yet when I asked the minister in the House today what would be the effect of this protocol on our attempts to get the Russians to agree on measures of conservation in the Northwest Atlantic, he refused to answer the question: at least, he did not reply to that part of the question. I suggest he did not because he could not.
Is it not fair to ask why, if our Prime Minister could obtain from the Soviet Union agreement to the signing of that protocol which will have great propaganda value no doubt, he could not obtain within the umbrella of that agreement some meaningful accord with the Soviet Union, the country which is the chief offender in the over-fishing off our east coast? Why was that not done? Yet we will go to the ICNAF meeting in Halifax, the Russians will provide us with the same misleading statistics and we shall be no farther ahead. The time has come, Mr. Chairman, for us to question our membership in ICNAF. The organization does not seem to be serving us and seems to be serving no useful purpose for us.
We were told this morning that when our fisheries officers go aboard Soviet bloc vessels to examine gear or the size of their mesh, those officers are not allowed to go below and see what is in the holds of the ships. There is a very good reason for that. This great Soviet fleet has no regard for our conservation concerns. They move into an area and sweep all the fish off the bottom without any regard to what they might be doing to spawning grounds. These are matters of continuing concern and are all the more reason why we should have a Minister of Fisheries supported by a deputy minister.
Then we must consider the Law of the Sea Conference which is to be held in 1973. Presumably we are now
6098

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
preparing ourselves lor that conference. We are concerned, and have been concerned over what appears to be lack of support or co-operation on the part of the Department of External Affairs in supporting the efforts of the Department of Fisheries. We have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this House questions relating to our international fisheries agreements. He has demonstrated such an abysmal ignorance of the subject that at times it is embarrassing.
For example, I asked if the discussions that were taking place in Ottawa between the French delegation and the Canadian delegation regarding the phasing-out of French treaty rights off Canada's east coast included the continental shelf and the difficulties that resulted from French jurisdiction over the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The minister replied that the discussions were solely concerned with fishing and not with the continental shelf. Mr. Chairman, we could not ask further questions because the Secretary of State for External Affairs showed such complete ignorance of the whole subject. There was no point in pursuing the matter. Obviously, if we were concerned about this renewable resource we were concerned about the continental shelf where the resource exists. If you talk about the continental shelf you are talking about the Grand Banks; they are one and the same. Obviously the -Secretary of State for External Affairs did not know that.
This kind of ignorance illustrates to us that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has not received the kind of support he ought to be receiving from the Secretary of State for External Affairs and from the Department of External Affairs. Why should our Minister of Fisheries have to go to Denmark, hat in hand, and try to get the Danes to agree upon meaningful conservation? Unless the minister has the full, announced support of the government of Canada, and unless the Secretary of State for External Affairs is prepared to back the minister by saying in this House that we reserve the right to take whatever action is necessary if the Danes do not agree to our proposals, I say that the efforts of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, commendable though they are, in going to Denmark will once again prove fruitless.
Who is to take full responsibility for preparing Canada's case for the Law of the Sea Conference? Certainly we cannot expect the Department of External Affairs to involve itself in this matter because it has indicated that it does not share our concern. They do not have the necessary knowledge of the subject. By 1973 the minister will be so involved with matters relating to the environment that our case at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973 will be a feeble one.
The result of these changes, I submit, will bring no real, discernible advantages with respect to fisheries administration. On the other hand, I can foresee and point out some of the possible disadvantages. I think it is also fair to repeat that we are concerned that there may be cases where there will be a conflict-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the matters to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier)-Inquiry of the Ministry; the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand)-Harbours-Montreal-Priority in development of ports policy.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration 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.
Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock, an amendment to clause 3 by the President of the Treasury Board was under consideration.
On clause 3-Department established


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, my time has almost expired. With the consent of hon. members I hope I shall be given an additional few minutes in which to conclude my remarks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With pleasure.


James Aloysius McGrath: Prior to the adjournment at six o'clock I put on record some of the fears we have about the future of the fishing industry under the new departmental set-up. These fears are well-grounded and well-founded. I feel that we have made some progress. The progress that has been made is testimony of the usefulness of this institution as a legislative and debating forum. As a result of the arguments that have been advanced and placed on the record in the spirit of compromise that has characterized the development of this country, we have arrived at a point where we can say that by being prepared to give a little we can arrive at agreement. We can draw some consolation from the fact that from here on there shall continue to be-
May 25, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member when he is speaking in a spirit of compromise, but I must advise him that his time has expired. The hon. member may continue only if there is unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the same spirit I thank the committee for permitting me to continue. From here on we shall continue to have a Minister of Fisheries. This is part of the reason we put forward the proposition on February 16 in the form of an amendment, which is still before the committee, that the name of the new department be changed from the department of the environment to the department of fisheries and the environment. Having said that, I realize that the Department of Fisheries will disappear. 1 was reminded of that today by the President of the Treasury Board. I regret that very much, for the reasons I outlined to the committee this afternoon. However, notwithstanding the fact that the department as we know it will disappear, the present incumbent who has been Minister of Fisheries for the past three years will continue to give the fishing industry the attention it will require to meet the demands of the next few years.
If the present minister has retired, gone to another place or assumed another portfolio, we shall still have the consolation of knowing that no matter who succeeds him there will continue to be a Minister of Fisheries by the law of this Parliament. The hon. member who succeeds the present minister might be an environmental engineer from the city of Toronto, like the new deputy minister who is an engineer with no experience whatever of the fishing industry. But at least we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that because reasonable men met here and debated the issue of the fishing industry, an industry so important to Canada, particularly to British Columbia and the Atlantic provinces, the subject will be sure of receiving attention because the minister of the environment has been designated the Minister of Fisheries.
Hon. members of this House who represent constituencies in the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and parts of Ontario will continue to enjoy the privilege of being able to direct questions in the House to the Minister of Fisheries. Whoever happens to be minister of the environment will be called upon to respond as Minister of Fisheries. That situation, I submit, is a great credit to Parliament-that in the give and take of debate we have been able to arrive at a compromise. After all, that is what has made our nation possible, this type of compromise which I suggest is particularly Canadian.
This is not to say that the fears I sought to express this afternoon are groundless. We have yet to receive an assurance that, for example, there will continue to be a Standing Committee on Fisheries. We would like the government to be consistent by proposing a consequential amendment to clause 4 designating the deputy minister of the environment as the deputy minister of fisheries.
24107-36*
Government Organization Act, 1970 However, I am reminded, by signs of renewed attention on the part of the President of the Treasury Board, that you cannot have a deputy minister if you do not have a department over which he can preside. Perhaps this is the most unfortunate aspect of the legislation before us. We shall lose the Department of Fisheries, but at least we shall be able to retain a minister known in Parliament and throughout the nation as the Minister of Fisheries.
For these reasons I reluctantly ask the committee, through you, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment to clause 2. In so doing I express the hope that this industry which is so important to my province, where 100,000 people are directly dependent upon it, will be assured in the future of the attention which it deserves from the department. At least it will receive the attention of a minister designated by law as Minister of Fisheries, notwithstanding any other responsibilities he may have by virtue of the bill presently before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to assure the House that I have not become an instant expert on fisheries, at least not in the sense that I intend to speak all evening on the subject. However, my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni has had to go away on public business. There is a point which concerns him very greatly-it already has been expressed by the previous speaker-and I wish to place it again before the committee at this time.
We welcome the amendment which the President of the Treasury Board has moved, placing in clause 3 of the bill a subclause which reads: "The Minister of the Environment is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada". I do not think I would be accused of speaking out of school if I said I proposed something like this at one of the meetings of the House leaders when we were trying to resolve this problem. Pride of paternity is obvious. I think it is a good solution.
Members of my party who are particularly interested in the subject of fisheries are happy to accept this amendment and do not feel badly about the fact that the word "Fisheries" will not appear in the name of the department itself. Nevertheless, my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni and others still feel a way should be found to keep alive the designation "deputy minister of fisheries." I realize it is difficult to have a deputy minister if there is not a department over which he can preside. This is what the President of the Treasury Board has told us. However, let me reverse the table for him. I understand that under the new structure there is to be an assistant deputy minister of fisheries. So I direct the question back to him: How can you have an assistant deputy minister of fisheries if there is no deputy minister of fisheries to whom he reports?
We are to have a Minister of Fisheries who by statute will be minister of the environment. We are to have an assistant deputy minister of fisheries. There is a cog missing, and I think it would be perfectly consistent and perfectly proper to accept an amendment which would

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
designate the deputy minister of the environment as being also the deputy minister of fisheries.
I am not reneging on the agreement we made when we met as House leaders. I am not asking that the department should be re-established. I see a broad smile on the face of the President of the Privy Council and I am free to admit we fought this out in our meetings. The minister was not prepared to agree with us but he knew, of course, that the subject would be raised again on the floor of the House. I should like to indicate that when we reach clause 4, if a more prominent fisheries member does not beat me to it I intend to move an amendment.
I should like to suggest that Bill C-207 be amended by designating clause 4 as subclause 1 of clause 4 and by inserting immediately thereafter a subclause 2, which would provide that the deputy minister of the environment, when appointed under the provisions of subclause 1, is the deputy minister of fisheries. This does not call for an additional person or body; it simply provides that as we already have a minister of the environment who is also called the minister of fisheries, we should at the same time also have a deputy minister of the environment who is called the deputy minister of fisheries and to whom the assistant deputy minister of fisheries would report.
I suppose I should send this amendment to the table even though it is not possible to move it while we are on clause 3. However, I hope that even though we were not able to win this as part of the package that was agreed to by the House leaders, the government may yet see fit to accept it. It would certainly please the members of my party who are particularly interested in fisheries, and I think members representing fisheries constituencies from all parts of the country would also feel better if this step were taken.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has moved this in the form of an amendment, or is it just a suggestion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am giving notice that when we get to clause 4 I should like to move it, if my hon. friend does not beat me to it.


Mr, McGrath:: But clause 4 has been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have we not reopened the whole question?


James Aloysius McGrath: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that if by consent we reopened clause 3, it carries with it consent to reopen clause 4.


Russell Clayton Honey: I think the debate may be academic at this time, but clause 4 has been passed. Perhaps we should confine ourselves to the amendment before the House, and when it has been dealt with the Chair will hear other members who wish to present argument.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I rise to join my colleague for St. John's East, who is eminently aware of the problems of the Atlantic fishery, as well as the newly-emerged expert on fisheries matters from Winnipeg North Centre, and to make a few comments which are relevant to the bill and to the fisheries of the east coast of Canada. I commend my colleagues, especially the hon. member for St. John's East, for proposing the amendment which, if we can judge from the amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board, has been accepted in other words. I also commend the suggestion of the creation of a fully-fledged deputy minister of fisheries, or at least a person with that designation in the new department, a proposal that was even accepted by the New Democratic Party. Even if we accept the amendment proposed by the President of the Treasury Board who is trying to accommodate our earlier request and the one suggested by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, I wonder whether we will accomplish what we as members representing the east coast of Canada are asking for.
I have just finished attending the fisheries committee which heard a presentation by the vice-chairman of the Frozen Fish Trades Association of Newfoundland, a gentleman by the name of Mr. Gus Etchegary. He is as knowledgeable as anybody I know on the Atlantic coast of the problems relating to the fisheries. This gentleman's association has prepared a document entitled "The Newfoundland Trawling Industry and Groundfish Resources". Basically, the document identifies the problems of the offshore industry on the Atlantic coast, not the inshore fishery. One of the conclusions to be found at pages 16 and 17 of the document is as follows:
What is at stake is not just rising costs that constantly press upon market returns, but the spectre of no resource at all.
This, Mr. Chairman, is one of the conclusions reached by the Newfoundland Frozen Fish Trades Association in their most recent document which contains a marvellously-researched inquiry into the state of the Atlantic fishing industry at the present time. If you thumb through the pages of this document, Mr. Chairman, and read the presentation made to the fisheries committee, I doubt whether you will find any evidence that has not been presented previously to the House of Commons.
We in Canada are going through a stage where the people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with their institutions of government. The Canadian people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with their municipal governments as well as with their provincial and federal legislatures. And no wonder! The elected representatives of Canada in this House and those people elected to other institutions simply do not pay enough attention to the responses they are receiving from the grass roots of the population.
We who live on the east coast are saying that we are in danger of losing one of the prime resources not only of the east coast but of all Canada. Through this House of Commons we have been telling the people of Canada, the Minister of Fisheries, the Prime Minister and the minister of external affairs that at the moment we are in very serious difficulties as a result of overfishing on the nart of
May 25, 1971

foreign nationals. Yet the response we have received has been manifested in Bill C-207, whereby the government is moving to eliminate altogether the Department of Fisheries.
Only as a result of a deliberate and determined effort on the part of members from the Atlantic region in this House did we get the government to respond with this compromise of letting the Minister of Fisheries wear two hats. Only because we threatened to sit here and talk about the bill until October did we get this minimum response of letting the minister of the environment also act as Minister of Fisheries.
I have before me an organizational chart which was presented by the Minister of Fisheries to the fisheries committee and to which I wish to refer in a moment. Before I do so I want to reiterate the comment of my colleague from St. John's East that already there is a good bit of evidence that can pointed to that the government is deliberately downgrading the role of the fisheries and marine resources of this country. Other nations, such as the Soviet Union, the Germans, the French, the Americans and the British are renewing their efforts with vigour and determination in the area of marine resource development. At the same time we are downgrading our efforts. The people on the east coast of Canada want an intensification of the efforts of the federal government in the field of marine resources, yet it responds by downgrading its role. What is the trouble? What is happening?
We have already seen a good bit evidence that there is a downgrading of the role of the fisheries. I would be quite satisfied for the purpose of the record to state that I am not getting the same response to my correspondence from the Department of Fisheries that I used to get. This afternoon the hon. member for St. John's East referred to the efforts made by the fisheries committee. Since I have been a member here I have been a member of that committee. This committee has met day after day after day to deal with every bill and item of estimates that has come before it. The committee has called many witnesses. The Canadian public was becoming educated on the subject of the marine resources of this country, even to the point where there have been programs on national television about marine resources. The people were becoming enlightened about our east coast resources. They were realizing that here was a frontier of resources that needed Canada's attention, that needed cultivating, managing and controlling.
Last year we sat every Tuesday and Thursday for five or six weeks talking about the fisheries estimates. We talked about fisheries estimates and became involved in all the details of expenditures and what they meant, what the implications were, why they were cut back, why they were increased, and the need for further attention. This year we have the fisheries estimates coming before the committee, but the only thing referred to the committee to date is the clean air bill. That was before the committee day after day and we spent all our time studying that matter when we could have been considering the estimates.
Government Organization Act, 1970
The air we have today is the same as the air we had the day the minister came into the committee. He was late getting there because of a cabinet meeting. Through no fault of his we spent only one hour and a half of committee time on estimates, just time enough for him to give us bits and pieces thrown together in an opening statement. There were two or three questions asked by members of the committee, and that was the end of it.
Today we received a response to a request made several weeks ago to have representatives of the fishing industry appear before us to discuss conservation. We started today at ten minutes after eleven and finished at one o'clock-less than two hours on conservation! Dr. Weir, the newly-appointed adviser on renewable resources development, was on the record for about ten seconds. He had a chance to respond briefly to one or two questions. These estimates have to be back in the House at the end of the month. We cannot get a room in which to hold another meeting; we are not sure we will have another meeting on fisheries estimates. This is an example of what is happening to fisheries-and we have not even got this legislation yet.
I have in my hand an organizational chart which formed part of the statement the minister presented to the House of Commons. I am not an expert on management, but there is definitely something wrong with this chart. If there is nothing wrong with the chart, there is something wrong with the government or the department. We have a department of the environment, with a minister. At the second level we have a deputy minister. At the third level we have a special senior assistant deputy minister. At the fourth level we have a number of assistant deputy ministers. If we take the minister away, we have a number of assistant deputy ministers at the third level of this department. This is the situation at the third rung of this administrative ladder.
We have an assistant deputy minister of finance, an assistant deputy minister of atmospheric environment, an assistant deputy minister of lands, forests and wildlife, an assistant deputy minister of water management, an assistant deputy minister of environmental protection and an assistant deputy minister of finance and administration. He does not come directly under the other deputy ministers but bypasses the senior deputy and reports directly to the deputy. We have a director general of policy planning, a director general of research and a director general of intergovernmental affairs. We have nine people at the same level, and among all these we have a deputy official of fisheries.
The Minister of Fisheries has said our fisheries are declining rapidly and our resources are becoming so depleted there will come a time when fisheries administration will not be necessary. If that is so, the government is wrong and the minister is doing away with what little we have left. This is what is happening. I do not know what we have to do to dramatize this problem. Certainly we have gone on record often enough. There is not a member on this side of the House from the Atlantic region who has not stood in his place and talked about

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
fisheries problems. We have all talked about the depletion of our resources. The only response we have received is a downgrading of the role of fisheries. I do not understand the reason for this.
I can understand the need for a special effort in respect of the environment. No one is silly enough to stand in the House of Commons and deny the importance of special initiatives to solve pollution and protect the total environment. When we are creating new ministers of state for urban affairs, and affairs of women-whatever they are going to do with women-and all this kind of thing, why should we throw out the fisheries? I should like the minister to tell me honestly whether, if this bill becomes law, fisheries will have any status at all in the federal government. I contend it will have practically no status.
Today we received a presentation from the Frozen Fish Trades Association regarding the decline of our resources. We are gravely concerned about what is happening to Atlantic fisheries resources. Approximately one-quarter of our people are directly affected by the fisheries. Some 20,000 fishermen get their livelihood directly from this resource. If you multiply that number by the members of the families supported by these fishermen, you come to the conclusion that one-quarter of our people are directly affected. The largest number of people involved in any industry in our province is involved in fishing. A sizeable proportion of the populations of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are involved in fishing. In the province of Newfoundland the export of fish products ranks third among all the exports from the province. I do not see how our economy can survive without special effort to protect this resource, giving it long-term protection.
Some years ago we received evidence from fish research people to the effect that haddock stocks on Georges Bank had declined. As a result, Georges Bank had to be temporarily closed. Today we were told by representatives of the fish trades who appeared before the committee-and this was not denied by the scientific people present-that the haddock stocks on Georges Bank have become so depleted it is impossible for the stock to replenish itself through natural processes. In other words, by the time the Department of Fisheries, acting under the minister, got around to imposing quotas or taking remedial or corrective action, the whole stock was depleted. Individuals representing the Frozen Fish Trades Association told our committee that back in 196162-63 the Russians launched a naval war against the haddock stocks.


John (Jack) Davis: 1961-62.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister corrected me: it was 1961-62. We had one of the richest haddock resources in the world, and it has now become almost totally depleted at the Flemish Cap which is east of the Grand Bank. This is the kind of thing that has been happening to our resources.
We did have a Labrador fisheries. Unfortunately, in the House of Commons we do not have maps, diagrams and
pencils to point things out to those members who do not know about such things as the Labrador fisheries. This fishing area is approximately 100,000 square miles. It lies east of Quebec and northwest of Newfoundland. It was one of the great fishing areas. Many hundreds of families would leave Newfoundland with their fishing gear during the fishing season and land on the shores of Labrador. Sometimes they would fish from their schooners. They would fish off the Labrador coast in a fisheries resource fed by the Hamilton Inlet Bank. This lies 250 miles off the Labrador coast. The area near Groswater Bay was a great spawning ground for the Labrador fisheries. Each year the fish would swim in when the warm water arrived. They would move along the shores of Labrador and the inshore fishermen would make great catches.
The most intensive fishing in the history of the Hamilton Inlet Bank fisheries took place in 1968. The greatest culprit was the Soviet Union. That year there was one billion pounds of fish taken off the Hamilton Inlet Bank, one-quarter of which was taken by the Soviet Union. Let me give hon. members an example of the amount of fish this involves. In my riding, the largest fish plant is situated in the community of Twillingate. It employs 350 people during the height of the fishing season. The amount of fish taken off the Hamilton Inlet Bank was enough to keep that plant operating for 100 years. As a result, the Labrador fisheries have been totally depleted. The Minister of Fisheries is aware of this.
I will give an example of the effectiveness of our research staff and facilities. It took three years before the researchers in the federal Department of Fisheries came to the conclusion that the salmon fishery at Hamilton Inlet Banks was being destroyed. The attitude of the fisheries research people, like that of most scientists, is that there must be significance at the .05 level and positive correlation. They must have everything so well defined that there is no possibility of their being wrong before they reach a conclusion. As I have said, with this kind of kick-back from the research people our fishery is being destroyed.
People may wonder why I refer to the Labrador fishery. I suppose it is sentimentality on my part, because this is the traditional period in which preparations are made for the Labrador fishery and it seems this year there will be no fishery there. This year the fishing facilities, the boats, the fishing gear, and so on, will be allowed to warp, decay and disappear because the fishermen will no longer be active. The Labrador Fishery is being destroyed by the Soviet Union right under the nose of the Department of Fisheries. The federal government is not responding fully to the needs of that fishery. It will not respond. This is evidenced now by the move from the Department of Fisheries to the department of the environment.
Neither are they responding at the level of initiative in respect of the governments of other countries. The Prime Minister is visiting the Soviet Union at the moment. Last October we asked that when he visited the Soviet Union

May 25, 1971

he raise the subject of fishing. However, such a subject is too down to earth for the Prime Minister of our country. This is a real issue, affecting real people, but the Prime Minister does not have time for issues affecting real people. He is too concerned with the environment in the Soviet Union to worry about this problem. He is too content to enjoy a frivolous life than to get down to the real, gut issues facing these people.
I doubt if the Prime Minister during his visit will have the courage to mention the four-letter word "fish". He will certainly mention a four-letter word, but I doubt very much if he will mention the four-letter word "fish" to the sophisticates of the Soviet Union who are our greatest enemies in respect of destroying the fishery.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to advise him and the committee that his time has expired.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, would the committee be disposed to allow the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate to conclude his remarks?


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member may, of course, continue if there is unanimous consent by the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, is it not right that since the hon. member for St. John's East has now spoken, 1 am all right again?


Russell Clayton Honey: I do not think the hon. member can assume that.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will try, anyway, Mr. Chairman, and see if my assumption is correct. Last summer, when we ran into a lot of problems in respect of our Pacific coast fishery, the Minister of Fisheries came under a lot of pressure from British Columbia because of the action of the Soviet Union and its involvement with some of the local fishermen, their gear, and so on. As a result, the minister properly took the initiative of convening a meeting with the Soviet people. They sat around a table and resolved the matter.
Our problem is not quite the same. However, we were annoyed that the Minister of Fisheries neglected to include in the negotiations representatives from the east coast of Canada. We continued to pressure the minister to bring about such a meeting. Over and above such meetings at an administrative level, there is a great area in respect of bilateral discussions, and so on, with France and other countries involved in our fishery which is not being pursued. The minister responded that if given the opportunity he would raise the matter with the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister was also made aware of this. He was supposed to go to the Soviet Union last October, and as we know he had to postpone that trip because of the situation here. He arranged his visit for this month. We told the Prime Minister of the need to raise the question of our marine resources when he visited the Soviet Union. We did not receive a very good response from the
Government Organization Act, 1970 Secretary of State for External Affairs. I do not criticize him for that because he really does not understand fishery problems; he is like a fish out of water. I am not referring to his personal ability as a minister, but he is certainly not in his field when talking about conservation of marine resources.
In any event, as a result of our representations we anticipated that the Prime Minister would be briefed for his visit to the Soviet Union. He was supposed to leave on Sunday. Late in that week no information was available to indicate that he had been briefed on the Atlantic fishery. Consequently, before his departure on Friday members of our party made representations to the Prime Minister's office asking that the Prime Minister include the conservation of marine resources on his agenda. We asked that he also include the question of the well-being of the people of the Atlantic region, and this great resource of Canada, in discussions with the greatest offender in respect of the harvesting of our resource.
We received a response of one sentence saying that our letter had been received in the Prime Minister's office. We assumed that the mail has not deteriorated to the extent that they did not receive the letter. We received no assurance that the Prime Minister agreed to take up this subject or indeed, what subject he would take up with the Soviet people. We approached the Secretary of State for External Affairs about this in the House and the minister acknowledged that the topic of marine resources would be on the Prime Minister's agenda. That is the last we heard of it. Perhaps he will talk about it during cocktails in the evening and while sampling caviar. Caviar is the type of thing which might have some relevance to marine resources, so perhaps it is on the agenda. Since caviar is a marine resource, which reminds us of the plight of the fishery, it ought to find its way into some of the discussions. However, I have not heard anything to indicate that the Prime Minister has made the Canadian position known in respect of our marine resources.
Tomorrow there is to be a meeting of ICNAF. The meeting is to be held in the Atlantic region. It is to be attended by representatives of the countries involved in the Atlantic region of ICNAF. These meetings have been taking place since 1949-for the same number of years we have been part of the confederation of Canada. The meetings are attended by, I believe, the representatives of 12 countries. They talk about the resources. They supposedly share data which has been accumulated. They make presentations and recommendations. These recommendations have been made since 1949 and practically none of them have been acted on. The data is so insufficient it is ludicrous to try to draw conclusions from it. One of the most informed members of ICNAF said that at these meetings they do not have sufficient data from which to draw conclusions.
The Minister of Fisheries is prepared to tell this House and the Canadian people that the government is satisfied it is making representations to ICNAF, and tomorrow the

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 minister leaves to make a presentation as well. Over and above the ICNAF meetings we have suggested that there be a continuation of bilateral discussions with the nations involved, with a clear, definitive statement issued on the Canadian position with respect to marine resources. We have suggested that this be presented to the countries involved and that Canada show some aggression and leadership.
I think it was in 1958 that article VII, agreed to by the Geneva conference on the Law of the Sea, gave Canada the right to impose, unilaterally, conservation and management controls in the event that Canada was not able, bilaterally or multilaterally, to bring about agreement on the necessity of such controls. But Canada has never taken any initiative along those lines.
The Minister of Fisheries has referred to the fact that an international conference on the Law of the Sea is supposed to be held in 1973. He may recall that two years ago he indicated that such a conference would be held in 1971. Now he says it will be held in 1973. However, we can generalize from the meeting two weeks ago of the Fisheries Council of Canada that there is not likely to be a conference held until 1975. As a matter of fact, I think it is pretty well public knowledge that the countries of South America are no longer interested in discussing matters of conservation at an international conference on the Law of the Sea. This is because they have nothing to negotiate. They have extended their territorial waters for a distance of up to 200 miles off their shores. Neither do we expect the Soviet Union to support conservation measures since its fishermen have been harvesting our resources day after day.
As I understand it, there is almost no agreement on a date for the holding of a conference on the Law of the Sea and almost no agreement on the agenda for such a conference. Certain countries have been trying to prepare an agenda, and have been making representations to the UN body which is charged with the responsibility of administering preparations for an agenda. In fact, I understand it will take up to two years for all countries to agree even on the agenda. It is this kind of thing which is frustrating to Maritimers. We are convinced that the federal government is not going to reverse the trend it has started to downgrade the fisheries.
I do not know what the government's next answer will be for the east coast of Canada.


An hon. Member:: You don't know anything.


John Howard Lundrigan: If I could have the ear of the Minister of Fisheries for a moment, I want to draw his attention to some recommendations that came before the fisheries committee today. I will only briefly mention them.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are slipping, John.


John Howard Lundrigan: The hon. member for St. Boniface is contributing some air pollution to the gathering. Would he like to make public what he is saying? I can't understand his interruption; and his colleague to the right is making some kind of queer, growling sound.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You wouldn't understand
anyway.


John Howard Lundrigan: It is something that has nothing to do with fisheries.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In fact, you don't understand anything.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, if the posterior of the hon. member for St. Boniface had anything more constructive to say than he is now saying, he should place his head where his posterior presently is.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Careful, John.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, this is a manifestation of the kind of attitude that emanates from the government side, and it is the kind of thing that will cause a great deal more frustration on the east coast of Canada. Two years ago we fought for the hon. member for St. Boniface to get a fresh fish marketing board. The government did not want representatives of his fishermen on that board and we had to fight like the dickens to get them included. He was there in his seat and he couldn't very well fight the government benches, because that is treason. On television, on Sunday night, the hon. member for Trinity said that this is a form of treason, and when you commit this sort of treason you have to start your own party. But the hon. member for St. Boniface isn't ready for that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask whether the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is speaking on the bill in question, or is he trying to question me? If he would like to question me I would be quite willing to answer his questions at any time. But I would like to know if he is speaking on the point in question. If that is the case, then I want to know what the point is.


An hon. Member:: You are the point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface is speaking on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am, Mr. Chairman, because I want to know whether the hon. member would like to question me or whether he would like to speak to the bill that is before us.


Mr. Reid:: Good God; he doesn't want to speak to the bill. He doesn't want to ruin the House of Commons.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. The hon. member for St. Boniface has risen on a point of order. I think the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate was in fact in order. He was dealing in general with the subject matter of the clause and of the amendment before the committee. If the hon. member for St. Boniface wishes to take the floor later, he may do so and I will recognize him.

May 25, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: I was hoping that the hon. member could continue his point of order for another four or five minutes while I leafed through my notes. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to apologize to my colleague from St. Boniface, who is one of the greatest members of the House. I guess he got carried away a little in the heat of debate and so evoked that kind of response. I would not like to leave it that way on the record.
Seriously, Mr. Chairman, the fish trade has made several recommendations to which I would like to draw the minister's attention. They are on the official records of the committee, and rather than repeat them in full I would like the minister to take heed of them. One of their recommendations centred on the need for the immediate creation of a special task force to consider Canada's fishery problems and to determine a policy which would best serve the needs of Canada while considering the collective interests of the fishing nations operating in the northwest Atlantic on the continental shelf.
The association spelled out terms of reference for such a task force so that Canada may move very aggressively toward the achievement of some concrete results in the area of management and conservation of our fishery resources. I think the suggestion is a commendable one. Whether it could be accepted as presently recommended or not, I do not know, but the principle is one I would commend to the minister.
The Newfoundland association also recommended the closing of certain areas of the east coast fisheries for the purposes of conservation. For example, it recommended the closure of all fishing activity on the haddock spawning grounds of the southern Grand Banks for the period June to September, which is the spawning period for the haddock fishery. It also recommended-this is related to my remarks on Hamilton Inlet Banks-the closure of all fishing activity on the Labrador-Hamilton Inlet Banks from January to April, which is the cod spawning period.
I point out that this is one of the main industries in the Atlantic region. It has millions of dollars invested in it, yet it is recommended that the federal government cut off fishing altogether for certain periods of the year in certain regions of the continental shelf off Newfoundland. When a body which is dependent on harvesting these resources, to an extent that one would tend to think it would be greedy enough to want to grab all the resources it could, recommends this kind of conservation, I say that the government must pay attention to it. Those engaged in the industry are not being unselfish. They realize that unless some of these moves are made, within a decade there will not be enough money, even in the pockets of highly paid Members of Parliament, to buy a good codfish meal in the Atlantic region.
In the codfish industry I know of one plant which in 1962 processed 12,000 pounds of fish, 94 per cent of which was cod. Last year the percentage of cod was about 30. I have checked with a number of communities in Newfoundland and found that this time last year fishermen were returning with half a voyage of fish and this year
Government Organization Act, 1970 there is no sign of fish. A "voyage of fish" is a Newfoundland expression which means a good catch; a man would be able to pay his expenses and have enough money to feed his family. The traps are out in the water around the coast of Newfoundland, but day after day they have to water-haul the traps and there is nothing in them. Years ago the fishermen could not get a boat big enough for all the big, black, beautiful codfish and today you cannot get a fish to eat. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry knows this.
I have no quarrel with the new initiatives or with the creation of the department of the environment. I admire the minister for his efforts. His academic qualifications and his experience make him well suited to play a role in this department. But would he not consider going back to the Prime Minister with the recommendation that the fisheries not be downgraded? If we ever needed special initiatives and new directions in fisheries, we need them now. The minister has been paying attention and I have seen him making notes, so I am sure he intends to make a few remarks. I hope he responds to our statement. Aside from his expertise in the fields of environment and fisheries, he is well qualified in the area of management. Is it not a fact that once this bill becomes accepted, fisheries will play a minor role in the new department? That is a step in the wrong direction if it is assumed that fisheries are important.
There are nine people in the new department, and the senior official with regard to fisheries ranks fourth. If the minister could explain to an ordinary fellow like myself how our fisheries can continue to occupy a position of importance in the federal hierarchy, I would be satisfied not only to sit down but to strike certain of my remarks from the record. However, I am afraid that unless some sanity is built into this matter now, there is not much hope for the Atlantic region. If we do not get new initiatives in the area of marine resource management and control, there will be an increase in regional disparity. In 1968 the Prime Minister said that he was going to eliminate regional disparities, but if we do not get more initiative in the area of marine resources there will be an increase in regional disparity in the Atlantic region.
If this charge is fair, then I contend that the Prime Minister has the onerous task of bringing some sanity to the decision-making process of his government. I feel so strongly about this that if some action is not taken to correct the down trend, I do not feel any urge to be part of a system that leaves our people out on a limb. People from Newfoundland cannot come here to express their feelings, nor can people from Nova Scotia, Quebec, New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island. I am not exaggerating when I say that there has never been such frustration felt by the people of Newfoundland regarding the response from the federal government.
If the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and the Prime Minister allow this situation to continue, I do not know what we can advise our people. I would not want to go as far as the Premier of Newfoundland, who yesterday advised the people to break the law. I don't know what the law says on the question of sedition, or seditious

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 conspiracy but I do not want to advocate that people break the law.
If the federal government is not prepared to listen to what members from the east coast have to say, we may have to start leading some movements to get action. We cannot bring the fishing boats on Parliament Hill, as the farmers did the tractors, but when the Prime Minister returns from the Soviet Union we will have plenty to say. We may have to amend some of the rules of the House of Commons.
I should like to continue for another five or six hours, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think I could make much impression on some of the members from western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


John Howard Lundrigan: The freshwater fish industry was declining there and we worked hard for the westerners to get fresh fish marketing through the House. I hope western and central Canadians realize that we are not asking for a hand-out but just for some protection. Our fisheries resources, from shellfish to kelp to Irish moss, require proper policies and management in order to develop them to make a contribution to this nation.
We are frustrated because somebody has designed a model for our development based on Montreal. It has to be big, have tall buildings, great smokestacks and pollution and all the characteristics of the feasibility study, the input of data and the feed-out, giving all kinds of anticipated returns on the investment. It must have all these before we get the ear of the Prime Minister. We want the federal government to exercise more initiative with our marine resources so we can pay attention to the real needs and potential of our people.
Why can we not get a positive response? Are we going about it the wrong way, talking too much and not giving enough evidence? There is no sense our continuing and trying to be enthusiastic about contributing to the Canadian nation if the Canadian nation does not want our contribution. Before this bill goes through I should like the minister to expound on how we might get the initiatives for which we are asking.
I do not want him to tell us that they met this week with the French and had a brief discussion, that the Prime Minister ate caviar in the Soviet Union, that there is to be an international Law of the Sea conference in 1973, that ICNAF people are to meet tomorrow-that is not the answer-or that we will phase out the traditional rights of traditional fishing nations over the next decade in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. By the time they phase out those rights the Gulf will be a dead sea; there will be only salt in it. That is not the kind of initiative we want.
I hope my ramblings are reflecting my frustration as an elected member representing 75,000 people who are almost totally dependent on the fishing industry and whose unemployment rate reached 16.4 per cent in April. Is there any Canadian in the House of Commons or in
Canada today who cannot appreciate our frustrations? Would any representative from Quebec, and the people from Quebec, not be dissatisfied with a 16.4 per cent unemployment rate? What would happen to hon. members from Ontario, who are resigning day after day, if unemployment in their province reached 16.4 per cent and if a great resource industry such as fisheries were to disappear? It is disappearing from the east coast and from the House of Commons, so to speak.
I see that my colleague from Vegreville has just entered the chamber. What would happen if there were a 16.4 per cent unemployment rate in Alberta or in British Columbia, which have great resources? What would they do in those provinces if they suffered that kind of unemployment rate? Do you think that there would not be a revolution, uprisings and broken windows? Do you think the Prime Minister would not be presented with bologna sandwiches if he visited those provinces?
We are a peace-loving people and therein lies our problem. We think justice will be done because it deserves to be done and because we need justice. The fact is, though, that we are not getting justice. We are not getting a square deal out of confederation and we are not getting the response from the federal government that we deserve. So I say to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to the Prime Minister that they had better talk about more than the Constitution in Victoria when the conference takes place next month. There is a very sad state of affairs in this country. We are out of touch with the people and there is growing frustration on the part of many about the response they are getting from elected governments. We must respond to them if Canada is to continue as a viable, economic unit and as a country with ambitious and energetic people. My plea is not only on behalf of the fisheries; it is generalized for the whole Canadian nation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly on the proposal made by the President of the Treasury Board which seeks to amend clause 3 of Bill C-207. This amendment is in keeping with the proposals that were put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East. The amendment states that the Minister of the Environment is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada. That, of course, is a step in the right direction but it is only a step.
Anyone who listened carefully to the remarks just made by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate will have, I am sure, a better appreciation of the situation existing in Atlantic Canada regarding its fishing industry. He covered many of the points at issue and put them forcefully before the government. What is needed now is action by the government. The hon. member covered many of the points to which I intended referring.
It is evident to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada that the fishing industry faces many serious problems. It is also evident to us that the government is downgrading this industry. I say that for several reasons. I am not quite sure what the minister will be called if the amendment is accepted. Will he be

May 25, 1971

Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries? At any rate, apart from the minister there are to be a deputy minister, a senior assistant deputy minister and nine assistant deputy ministers and directors general, of whom one will be the assistant deputy minister of fisheries. In our opinion and in the opinion of those who have studied the legislation and this division of authority, it is difficult for anyone to believe that the government realizes the importance of this industry to Atlantic Canada or to the nation as a whole. Under this division of authority we cannot help asking who will be taking the initiative in helping to solve some of the many problems which were so adequately described only a moment ago by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.
Ever since 1964-that is going back a long way, Mr. Chairman-when the Liberal party was rich in promises we have heard about great policies and programs for the fishing industry. We heard the then Secretary of State for External Affairs promise that the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act would be implemented immediately. Mr. Chairman, this is 1971 and only now is that legislation in the process of being implemented. For that I give marks to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: At least he is working on it. But he has a long way to go. As yet we have no idea of the length of time that will be required for the phasing-out of fishing operations of certain countries which claim they have territorial treaty rights in our waters. It is obvious that we have entered into international agreements but there is no provision for international enforcement. That is where we have fallen down. I have read books and books about meetings which have been held and steps which have been taken. We reach agreements but it is obvious that there is no provision for international enforcement.
For example, the Law of the Sea conference in 1958 approved certain conventions. Article VII provides that a coastal state may adopt conservation measures unilaterally, provided negotiations with affected states are not concluded within a six-month period. This convention is known to the government. It was known in 1964. Fishing interests in Atlantic Canada are still asking: Why did the government not implement article VII? It is interesting to read the article. I will not burden the committee with the entire report which that conference adopted.
There were 86 nations which considered 73 articles of the International Law Commission. In all, they adopted 75 articles and produced international conventions on the continental shelf, on territorial seas and contiguous zones, on the high seas, on fishing and conservation of the living resources of the high seas, and so on. The report states that the convention can be judged to have been an outstanding success. Some of the things that were passed by this conference I believe should be put on the record tonight. They relate to the high seas and, of course, in part to our problems in Atlantic Canada.
One of the articles provides that when conservation measures have been adopted on the high seas by any coastal state, those measures must be observed by fisher-
Government Organization Act, 1970
men from other countries. That was one of the conventions adopted by the international Law of the Sea conference. Another article provides that in emergency situations the coastal state may unilaterally enact necessary conservation measures on the high seas. And so it goes.
We wonder, Mr. Chairman, why these conventions approved at the 1958 conference, many of them having been moved by Canada, have not been acted upon by this government. Their inactivity has resulted in some of the problems that were put on the record tonight by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate. We are now facing serious problems in the depletion of our fisheries resources through overfishing and high seas' pollution due to oil spills and mercury. One area of concern in pollution has to do with swordfish and tuna. I wonder why we devote our arguments and powers of persuasion to the subject of standards for mercury levels in fish. We know that mercury is a poison. It may not be present in quantities sufficient to kill or disable the average meat and fish-eating North American; however, we know from the Japanese experience that the people of fish-eating nations may be severely affected.
For years we in Atlantic Canada have based our hope for the future of the commercial fishing industry on the fact that it would not be much longer before the pressures of population in this country forced us to depend more and more on the resources of the oceans. Therefore, it makes no sense to quibble over a few parts per million of mercury, even though there may be honest doubts as to the correct tolerable levels. These arguments may suffice to extend economical fishing for a few years, but they will do little for future generations which may be faced with the inability of making their living from the sea. I submit there are two courses of action open to this government. We can continue to demand research in the toxicology of pollutants: we can make a plea to the source of the pollution because we cannot continue to tolerate thoughtless disregard of our sea resources.
I ask the minister what progress had been made in determining the source of mercury pollution. This is an important matter. I would like to know what efforts he has made to terminate mercury pollution in the high seas. What steps are we taking to encourage aquaculture in Canada? We are trying to clean up our Great Lakes, but I wonder whether Pacific salmon production techniques can be applied to the Great Lakes with any degree of success. I know that experiments have been carried out, but the minister is so busy-and will be even more busy-that we have not had a paper on the progress which has been made in establishing salmon in the Great Lakes and in some areas of Atlantic Canada.
Sea farming needs acreage, if it is to succeed, especially for the raising of shellfish, the most promising seafood for cultivation. Fish, lobsters and shrimp could well prove to be feasible crops. Considering present technology, clams, oysters and mussels offer the best choices. Sea worms and sea moss are two other promising non-food crops. If the minister has time to answer some of our

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
questions, I would like to know whether any progress has been made in aquaculture.
Today's commercial fishermen face though going. We have pollution, which takes up a lot of the minister's time, foreign fleets, depleted stocks, aging boats, rising costs and rising competition in our markets. The prospect of a whole new arm of the fishing industry in coastal towns means strength and support where it is needed and would be helpful-right at home.
What steps is the government taking to encourage and develop aquaculture? What are we doing to increase stocks of salmon for both commercial and sport fishing? What steps are we taking to protect our existing salmon stocks from overfishing in the high seas? This point was thoroughly dealt with by the hon. member for St. John's East. It bears repeating. We have learned that the Minister of Fisheries is required to go to Denmark in order to discuss overfishing of Atlantic salmon by that country while only this week the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries is meeting in Halifax. I wonder why this move is necessary. Why can this problem not be adequately dealt with by the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries?
I would like to have some information about the 1973 Law of the Sea conference. The first meeting preliminary to the 1973 Geneva conference ended on March 31 with the formation of a subcommittee instructed to prepare a preliminary agenda for the 1973 convention. The next preliminary meeting is scheduled for July and August of this year. It is my understanding that the subcommittees working to reach agreement with the 86 nations participating in the convention are probably the key to success or failure of the convention.
What is the policy to be proposed by the United States at the convention, especially with regard to coastal jurisdiction over fisheries resources? This is a very important point, especially to Canada. Are the Soviet Union and Japan lobbying for or against coastal jurisdiction? If they are lobbying against it, what are we going to do about it? This morning a representative of the Newfoundland Fish Trade Council, Mr. Gus Etchegary, appeared before the committee. He told us that in his opinion there were doubts whether the 1973 international convention of the Law of the Sea would be held. We have been told that some Latin American countries are working against holding the conference. The reason is quite understandable. They have already established their territorial seas as being 200 miles from their coastlines. They certainly are not interested in negotiating a 12-mile limit.
What is Canada doing to obtain agreement on our proposals on coastal jurisdiction? Whenever we ask these questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I am glad to see in his seat tonight, or the Minister of Fisheries, we only get vague answers. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has a pleasing personality. I do not dislike him. However, I submit that as Minister of Finance he was a failure. He has won the distinction of being a failure in his own time as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I say this because the Prime Minister is travelling in Russia and announcing a foreign policy for
Canada, the details of which are unknown to the hon. member for Eglinton.
This was evident today when the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond asked him a question about the threat to our national identity as posed by the United States. Evidently the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not know that his leader has claimed in Moscow that we as Canadians must affirm an independent foreign policy in the face of "the over-powering presence of the United States of America". What rubbish! What rot!
It is obvious that we are no longer held in high regard or esteem by our former European allies, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs, according to reports, is unable to obtain agreement from these fishing nations to respect our laws dealing with fisheries conservation and management. As a result of waffling and wavering, we have seen our inshore industry destroyed and the offshore fishery resource seriously decimated. Stocks of haddock are almost extinct. Our stocks of herring are down to something like 75 per cent of their abundance of 10 years ago. Redfish, yellowtail and hake are three other species which are showing signs of complete depletion.
It is obvious that the minister of the environment who will also be Minister of Fisheries, with approximately 13,000 workers under him, will have more than enough work cut out for the next few years, if he is there that long. We need an international fisheries branch within the fisheries department which has as members of its senior staff a number of experts on international matters. I hope the minister will give this matter urgent consideration in view of the obvious need and complete neglect of the fisheries problem by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in view of the serious international negotiations which must be undertaken by fisheries officials in order to salvage this important basic industry.
Finally, I want to point out that we do not need another study of our problems. We have had studies at the provincial level, the federal level, the federal-provincial level, the industry level and the international level. What we are now hoping and asking for is some action. I am concerned that the government, instead of upgrading the fisheries department has now placed it some 40 fathoms down on its administrative ladder.
One other point is with regard to the estimates of the department of the environment which total approximately $73,465,000. I serve on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. From time to time witnesses appear before that committee. When we question an expenditure they are trained to tell us that it was approved by Parliament. I want to state this evening that, as a member of the fisheries committee, the estimates of that department have not been approved by the committee. We simply have not had an opportunity to deal with them. We have been dealing with clean air, clean water and everything else under the sun, but the estimates of the Department of Fisheries have not been scrutinized by the members of the committee. As has already been pointed out, we are not certain we can even get another half day to study the departmental expenditures, with

May 25, 1971

the result that they will come back to the House at the end of this month without a thorough scrutiny by the members of that committee. That is not good management nor is it good housekeeping.
I want it on record that we have never had an opportunity to examine these estimates thoroughly in order to point out to the minister and his officials where they are going wrong and what ought to be done to make the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada a viable and prosperous one, as we who live in that area believe it could be.


John Howard Lundrigan: Does no one on the opposite side intend to get up and make a few remarks? From New Brunswick alone there are five members, as I understand it, who have fisheries-


Mr. Mahoney:: Which clause are you on?


John Howard Lundrigan: Never mind which clause. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance over there-


An hon. Member:: What is his riding?


John Howard Lundrigan: Calgary, somewhere or other. Perhaps he should listen once in a while and try to learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: What about you?


John Howard Lundrigan: There are five members from New Brunswick. There is a serious issue here. Our fisheries are being downgraded. We are not talking for the sake of talking.


James Aloysius McGrath: He wouldn't understand.


Gérald Laniel: Order. The Chair has tried to be lenient but it is difficult for the Chair to press members to take part in the debate. I do not think the hon. member can pursue that line unless he addresses himself to clause 3 which is now before the committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: Before the question is put I should like to reinforce the suggestion made to the committee by my hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate. We feel we are entitled to some kind of response from the minister to the arguments we have placed before the committee, particularly since there has been so little time to deal with this matter in the estimates. There is an amendment which affects the minister's status. Surely it is not too much to expect some reaction from him.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Hurrah!


John (Jack) Davis: First, I should like to say that the amendment before the House is a good amendment, certainly one which I can support. I should like to comment on the words of some hon. members opposite. Basically, they have been claiming that the government has been downgrading the fisheries. Well, if actions speak louder than
Government Organization Act, 1970 words, we have been upgarding the fisheries in the last two or three years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: Certainly we have passed far more legislation relating to the fisheries than was passed in several other Parliaments. In addition, we have passed several notable pieces of legislation dealing with pollution-in other words, with the environment of living things in water. I might remind hon. members opposite of some of these pieces of legislation. We have gone into the market, in effect, and bid up the prices of fish exported from Canada. At the moment, the price fishermen receive for their products is far higher than it has ever been in the nation's history. That is No. 1.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: Then, again, we have drawn a fisheries map of Canada around our shores and we are in the process of phasing-out the operations of a number of nations which have been fishing particularly on the east coast for hundreds of years. That is No. 2; and it is, I believe, another substantial accomplishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: It is also a fact that for the first time in the history of the fishery-I am dealing now particularly with the North Atlantic, though it applies to both coasts-we are establishing quotas which can be sustained for the indefinite future, quotas in respect of the total catch which will be observed by all nations fishing in the West Atlantic. Within the total quota we shall establish national quotas as well. Nothing could do more to sustain the incomes of commercial fishermen than this.
I would be the first to admit we have problems in connection with a number of fish species, particularly on the east coast. We shall have to do our utmost to arrest what has been a decline in the volume of catches by our inshore fishermen. This is a top priority problem and one to which the government must continue to address itself. It is one which the new department of the environment must rate ahead of any that it faces, and our organization, I think, will reflect this.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Would the minister permit a question? The minister indicated that the action of his department raised the price of fish. Is he aware that the fishermen around Lac La Biche have been getting less for their fish since the establishment of the marketing board than they did before?


John (Jack) Davis: That is not true. When the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation was set up, prices were roughly those of 20 years earlier. In the first year we achieved a rise in price amounting to more than 33 per cent. We have had the same experience with respect to the Saltfish Corporation on the east coast. In other words, there has been a marked improvement in the price paid to the fishermen. Also, they have known in advance what the price would be and are in a far better position now than they have ever been.

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to deal more particularly with the charge that by creating a department of the environment, by making the fisheries element part of a larger department, we are downgrading the fisheries. The biggest single problem the fisheries have faced over the years, in addition to depletion of stocks through overfishing, has been the effects of pollution, the damage to fish runs in all our major rivers by big industries and chemical processes.
From now on I expect this problem, if not tackled properly, will be problem No. 1. But we intend to tackle it and we can do so more effectively in the context of the department which is concerned with the quality of water and air. Air pollution can effect water, too; note the fact that the oil pollution of the ocean derives far more from the air than it does from spills into the water. We are concerned about water and air pollution and these are also important factors to be taken into account when considering the value of the fishery.
Some pessimism has been expressed about the state of our international negotiations. Canada will be one of the principal nations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Human Health, in Stockholm in 1972. My understanding is that in 1973 there will be a United Nations-sponsored Law of the Sea conference. We have already developed a policy with respect to that conference, one which we believe we can sell to the majority of nations attending. No fishing for salmon on the high seas: we should be able to put that one over this time around. We did not succeed in the late fifties; perhaps we shall do so in the early seventies. If we do, we shall be able to rebuild Atlantic salmon stocks by establishing hatcheries and spawning grounds on the east coast. We have maintained salmon stock on the west coast. We should be able to more than maintain them on the east coast with that kind of international understanding.
There are meetings in Halifax shortly of the 14 Northwest Atlantic nations. The basic theme, as I have mentioned, is conservation, not only the preservation of existing stocks but the rebuilding of stocks to develop a basis for quotas which each country will know it can safely take. I am confident we must show leadership in these fields.
Certainly I am committed to showing leadership, leadership in respect of preservation of resources not only well out in the high seas but particularly over our own continental shelf. It is the biggest continental shelf in the world, in fishing terms, and one of the most productive on the face of the earth. Therefore, it has to be a very important priority both of this new department and of the government.
I think I can say that the record in recent months has been a good one. We have achieved a great deal in terms of price and income to fishermen. We have a great deal more to do with respect to conservation, much of which can only be done in close co-operation with other nations. We are working with them as effectively as we know
how and are certainly taking initiatives. The new department has been structured to allow us to do this, and we intend to press on with a number of other matters we have started, with some clear indication of future
success.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. A moment ago he mentioned his concern about environmental pollution and referred to the action which would be taken under the new measures to control pollution. Would he not agree that the government had the authority to control environmental pollution under the Fisheries Act, which did not allow any deleterious substance to be placed in the water? The problem was that the government was not able to implement the provisions of the act. Is that not correct?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think in a very general way that was true. The Fisheries Act as it stood a year or more ago was not implemented, for the same reason that the Conservative government that preceded the Liberal government did not implement it either.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is not good enough.


John (Jack) Davis: This legislation, which was drawn over 100 years ago, provided that nothing shall be dumped into our waters, but it proved impossible effectively to prosecute offenders under that act. We amended the act last year so that we could prosecute offenders effectively. So the answer is that we had to improve the act to make it work, and that is what we did.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question of the m'nister? Does he propose to bring to the ICNAF meeting in Halifax the Canadian proposal to ban salmon fishing on the high seas, or is this merely to be the subject of bilateral talks with the Danes?


John (Jack) Davis: We will bring it up again, Mr. Chairman. As the hon. member may recall, last year we raised it quite specifically at the ICNAF meeting but were unable to get unanimous agreement. We are raising it again, of course, and we will be raising it bilaterally with Denmark and with West Germany, which are the two real holdouts in this area. There are not many nations in that category which at a world conference would be against the proposal, and that is why I am optimistic about 1973 and getting United Nations support to ban salmon fishing on the high seas.	,


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister has had meetings with and is getting some co-operation from the commercial salmon fishermen in regard to the new salmon regulations. Will the minister say whether the new regulations will be on a year to year basis and that the regulations this year will not automatically continue into next year? In other words, will the minister take a new look at them on an annual basis?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I hope that in matters of this kind I will always have an open mind. I am sure that the department is not bound from year to year in regard to the regulations. We have put forward regulations which we think are workable. We will modify them as occasion


May 25, 1971
requires. We have laid them out and hope that they will be debated very seriously. Possibly further changes are necessary, but I hope not.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, a few sentences in response to the statement of the minister. If the minister of external affairs wishes to make a comment about the present position of the Canadian government on foreign overfishing, I will sit down for the next 15 minutes.
The Minister of Fisheries has made a puny and puerile statement in defence of the charges that were made this afternoon as he has tried to justify the position taken by this department. The first matter he referred to was that of prices on the American market. If the minister wants to take credit for this, I will give him all the credit he wants, but he knows that prices on the American market today have very little to do with anything that the Canadian government has done. Iceland and other nations trading into the U.S. market are having the same experience as Canada. As a matter of fact, the highest price for fish blocks on the U.S. market was 42 cents, and Iceland is exporting one pound fillets for 69 cents. It is really a firmed-up market. As the minister knows, the price of salt fish results largely from the decline in stocks. There will never be a problem in selling Newfoundland salt fish again in any part of the world, because there has been such a decline in production that we will not have much to sell.
The minister did get applause from his colleagues on one point and I am sure this is a reflection of the lack of understanding-I was going to say "ignorance" but that might give a wrong impression-of the action that he has taken on the east coast in keeping other nations out of the Gulf. The minister talks of the Gulf of St. Lawrence as being an exclusive Canadian fishing zone. I was in the House on the day he got up and bragged about the Gulf being an exclusive Canadian fishing zone. Yet in the very next breath he talked about having to negotiate the phasing-out of other nations. If this is our pond, then is the minister going to put a great big net across the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Strait of Belle Isle so that fishing vessels from other nations cannot get in? This is how the minister talks. He says it is going to take ten years to phase out these nations with traditional fishing rights.
The minister placed a 12-mile limit around the southwestern part of my province. The French came to our very doorstep, and the minister says we do not want to offend the French. I do not know whether it is the minister of external affairs who does not wish to offend the French or the Minister of Fisheries, but the fact is we are pussyfooting around with this problem and the government is showing no leadership.
The minister talked about quotas, which was the third great strike in his favour. He said we have established certain quotas and would take action toward establishing national quotas. As far as the quota on haddock is concerned, our stocks of haddock have declined to the point where they cannot be replenished. By the time we establish closed fishing zones on Georges Bank the stock will be completely decimated. So why talk about quotas in this sort of situation?
Government Organization Act, 1970
The minister then claimed that the reason he is paying so much attention to the environment department is that we have to control pollution in order to save the fisheries. I say that is absolute nonsense. The minister says that we have to control smoke coming from the smokestacks in Montreal, and control the sewage from the Prime Minister's residence in order to save our fishing industry. How is this going to save the fishing industry on the Grand Bank 400 miles off the east coast of Canada? I suggest to the minister that his statement in this regard is absolute gobbledygook and nonsense. Let me tell the minister that there is more to the fisheries of Canada than the fish that swim in the polluted waters of the Fraser River. The minister himself, coming from British Columbia, should recognize that.
The minister says we have to play diplomatic games; that we have to court the French, the South Americans, the Japanese, the Danes and all the other countries who are going to attend the Law of the Sea conference. Is there no room at all for Canadian initiative and aggression? After all, we are talking about our resource. We own the bottom of the ocean on the continental shelf as well as all the minerals and oil, even the crabs and the lobsters that are there. The minister agrees that these resources are ours, even out to the Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap 400 miles off the east coast of Canada. If any plane flies across that area, it must be by bilateral agreement. We have 55 or 60 bilateral agreements in this regard. The resource that lies within this area is fish.
At the Law of the Sea conference in 1958 we were told to take unilateral action if we could not obtain bilateral or multilateral agreement. Is there any initiative on Canada's part in this regard? Do we have to continue pussyfooting with France, Germany, Russia and other countries, getting nowhere? This is what I would like to know. Why does the Minister of External Affairs not get up and tell us whether he is prepared to trade anything for our fisheries resources? Surely he will tell us that Canada will not trade one single ounce of diplomatic or international good will or relationship for our fisheries. Is this true? Let us have the truth here in the House of Commons.
Is the Minister of Fisheries prepared to go to France and state we are not satisfied with the action they are taking in respect of fisheries on the east coast of Canada, and we intend to do something about it? Will he say that, or will he go over and kiss the back of the hand of whoever is sent from France and say they are a great bunch of fellows and we want them to buy whatever it is they are buying from us-culture, or whatever else-and we are not prepared to talk fisheries?
Is the Prime Minister going to talk hard-nosed facts to the Soviet Union? Is he going to tell them they are the greatest predators, raping our resources and hurting many thousands of our families? Is that what the Prime Minister is going to say?


Mitchell William Sharp: You should be the foreign minister; you would be wonderful.

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


John Howard Lundrigan: If I were the foreign minister I would have a little more backbone than the minister sitting over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: We get about as much direction from him as we would get from a ripe watermelon. He gives no direction. I do not believe the minister is sincere, because whenever he does give an answer it is calculated for its political impact. Every time he does give an answer he has a grin or he is laughing at us as he is laughing tonight. This is the kind of thing that gets under the skin of Newfoundlanders. I would suggest that the minister is not welcome in our province with that kind of attitude.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come off it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Why does the minister not stand in his place and tell us the Canadian government's position in respect of our marine resources? What is our position? The minister is going to present something to the Law of the Sea conference. What is our position? Are we going to take action? If the Russians say they are not going to move off and they are not going to restrict their technology, are we going to take aggressive action?
The Minister of Fisheries was told something in the committee today. To be honest, I did not know this and apparently it was not known by the minister's people. This department has no surveillance. The only surveillance it gets is tidbits of information supplied by the air force which deviates from its normal flights. We have been told that the Russians send over mother ships or factory ships and that a number of small vessels are disembowelled from the ships in order to prosecute our fisheries. Apparently the 60 to 70-foot long boats are disembowelled from the great mother ships. This is a concept similar to one used by the Portuguese; they send out fleets of small boats. This is how our resources are being depleted.
Let me inform the Minister of External Affairs that the result of all this is being felt in the homes of many of our people. They are forced to endure a type of poverty and hardship as a direct result of over-fishing by foreign nations. This is what is happening. We all know that thousands of families which used to depend on the Labrador fisheries have had to resort to welfare this year. They can no longer go down to the sea because the Russians cleaned out all the resources on the Hamilton Inlet Bank.
The minister expects the fishermen and members of the House to sit back and take this kind of thing. I hope if there is any backbone or spine attached to office of external affairs in this nation the minister will stand in his place and give us some idea of Canada's position regarding overfishing by foreign nationals off our shores. If we cannot get that, we must assume we are being sold down the drain by this minister. We have to assume this is a form of treason against our people and our country. If the minister is not willing to take this kind of aggressive action, that is the conclusion I must come to as a member from the Atlantic region.
I should like to hear a better rebuttal of the charges we have made. I should like to hear some better rebuttal of the presentation to the committee on fisheries than we have heard from the minister. If we do not hear such a rebuttal we will have to manifest our aggression here. We cannot sit back and take this kind of nonsense any longer.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Are we not going to get some response from the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Let him talk.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue with a few remarks, and I am sure some of my colleagues would want to make further remarks tomorrow on this problem.


An hon. Member:: You have already made three speeches today.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I will make five more speeches before this is all over. We have several hours left before the hour of the guillotine at seven o'clock tomorrow. There is plenty of time. We in Newfoundland have existed since 1497. We have hung on for a long number of years and we are prepared to hang on for a little longer. I should like to challenge the minister, not tonight at two minutes to ten but tomorrow when the bill comes up again for further debate, to give us at least a brief resume of Canada's position in respect of marine resources.
I should like him to tell us the nature of the discussions between the Prime Minister and representatives of the Soviet Union. I am sure this is a matter that keeps him so uptight he is not able to sleep properly when he retires after his busy day's work. I am sure he is concerned about the Atlantic fisheries. I should like the minister to give us some idea of what he has prepared to present to the Law of the Sea conference in 1973. The minister said tonight Canada has already decided its position. Could we at least have some inkling of our attitude toward ICNAF?
The hon. member for St. John's East was wondering if in fact it is necessary for us to continue allegiance to ICNAF when we are not getting co-operation from member nations such as Denmark, which is harvesting our salmon on the high seas in spite of years and years of protestation. Is it worth while seriously considering a continuation of our association with this international commission when we are not getting co-operation?
We want to know whether the Canadian government plans to invest any more funds in practical research on Atlantic fisheries. We were told today that charts used by an Atlantic fish firm, whose representatives appeared

May 25, 1971

before the committee, were made in 1856. These were the latest charts to be used in respect of the Grand Bank off Newfoundland.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty-


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. We have heard some excellent speeches tonight and I am wondering if it is possible for the committee to continue for a few minutes in order to conclude the committee stage. We could then go on to third reading tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The committee can only sit beyond ten o'clock by unanimous consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what I am suggesting.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that I do not see the clock at this time, for the purpose of completing committee of the whole stage on this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that this can only be done on the understanding that we will have a further opportunity to make some remarks, and that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will reply at some stage.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: That is the only condition on which I will give unanimous consent.


Gérald Laniel: There has to be unanimous consent on the general proposition, without any condition. It is difficult for the Chair to judge whether the minister will speak, so if there is unanimous consent the committee must definitely make up its mind at this time. If that is the case, I will not see the clock and we can carry on.


John Howard Lundrigan: Will the Chair indicate when this matter will be before the House again following conclusion of the committee stage? Will there be an opportunity for further debate?


Gérald Laniel: There will be third reading stage when all members can again speak and ask questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Gérald Laniel: Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gérald Laniel: The question is on the amendment of Mr. Drury to subclause 2 of Clause 3. Does the amendment carry?
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Drury) agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there has been consent to reconsider some aspects of the departmental situation, I wonder whether there might also be consent to the reopening of clause 4 so that my amendment could be called in respect of the naming of the deputy minister of the environment as the deputy minister of fisheries. In speaking for this group I can say that if consent is given and the amendment allowed, it could be voted on without any debate.


Gérald Laniel: The committee has heard the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is there consent to revert to clause 4 for the purpose of allowing the hon. member to move an amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I understand that if we open it up, the amendment will be moved and the question put immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So far as we
are concerned, that would be the situation. No debate would be held on the amendment.


James Aloysius McGrath: No. Mr. Chairman. I think there should be provision for at least one response from the official opposition, because when I started my remarks on this stage of our proceedings I suggested to the minister that there should be a consequential amendment to clause 4. I think the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that he should receive consent to move his amendment now and that remarks should be confined to his amendment, is most unsatisfactory.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We will agree to that. I thought the hon. member had made the point and that we had also done so earlier in this debate. Even so, if an opportunity is given to the hon. member to speak we will not ask to do so. We just wish to move the amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: What we had hoped was that in a relatively short time we could deal with the balance of the bill, which is basically schedules and so on. Earlier I indicated the government's position in relation to an amendment relating to the deputy minister of fisheries in response to the hon. member for St. John's East. While the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very persuasive, I do not think he has succeeded in persuading me that we should reverse our position. If there should be a question on it, I think the government would vote against it. If it is a matter of seeking unanimous consent and then having an adverse vote, perhaps we should without unanimous consent and not proceed.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair finds itself in a somewhat confusing position at this time, because it is difficult to establish whether or not there has been unanimous agreement to the proposition the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has put forward. Some members

May 25, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 on the opposition side wish to have an opportunity to say a few words on the amendment. If this is not to be allowed, the Chair can only interpret it as a denial of permission to revert to clause 4, for which unanimous consent is required. So I shall ask the question again. Does the committee agree to revert to clause 4 for the purpose of allowing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to propose an amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 4-Deputy Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by designating clause 4 as subclause (1) of clause 4, and by inserting immediately thereafter the following sub-clause:
"(2) The deputy minister of the environment, when appointed under the provisions of subsection (1), is the deputy minister of fisheries."


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, this is virtually right back to where we started today and I re-submit the arguments I presented earlier to the President of the Treasury Board and the government. This amendment is consequential to the amendment we just voted on. If we are going to designate, as we have done, that the Minister of the Environment shall be the Minister of Fisheries, then it follows under clause 4 that the deputy minister of the environment shall also be the deputy minister of fisheries. One follows on the other and I think one is just as important as the other.
This afternoon the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the reason he would not accept this amendment was that there was no Department of Fisheries, that this new department of the environment would eliminate the Department of Fisheries. Be that as it may, the fact is that notwithstanding the provisions of this bill, which would eliminate the Department of Fisheries, under the provisions of the amendment we have just passed there is a Minister of Fisheries. Consequently, it follows that if there is a Minister of Fisheries he should have a deputy minister, and the deputy minister of the environment should be the deputy minister of fisheries. To me it is very logical. I submit that the government should be consistent and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the government does not see fit to accept the amendment now, I serve notice that the first opportunity I certainly will move the amendment on third reading.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.
Amendment (Mr. Knowles, Winnipeg North Centre) negatived: yeas, 13; nays, 35.


Gérald Laniel: I declare the amendment lost. The committee will now revert to the study of clause 2.
On clause 2-Short Title.


Gérald Laniel: When the committee was considering clause 2, the hon. member for St. John's East
presented an amendment which I think should be read at this time to the committee. It was moved by Mr. McGrath:
That clause 2 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out the words "Department of the Environment" where they first appear immediately after clause 1 on page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "Department of Fisheries and the Environment".


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the committee, in the spirit of compromise that has been prevalent here tonight, would be agreeable to granting me unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment?


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree to give permission to the hon. member to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. McGrath) withdrawn.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall schedule A carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall schedule B carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, schedule B should carry,
but I wish to say that it is a terrible practice to place in a schedule such as schedule B amendments not only repealing existing legislation but putting in amendments that do not deal with the legislation that is being amended. This is sloppy practice and I just want to warn the government not to do it again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The member for Peace River has expressed my sentiments exactly.


Gérald Laniel: Shall schedule B carry?


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill as amended
carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: Next sitting of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: At the next sitting of the House.
[The Deputy Chairman.]
May 25, 1971



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr.  E. B. Olser@Winnipeg Souih Centre: Mr. Speaker, if I could take five seconds of the time of the House, not my own, I should like to say how much we all welcome you back and how great it is to see the agility you are showing tonight by climbing into the throne. I do not know whether there is a lesson there for skiers, but there is a great lesson in perseverance for non-skiers like myself.
Mr. Speaker, there have been charges that Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bryce gave improper information to a subsidiary of IT&T in 1954. I raised the question in the House because I felt the quickest and cleanest way to "scotch" such allegations is to put the government on the spot and get their reaction. I first noticed this allegation in a story published in the Montreal Star on May 19. Since then I have had a chance to peruse a copy of the source-document. This is a book entitled "America Inc.: Who Owns and Operates the U.S.A.?" by Morton Minz and Gerry S. Cohen, with an introduction by Ralph Nadar.
In chapter 11, entitled "Foreign Affairs", the authors attempt to document the manner in which international corporations exploit connections and friendships in an effort to influence government decisions. They examine a project they call operation "Deep Freeze", which was a submarine cable system proposed by the Commercial Cable Company, a subsidiary of IT&T, to stretch from the U.S. via Canada, Greenland and Iceland to the United Kingdom. It was to cost $25 million and the U.S. air force had agreed to lease 11 per cent of the system's original capacity.
The authors claimed that negotiations to secure so-called "cable landing sites" began in the autumn of 1954, involving discussions with the governments of the United Kingdom, Denmark, Iceland, Canada and the United States of America. Subsequently, the whole project fell through. The Commercial Cable filed a suit in the Court of Claims, charging the U.S. with a breach of contract and asking $804,000 in damages. On April 5, 1968, the complaint was dismissed. The company made no appeal.
The points that interest me and prompted my question are as follows: (a) On page 331, the U.S. Justice Department sums up IT&T's campaign to win the requisite government approvals for landing rights. It said IT&T "had occasion to engage in discussions at the highest levels of a number of foreign governments, to make use of, and benefit from, personal friendships with some of the highest officials of these governments, and to seek out-and receive-confidential information about the internal deliberations of these governments and the probable actions which they would take". The phrases "highest levels" and "highest officials" referred, among others,
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion to Lester B. Pearson who was then Canada's minister of external affairs.
Then (b), on page 335 the authors claimed that "on September 14th, 1954, Forest Henderson met with Lester Pearson in Ottawa". The authors then go on to say, "Pearson provided ITT with "information of a confidential nature", the Justice Department said. "The information related to the status of the Canadian government's position, the possible participation by NATO, and the impact of NATO participation". In addition, "ITT's representative had numerous conversations with Mr. Pearson and other Canadian officials relating to the negotiations". The department also said that R. B. Bryce, who was Clerk of the Privy Council in Ottawa and co-ordinated the various cabinet departments, provided ITT "reports on the positions of high Canadian officials".
Then (c), on the same page it is disclosed that the Ottawa law firm of Maclaren, Laidlaw, Corlett and Sherwood were retained by the Commercial Cable Company and sent in a 38-page itemized bill for services. Mr. Pearson is alleged to have called this law firm on November 25, 1954, and agreed to try and "stir things up and let us in on the great difficulty they had run into and bring us into the picture if possible".
Also (d), on the following page it is alleged that Mr. Pearson told Commercial Cable's representative in Canada that "the United Kingdom was opposing our application at this time and that it might be desirable for Canada to hold off making an immediate decision pending further exchanges between the two governments". Also that "NATO was now involved and that various countries within NATO were going to consider it", which would add considerably to delay.
Then (e), on the same page Mr. Bryce is alleged to have said he would "consult immediately with various ministries involved and would give Mr. Martin-of Commercial Cable-a report"; (f), on page 337 the authors alleged that the Ottawa law firm claimed that by May 20, 1955 Mr. Pearson advised that "the British will not give us outlets there under any circumstances". I understand that Canada ultimately agreed to grant landing sites to the company but imposed certain restrictions which the company would not consent to. Therefore there was no "deal" in the end and this, it would seem to me, speaks for itself. It would seem to me that the law firm did a good job of trying to uphold its client's interests and that Canadian government officials and the Canadian cabinet did an equally good job of upholding the public interest as they saw it.
Therefore, I would welcome an answer to the question that I posed in the House of Commons last Friday:
Has the government taken any steps or is it contemplating any steps to investigate this serious allegation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having asked this question because I agree with him that it is desirable that the air should be cleared as quickly as possible.

May 25, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion After reviewing our flies in this matter and discussing it with Mr. Pearson and Mr. Bryce, we find no reason to believe that they told the representatives of the Commercial Cable Company anything that they were not properly entitled to know concerning their application for landing rights in Canada for a cable to be used partly for defence purposes and partly for commercial purposes. The consideration of their application extended over several months and involved a number of questions of law and policy. Numerous representations were made by the company that their legal rights made such delay unnecessary. They did not succeed in their endeavours to receive unconditional approval of their application.



HARBOURS-MONTREAL-PRIORITY IN DEVELOPMENT OF PORTS POLICY

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the minister a question regarding a special report prepared by his department which allegedly recommends priority attention for development of the ports of Halifax, Quebec City and Vancouver. Similar questions were asked by the hon. members for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) and Laprairie (Mr. Watson). We are all representatives from the Montreal area. We asked these questions because we are very concerned about the port of Montreal. We would like to know more about this special report.
Does it, in fact, state that priority development will be given to the ports of Halifax, Quebec and Vancouver in preference to Montreal and other ports? Does it mean that the government intends to concentrate on the development of these three ports to the exclusion of Montreal? What, in fact, are the details of this report and has it been accepted as government policy?
I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that the port of Montreal is one of the most important keys to the entire Montreal economy. Historically, Montreal developed as a great commercial centre due to its port and the transportation network fanning out from it. The principal industry in Montreal is transportation. At the base of the transportation industry is the port and shipping business. If the port business should continue to decline, or if it is downgraded in any way, we would be striking at the core of the Montreal economy.
For years Montreal has been the most important port in Canada. It had the greatest tonnage and the most traffic. From 1936 to 1967 the port of Montreal accounted for 75 per cent of the revenue of the National Harbours Board. In 1969 Montreal had a total cargo of 20,538,174 tons of traffic, compared with 10,553,997 tons in Halifax and 7,439,871 tons in Quebec City. Montreal had assets worth $186 million, compared with $46 million in Halifax and $46 million in Quebec City. The port of Montreal contributes $150 million a year to the local economy.
I cannot understand why anyone would want to bypass the great facilities which already exist in Montreal, facilities which are close to a large market and industrial centre, facilities which are well served by supplementary transport, and with a great record in the past.
It is true that there have been troubles in the port of Montreal with labour, productivity and theft but many of these problems are now being resolved. There has been a great improvement in the campaign against theft. It has diminished considerably. Action has been taken to resolve the labour problem. With the recent establishment of the Maritime Employees Association, we expect further improvements.
Now is the time when we need an act of faith in the port of Montreal, not a statement of doubt. Most of all, we need a positive act of faith by the government which is supposed to represent the public interest. As I have already pointed out, the port of Montreal is the base of the Montreal economy. If it is to succeed, we will need the co-operative efforts of all parties involved. We are very concerned about the special report produced by the Department of Public Works. I would like the minister to answer my questions about it this evening.


Arthur Laing: The
question raised by my hon. friend pertains to a statement I made in the province of Nova Scotia in which I expressed an optimistic outlook, one which I possess very firmly, about the prospects of the ports on the Atlantic coast drawing and maintaining an increasing amount of Canadian freight. I base this view on two grounds, first of all, the Kennedy Round tariff reductions which I believe will open new markets for us in the United States through the Maritimes and, second, the fact that we are an exporting nation, marketing abroad about 29 per cent of all our products. We have to go into the European Economic Community whatever its form. I believe the Atlantic ports will benefit from this.
I was optimistic about the port of Halifax and made reference to the improving position of Saint John, New Brunswick. This has been considered in some quarters, and apparently by my hon. friend also, as less than encouraging to Montreal. The hon. member says that Montreal needs encouragement, not a statement of doubt. Mr. Speaker, in all the time I spoke in Nova Scotia 1 never mentioned Montreal once. I made no reference to the St. Lawrence River, and to suggest I made a statement of doubt reflecting on Montreal is surely an exaggeration.
Is it not possible for me to look with enthusiasm upon the development of certain ports, some of which we have built ourselves, for example, Port Hawkesbury which can accommodate some of the biggest ships in the world, without at the same time being accused of denigrating other ports which I did not mention? If one singles out certain ports as the subject of comment, is it necessary at the same time to give a list of all the other ports so that they will be specifically mentioned too?
There has been editorializing by the media and others concerning the reflection I am supposed to have made on Montreal. I made no reflection whatsoever. The report to which I referred was made to my department in 1969 by the firm of Gibb, Albery and Partners of Toronto. It dealt with the immense revolution in transportation they saw

May 25, 1971

at that time and which has been developing since to a tremendous degree both at sea and on land.
We have to stand in awe before the remarkable technological development which has taken place whereby ships are racing across the seas to deliver to unit crates which are racing across the land. This will alter our
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
shipping requirements, and we in Canada want to be modem. I would like to see this report released, though we would be obliged to remove from it certain information given in confidence by firms concerned.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
5 [DOT]. '



*

Wednesday, May 26, 1971