1971-02-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on Environmental Pollution-Mr. Givens.

[Stage Direction]
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Legault.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.
tEditor's note: For text of above reports see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, before requesting permission to table a return, may I rise on a question of privilege?
Mr. Speaker, yesterday my name was pronounced in this chamber.

I do not mind being called "Jeen", "John" or "Jake", although I prefer to be called "Jean". I do not mind being called "Lac", "Luke" or "Luck", although I prefer being called "Luc". I do not mind being called "Piep-in", "Papin" or "Peppin" although I prefer being called "Pepin". The only name I resent is "Peep-in".


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has not established the basis of his point of order or question of privilege. This is hardly a "pepin" (problem).



DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the same line of thought, Mr. Speaker, may I table a document issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and dealing with seasonally adjusted regional rates of unemployment?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the seriousness of the unemployment problem and his concern about it and in view of the obvious difficulties of some cities and municipalities in getting projects under way, is it the intention of the government of Canada to meet with provincial and municipal representatives in order to iron out some of the existing difficulties and enable those projects to be undertaken? I refer specifically, of course, to conversations that took place in Toronto yesterday which exposed certain difficulties.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are always anxious to meet with representatives of provincial governments or municipalities who want to discuss ways in which we can co-operate in combating unemployment. Several provinces and municipalities have taken advantage of the $160 million that has been offered to them by way of loans in our December budget. Some have not. Obviously we are anxious to discuss with them what the advantages for them would be in using these funds to undertake projects which would create employment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question goes far beyond the loan fund of the government. Perhaps I might address a specific question to the Minister of Transport. Is the federal government now prepared to make the commitment requested by the city of Toronto with regard to subway and rail movement to enable the metro centre project to get off the ground and move forward?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that that particular aspect of the program is not necessarily or primarily the

February 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
reason for any delay in the project. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, as I have frequently stated in this House and outside, that we will give full co-operation to the project. As I understand it, in the the first instance it is a matter of the two railways deciding how and at what rate they want to proceed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the answer given by the minister, it is obvious there is hardly a meeting of minds between the representatives of the city of Toronto and the minister. I therefore ask the Prime Minister if he will agree to undertake such a meeting. If he is not prepared to do that, is he at least prepared to have a meeting with some of his private members who represent the city of Toronto and who complain they cannot see, let alone speak, to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We cannot very well telephone all the mayors of Canada to ask if they want to see us. I repeat that we are open to meeting with anyone who asks to see a minister or any of our federal officials at any time. Surely the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that I pick up the telephone and call here and there to see what we can do for them.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Along the lines of the answer given by the Prime Minister may I ask him whether, instead of telephoning, he could not announce a meeting inviting the heads of the major municipalities or all municipalities in Canada for the purpose of discussing what works may be undertaken? There is no need to telephone. He can call such a meeting by making an announcement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not a very constructive suggestion, Mr. Speaker. Only last week we had a meeting with the provinces at which we discussed the economic situation and unemployment. Surely the hon. member knows that the municipalities come under the jurisdiction of the provinces. In that sense it would be very improper for us to convene them here.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED REINSTATEMENT OF WINTER WORKS PROGRAM-GRANTS INSTEAD OF LOANS-SHARING OF PROJECT COSTS

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As it is not too late, will the government reinstate the winter works program as an emergency measure, as requested yesterday by the mayor of Toronto?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As has
been said several times, Mr. Speaker, we have replaced the winter works program with programs which are fourfold as generous as the winter works program ever was.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: As the mayor of Toronto stated that the city cannot get along on loans such as have been proposed by the government, will the government either make grants or institute a shared-cost program available to boroughs in the same position as the city of Toronto because of the great degree of unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised to hear a member from the Toronto area suggest that the loans be replaced by grants. If that were the case, the grants would have to be paid by taxes. They would not be reimbursable. Grants would be paid by taxes which would be mainly levied around the city of Toronto.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Would the Prime Minister not agree-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-GRANTS INSTEAD OF LOANS- DISCUSSIONS WITH QUEBEC

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
In view of his refusal to transform the loans into subsidies, can the Prime Minister tell us whether at the constitutional conference the premier of Quebec discussed the matter with one of his colleagues in the Cabinet, or with himself, and whether he has given Mr. Bourassa a reply?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once more I repeat that it is not customary to reveal the subject matter of in camera conferences. If the hon. member wants to be informed of the position taken by the Quebec government and not made public, he must approach that government, or have some representative in the Quebec National Assembly put the question.


Georges-J. Valade: I would like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Prime Minister has been content with providing me with an evasive answer. I am asking him whether he has discussed with Quebec's premier the possibility of changing grants into loans to the provinces for winter works.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not revealing the confidential position of the other parties is not being evasive, Mr. Speaker.
If the hon. member is inquiring about Quebec's position, my answer remains the same. If he is asking whether I have discussed the problem, the answer is negative.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LOAN FUND CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider tabling the correspondence between the federal government and the provinces concerning the loan fund?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Such correspondence did not come my way. I will find out from the ministers whether they have received any and whether the correspondence was confidential or otherwise. If there has been correspondence and the provinces
February 16, 1971

do not object to its publication I cannot see that we would have any objection. But surely the proper course would be to address the question to the provinces themselves. If they want to make their position public they usually do not ask for our permission.



UNEMPLOYMENT-EARLY ANOUNCEMENT OF NEW PROGRAMS TO ALLEVIATE PROBLEM

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Is the government planning to announce any new programs now or in the immediate future, or do we have to rely on the programs which have been instituted since last March, to quote the Prime Minister's speech in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I missed the last part of the question, but I do not think it is very important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Can I meekly, mildly and gently approach the esteemed and honourable gentleman who is occupying the throne of Canada at the moment-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that he cannot preface a question in this way. If he has a supplementary it should be asked in a direct manner. We do have to get on; we are still on the first question. I propose, after the hon. member's supplementary, to recognize the hon. member for Broadview and then go to the next question which will be asked by the hon. member for Shefford.


John Howard Lundrigan: On behalf of 686,000 Canadians and myself, perhaps I will leave my question for now as unemployment is not important-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is continuing in the same vein. He cannot ask a question in this way. He has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary and I hope he will ask it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would condescend to tell us whether any new programs are to be announced now-let them eat what? I did not get what the Prime Minister just said.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. McGrath:: Shame on you. Say it for Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Broadview. Order. I believe the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate seeks the floor on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, I want to say two things. First, I hope that the remark of the Prime Minister has been recorded. Second, he does not have the guts to say to the people of Canada what he has just said across the floor of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We should proceed in ap orderly fashion. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The hon. member has to resume his seat when the Speaker wants to address the House. I gather that the hon. member has a question of privilege. He should state to the Chair what his question of privilege is; this is what I want to bring to his attention.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am not permitted to use four-letter words in the House so I cannot quote for the record what the Prime Minister said. But let me say to the Lapalme workers that what they heard from the Prime Minister was mild compared with what he has just said to the House of Commons today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: As the Member of Parliament for one Newfoundland constituency I have all rights and privileges in representing my people and the people of the Canadian nation, including the right to present to the government any position or recommendation I think appropriate to alleviate the serious burden of unemployment. This attitude on the part of the Prime Minister is so contemptuous that it is certainly creating a tremendous amount of concern across Canada.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I rise on the same question of privilege,. Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the right hon. Prime Minister is rising on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,	the	hon.	member	has
accused me of uttering a four-letter word in this House. That is an absolute untruth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.	The	hon.	member	for
Hamilton West is rising on a question of	privilege.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I want the record to show that after I referred the remark made by the Prime Minister back to him in terms indicating he had used this four-letter word twice, he then looked at me and used the same word again. I will stand up and be a gentleman with respect to the position the Prime Minister holds, but.
23966-5 i

February 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
under no conditions do I have to sit here representing 100,000 people and accept the type of abuse that has been thrown not only at me but at every member of the opposition. I think this is a shameful and unacceptable attitude for the Prime Minister of Canada to take.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I challenge any member opposite to say that they heard me utter a single sound, and I challenge the Hansard reporter to say whether or not he has recorded anything of that sort.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I thought the Prime Minister would back down, but any time you make a gesture like this there is no question about what it means.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Broadview has the floor.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Broadview. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is rising on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is one concerning which I ask for your protection. The Prime Minister has just thrown out a challenge to the Hansard reporter. That does not lie with any of us. I ask Your Honour to protect the Hansard reporter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUESTED EXTENSION OF SEASONAL UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFIT CUT-OFF DATE

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the time factor in respect of the programs which the government has implemented to cope with the unemployment situation, will the Prime Minister consider extending the seasonal benefits date, which is June 1, under the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to take care of the time lag regarding unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will be patient for a few days he will see that new Unemployment Insurance Act legislation will come before the House based on the white paper which was fully discussed by the House some time ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary question, although I indicated a moment ago that recognition should be given to the hon. member for Shefford.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ATTITUDE OF QUEBEC TO WHITE PAPER ON UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, my anger is subdued somewhat as a result of

the smile on the face of the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether in fact, as a result of the opposition to the white paper on unemployment insurance by the province of Quebec, all areas of concern have now been brought back to a common denominator, and is the province now prepared to go along with the terms of the white paper?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the province of Quebec. There have been several meetings with them. The hon. member will see the results of the white paper in the bill that will be put before the House. I cannot predict what the province of Quebec will say or how it wifi react to this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has indicated that we should recognize the hon. member for Shefford. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat? I have indicated that there should not be any more supplementary questions for the moment on this very important matter. I will return to the hon. member for Spadina in a moment. I gather that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I believe it is customary for each party to be allowed to ask one major question. No main question has been asked by this party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the point being made by the hon. member. At times there are a number of supplementary questions on the first general question, in which two of the major opposition parties participate. As a result members of the party to the extreme left do not have the opportunity of asking a question. In equity and justice I feel that they should be given the opportunity to ask a question after about half of the question period has been taken up by two of the parties in the House. That is why I am inclined to make an exception this afternoon. The point has been well taken and I am sure the hon. member for Shefford is prepared to wait for a moment while we hear from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
quite prepared to wait if the hon. member for Shefford wants to proceed.
% %



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought that the faces made in this House would prevent me from asking questions.
I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister about the freezing of wages. As I note that often the Canadian policy is based on that of the United States as regards, for instance, the fluctuation of the Bank of
February 16, 1971

Canada exchange rate, is the Canadian government contemplating, as does the United States government, early implementation of a wage freeze?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware, Mr. Speaker, that the Americans have frozen wages but I am willing to inquire about the matter.



POLLUTION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who for some time has not been able to be in the House although he has been on the roster, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises from a speech the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made in Vancouver last Thursday in which he quite properly deplored the plan for bringing oil from Alaska down to Cherry Point, Washington, in tankers and the attendant hazards this movement would entail. My question has to do with the minister's offer of the Canadian northland as a bridge for the movement of oil from Alaska down the Mackenzie River Valley. I should like to ask if this offer of the Canadian northland for this purpose is a statement of government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the reference the hon. member has in mind. I will check into it, but there is no government policy to make any precise offer, if that is what the hon. member is asking. There has been, of course, the suggestion that this course might be a cheaper and more useful way of moving oil south. There has to be, of course, attendant upon that a caution about the danger of pollution in our own territory which might result from it. There has been no formal offer of which I know.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs said "we have been doing some studies on the ecological consequences of such a pipeline". I want to ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry whether such studies on the ecological consequences of a pipeline down the Mackenzie River Valley have been undertaken, if they have been completed and whether or not they will be made available to Members of Parliament before this question has to be decided upon?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure hon. members that studies along these lines are under way. The oil companies are also engaged in a major experiment at Inuvik with a view to designing a pipeline which will be compatible with our environment.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, can the minister or the Prime Minister assure the House that until such studies have been made public and members of the House have had an opportunity to study the ecological effects of such a pipeline, no final decision will be made by the government in respect of giving consent for its construction?


John (Jack) Davis: I think we can assure the House we will not only look into the ecological consequences of a pipeline but also be communicating as effectively as possible with the public, and certainly with members of this House and with the public.



FEASIBILITY STUDY OF CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE TO EASTERN CANADA IN LIGHT OF NEW OFFSHORE OIL PRICE AGREEMENT

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of the new agreement in respect of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. I direct it to the Prime Minister in view of the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. On January 20 and on February 9 I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the possibility of the government initiating and promoting a feasibility study to ascertain the economics of building a pipeline from western Canada and the Arctic to supply the eastern Canadian market. In view of the OPEC agreement, would the Prime Minister and the government consider setting up a study group sponsored by the government and independent of free enterprise in view of the new economic situation which has developed as a result of this recent agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice on behalf of the minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I put this supplementary. In view of the fact that last week the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that such a study would be left up to free enterprise and in view of the fact that free enterprise is capable of shipping crude petroleum from western Canada and importing it from the Near East, would the Prime Minister give serious consideration to adopting a different viewpoint and set up a clearcut study of the economic feasibility as such a pipeline would be so important to the gross national product and particularly in providing jobs for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the second part of the speech as notice too, Mr. Speaker.

February 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA



STATUS OF ORDERS FOR LOCKHEED TRI-STAR AIRCRAFT IN VIEW OF ROLLS-ROYCE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES- EFFECT ON CANADIAN SUBCONTRACTORS

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Would he inform the House what the status is of Air Canada orders for Tri-Star aircraft in light of the fact that, because of difficulties the RB-211 Rolls-Royce engines will not be available for these aircraft at the scheduled time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the comment that the engines will not be available is of course correct in terms of the specified time. I understand negotiations are proceeding in London today with the British government and Lockheed with a view to reactivating the order for the Rolls-Royce engines. In the interim Air Canada and all other airlines which have placed orders for the Tri-Star are holding their plans in abeyance until they see the outcome of the talks in London.


John Angus MacLean: Is it correct to assume that Air Canada has not developed any contingency plans yet to obtain substitute equipment if these orders are not filled?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think that would be a correct assumption. There are alternative types of aircraft available which are roughly comparable. At the present time Air Canada still has its queue position in line for the Lockheed Tri-Star and will await the outcome of the talks in London.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the $30 million loan made on the British market by Air Canada recently, may I ask the minister whether or not that was for the purpose of orders for the Rolls-Royce engines and, if so, has any of this money yet been advanced to Rolls-Royce for these orders?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to take that question as notice as to the details. My general assumption would be that there was no ill effect so far as Air Canada was concerned because it seems to me it was related to the delivery of the engines for Air Canada's use, but I will get a formal answer for the hon. member as soon as I can.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Supply and Services. I would like to ask him if he would say what effect the delay or cancellation of these orders by Air Canada would have on subcontractors in the Canadian aircraft industry and whether his department has any contingency plans to relieve the resultant further unemployment which would occur in the Canadian industry?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the delay in the Lockheed program will reduce the workload in a number of plants in Canada, in Edmonton, Winnipeg and other places, but the extent of that reduction cannot be gauged at the present
time mainly for the reasons the Minister of Transport has just revealed to the House.



ALLEGED INCREASE IN SMUGGLING OF MARIJUANA AND HASHISH INTO CANADA-REPRESENTATIONS TO REDUCE SOURCES OF SUPPLY

["Orders of the day. The hon. member for St. John's East rises on a point of order."]
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Can the minister indicate whether there has been a substantial increase in the smuggling of marijuana and hashish into Canada comparable with that experienced in the United States in the past year and, if so, would he tell us what new initiatives are being taken to combat the problem?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer the question of the hon. member, but I can say that an official commission is now studying the problem, and that we are keeping in touch with its members. We are co-operating fully with the commission and we intend to take into consideration the recommendations it will make.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary was for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Have any representations been made recently-and I am aware of the fact that the Le Dain commission is sitting at the present time-to Mexico and the countries of the Middle East, Central and South America and Southeast Asia to see whether more aggressive action can be taken to reduce the sources of supply of these drugs while awaiting the Le Dain Commission report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what or how many representations may have been made. If they have been made they would have been made through the minister responsible for external affairs. Perhaps the question could be addressed to him when he is in the House.



John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government agreed to a special tariff concession to Michelin of Canada, and are other changes in the tariff structure on tires under consideration?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Michelin tariff arrangement was
announced a long time ago. It was referred to in the House on a number of occasions. I will find the proper references and send copies to my hon. friend.

February 16, 1971


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture relating to the lower income registered by farmers as compared to last year.
Can the minister tell us what steps he intends to take to make up for the losses the farmers suffered because prices went down by 5.9 per cent in December 1970?
tEnglish]


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there are many programs and amendments to programs that are under way now which I am sure the hon. member is aware of and which will help to relieve this situation.


PRESENTATION OF FARM CONSOLIDATION PLAN PRIOR TO LEGISLATION IMPLEMENTING GRAIN PRODUCTION AND RECEIPTS POLICY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I ask the
Minister of Agriculture whether he can assure the House that the government's plan for farm consolidation will be presented to the House prior to legislation being introduced to implement the grain receipts policy for the western grain industry?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To repeat what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said a few days ago, to bring the stabilization program into full effect would require amendments to a number of Acts.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: In light of what the minister has said, and since it is necessary to know what type of farm and rural community structure is going to be stabilized under the plan to which he referred, is he not putting the cart before the horse, and will the minister reconsider the position and make a statement on motions-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is in the form of a representation.


COMBINES
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of certain questions that have been asked in the House by me, by the hon. member for Don Valley and by other hon. members concerning the so-called price war among major grocery chains, is the minister now in a position to give us a report on what the Combines Investigation Branch has been doing in this regard?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I made it very clear that we have been following the situation in most of Canada where discount operations seem to be appearing from two points of view:
Inquiries of the Ministry
first, whether any offence under the Combines Investigation Act is being committed and, second, whether there has been any misleading advertising with regard to any of the claims respecting discount prices. Naturally, as is traditional in these matters which involve what are in essence criminal investigations, I am not in a position to report progress on any of these inquiries unless or until charges are laid.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Since reports in the press and elsewhere indicate that prices have not in fact been going down as regards one of the major companies but going up, I wonder if the minister could do something to accelerate the investigations that are now going on in order to prevent at least some of the smaller grocery stores in Ontario being put out of business by what appears to be very suspicious activity?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister indicate whether his department is now planning to introduce a system of recruitment quotas for each of the provinces on or about April 1 and, if so, what is the nature or the level of these quotas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: I would have to confirm this, but I know of no system of quotas on a provincial basis. There is, of course, a very detailed quota system with regard to specific trades.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister determine what the facts are in looking into the matter because there are rumours afloat that there is a system of quotas which would make a division between Anglophone and Francophone recruitment in the armed forces, and it seems to me that this should be cleared up once and for all.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could remind the hon. member that any Anglophone or Francophone differential would not be on a provincial basis.


INFORMATION CANADA
David Lewis: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that Information Canada is alleged to have made a grant or to be prepared to make a grant to an organization called The Canada Committee? If so, is that one of the functions that have been assigned to Information Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to check into both questions.

February 16, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY


QUEBEC-ALLEGED GUERILLA TRAINING CAMPS
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Several days ago I put a question to the Solicitor General which he said he would like to look into. Perhaps I can repeat the question for his benefit. Has the government been able to locate any of the guerilla training camps supposedly in the interior of Quebec and, if so, what action has been taken and were any arrests made in this connection?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, we feel that it is the responsibility of the Quebec police forces to supervise their own territory with respect to cases of the kind mentioned by the hon. member.


Percy Verner Noble: In view of the fact that a government representative stated last week in the United States that we could expect a continuation of violence in Canada, is the government keeping close surveillance on known trouble areas, and have the so-called guerilla training camps been obliterated?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, violence in Canada is tied up with a worldwide phenomenon and all societies should henceforth take whatever action is required to face it.


CROWN ASSETS DISPOSAL
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services responsible for Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Were any qualifications included in the bill of sale of HMCS Bonaventure recently sold, presumably for scrap?


James Armstrong Richardson: The qualification on the sale of Bonaventure was that it had to be scrapped.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to put my question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he advise the House if the Chinese Nationalist government is in possession of the Bonaventure and whether Taiwan forces are training aboard it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would have to make inquiries in that regard.


HOUSING
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: My question is for the minister in charge of housing. Will the minister table soon the Lithwick study entitled "Urban Canada: Problems and Perspective" which was commissioned by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation? I ask this question because it is circulating among different government officials, private organizations such as the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and the Department of Municipal Affairs of the government of Ontario, and I think we should have it also.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: That is my intention, and it is a surprise to me if it has been given such wide circulation.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the anxiety expressed by many veterans 65 years of age or over who are receiving war veterans allowances because of a notice to the effect that they must apply for a guaranteed income supplement or be regarded as doing so, will the minister make a statement as to why this is being done and the authority for it?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that there will be increases of 10 per cent in disability pensions and 15 per cent in war veterans allowances. Recipients of war veterans allowances have been asked to go and receive their OAS and GIS first so that additional resources will be made available to them. This is quite satisfactory and there is no question concerning it. These people are aware of the situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister check into the aspect of the notice which tells these veterans that they must so apply and that if they do not do so they will be regarded as having done so? That is the point on which we would like to have an explanation.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


NOVA SCOTIA-REQUEST FOR FUNDS TO REPAIR DAMAGE
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the flood damage which has occurred in Nova Scotia, especially in the town of Bridgewater where the bridge connecting the

February 16, 1971

town with the main highway has been completely destroyed, has the Prime Minister received any request from the premier of that province for special disaster funds to aid in repairing the damage to this and other flooded areas in the province?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not yet received such a request but I will check with my office to see whether any comes in.
# * *


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question which is very important in the eyes of farmers.
In recognition of the serious concerns which are felt by most farmers' groups with respect to the implications of Bill C-176, is the minister in a position to assure us that no marketing agency for a specific agricultural product will be established unless it has been approved by the absolute majority of the producers involved?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The selection of the officers and directors of the specific commodity boards will follow the agreements that are made between the federal and provincial governments because obviously these agencies will be administering delegated legislation from both levels of government. Therefore I cannot say in advance what those agreements will be.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to direct a question to the Secretary of State but because of the urgency I will address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the President of the Canadian Citizenship Federation hopes to have a museum to record files and treasures of the ethnic groups of Canada-"Germaphones", "Ukraphones", "Polophones" and all other groups that belong to our multicultural society-would the Prime Minister please consider Mr. Casimir Stanczykowski's ethnic multicultural movement and make it a part of the National Arts Centre?


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is the intention of the government to designate a minister to be responsible for studying the
Business of the House
report on the status of women with a view to implementing its federal recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not
the responsibility of any one minister designated yet, Mr. Speaker; it is a responsibility of the cabinet.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Perhaps the House would allow the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway a supplementary.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very great interest of the large women's organizations across the country who are writing letters in considerable numbers, could the Prime Minister give a date when someone in the cabinet will be designated to be in charge of this report and its implementation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member is suggesting that we downgrade the report to the level of one minister. I say the full cabinet is concerned with it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for St. John's East rises on a point of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order regarding the business of the House. My point of order refers to the meetings today of the Standing Committees of the House. This happens to be one of the inactive days so far as committees are concerned because only five committees are meeting. My point of order is based on the fact that three of those committees are meeting at 3.30 p.m. at a time when this House is going into Committee of the Whole to examine Bill C-207. Mr. Speaker, the government organization bill is of interest to every member of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: -and the fact that the House is going into Committee of the Whole, which by its very name implies it is a Committee of the Whole House, would suggest that this would preclude any Standing Committee of the House from meeting at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in a little bit of quandary-


An hon. Member:: That is nothing new!


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope the trained seals on the other side who have no interest in this institution will restrain

February 16, 1971
Business of the House
themselves. I find myself in a quandary because I happen to be a member of two of those Standing Committees. The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs is meeting at 3.30 p.m. for a clause by clause examination of Bill C-180, the government's packaging bill. Amendments will be moved to that bill this afternoon. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications is meeting at four o'clock this afternoon for a clause by clause examination of the CNR financing bill, a subject in which most members of the House have a great deal of interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the House will be going into Committee of the Whole to examine clause by clause Bill C-207, the government's organization bill. I have a special interest in that bill and I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that my privileges as a member of this House are being transgressed by the way the business of the House is organized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I think it is about time this matter was resolved, Mr. Speaker; otherwise this institution, as we saw this afternoon, will disappear because it is gradually losing its effectiveness by virtue of the new rules which in my opinion have destroyed the effectiveness of this House. Contributing to that demise of Parliament is the government's roster system which is contrary to Standing Order 5 of the rules of the House. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a denial of my rights and privileges as a member of the House, and subject to Your Honour's ruling on this point of order I will be raising a question of privilege and a motion based on it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the same point of order. Further to what the hon. member for St. John's East has said, this afternoon the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs is to meet. As the hon. member said, the House is in a unique position today in that under the new rules we are going into Committee of the Whole. Surely this committee, sitting as a committee of the House, should override and surpass any of the Standing Committees? I agree with what the hon. member for St. John's East said, that it is impossible for this House to do its work properly if Standing Committees are going to meet in this fashion. If the House is in Committee of the Whole discussing an important bill to increase cabinet posts and parliamentary secretaries and the reorganization of many departments, surely these matters are important to the government generally and to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East. It is true that there are several Standing Committees meeting this afternoon and it is true that we are commencing the eleventh day of consideration of the government organization bill. However, if the hon.
member and his colleagues are seriously interested in the efficiency of Parliament they ought to give some consideration to facilitating the passage of that bill so that we can move on to other important matters.


Mr. Bell:: Closure!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member complains about the way we organize and run our common business but, as I understand it, each committee sitting this afternoon while the House is sitting has authority from the House to sit. Each committee has to come before us and ask for authority to sit and has received that authority. As Government House Leader I have no authority to determine when Standing Committees shall decide to convene. I realize this is a problem and I certainly have been considering how we can do the business of the House and maintain the importance that ought to be attached to this chamber-


Mr. Baldwin:: Tell that to your colleagues in the cabinet.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -when so many Standing Committees are meeting at the same time. They have the same problem in the British House of Commons, They have established a standing or specialized committee system and are now complaining that it is taking away the importance that should exist in the chamber itself. I am quite prepared to consider any suggestions that can be implemented but I do not believe that the problem arises from any breach of order or ill will on the part of any hon. members. Rather, it is as a result of the general organization that we have adopted and sought and embedded in our rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the purpose of taking part in the argument that has arisen but to ask the Government House Leader if he would not like to correct one statement that he made. I realize he was not on the Procedure and Organization Committee when we amended the rules but his statement that each of these committees has come to the House and received permission to sit is not correct. Under our rules as amended, Standing Order 65 (8) states that committees may sit while the House is sitting. In other words, it is a standard provision, not something specially obtained as the minister said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I certainly accept that, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was going to raise the same point as was raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Speaker. In addition, I seem to detect in the remarks of the President of the Privy Council a suggestion that he was imputing motives to the opposition-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -with respect to the debate on Bill C-207. I think the hon. gentleman has been here long enough, Mr. Speaker, to realize that it is the duty of the opposition to oppose and combat bad and obnoxious legislation.

February 16, 1971


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, may I respectfully point out that at 3.30 p.m. this afternoon the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is also meeting. However, this meeting is taking place because of the absolute insistence of the Conservative members that it do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: You can never tell from which corner your support will come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the hon. member for St. John's East seeks the floor. He has already spoken on the point of order. I wonder whether he wishes to speak for a second time on that point.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to respond to the request of the Government House Leader to facilitate the business of the House and resolve this problem which has arisen, because the committee of the whole is to sit while standing committees are scheduled to sit. I suggest to the Government House Leader that the meetings of the standing committees of the House ought to be cancelled or postponed while this House sits in committee of the whole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I support that suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East and other hon. members who have taken part in the debate on the point raised have drawn to the attention of the Chair and of the House that there is a difficulty today in that three or more important committees are to sit at the same time as the House, is sitting in committee of the whole. Hon. members no doubt realize that the House has been sitting in committee of the whole over many years and that, before the new rules were adopted, from session to session perhaps as much as two thirds of the time of the House of Commons was spent in considering matters in the committee of the whole. Even in those days, I am sure that standing committees sat at the same time as the House sat in committee of the whole.


An hon. Member:: Not many committees sat.


Mr. Speaker:: I may be wrong; I have simply been giving my impression. I am under the impression that we spent most of our time during each session in committee of the whole. Sometimes we spent week after week in committee of the whole. Some of the standing committees of the House must have sat during those debates. I may be wrong; I have nothing before me to confirm that impression which I am conveying to the House but that is my impression.
It is obvious that, according to our Standing Orders, and I think that the hon. member for St. John's East will be the first one to recognize this, what is being proposed this afternoon is permitted. The rules permit the House to sit in committee of the whole and, at the same time, two, three or more standing committees may sit in competition with the House. The President of the Privy Council has made the point that he agrees with the objection raised by hon. members from opposition parties 23966-6^
Business of the House
that, really, the work of this House should be concentrated in this Chamber. This is where the accent ought to be and this is where most of the action should be.


An hon. Member:: Then, we ought to change the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: By permitting so many committees to sit at the same time in competition with the House, and in competition with the committee of the whole, we are complicating our work. In many ways we are weakening, I might say, or diluting the significance of the work which is being done or which ought to be done in this chamber. Although that grievance or complaint might be well founded, the Speaker can do very little about it. The hon. member will recognize that it is the duty of the Chair to see that the Standing Orders are observed. The Standing Orders make it possible for such committees to sit at the same time as the House of Commons sits in committee of the whole. I might suggest that an effort could well be made by the House Leaders to try to arrange the business in some other way so that conflicts such as we are experiencing today will not arise. This having been said I must, from a strictly procedural point, rule that there is nothing the Chair can do to rectify the situation about which hon. members have complained.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I had been trying to catch your eye and was not recognized before you made your ruling. Before the introduction of the new rules, most legislation was considered in this chamber and when we reached the committee of the whole stage, bills were considered in committee of the whole. It was implied when the new rules were being instituted, and this is a matter of record, that various pieces of legislation were to be referred from this House to the standing committees in order that the passage of those pieces of legislation might be expedited. It was implied that the purpose of those various committees was to consider legislation. Hon. members of this House often serve, at their own request, on one standing committee or on another, and it was felt that it would be quite possible for several pieces of legislation to go through the committee stage at one time. Legislation would be considered in committees sitting elsewhere than this chamber.
With respect, I do not think it was envisaged at the time that the anomalous situation would arise that we see today. We did not expect that two or three very important pieces of legislation would require the specialized attention of committees of this House while, at the same time, a piece of legislation affecting the whole future organization of this House and of the administration was being considered. That situation places members in a very awkward position. The question is whether members should be considering pieces of legislation which, by general agreement, may be considered in committees outside the House at the same time as the House in committee of the whole is considering a bill that affects the methods and procedures to be used in respect of future legislation.
I can understand why the Government House Leader is very anxious for the House to put this piece of legislation through, even if a number of hon. members are engaged elsewhere. If it goes through quickly, the government

February 16, 1971
Business of the House
members can raise their own salaries quickly. I think the situation that has arisen is one to which Your Honour ought to give further consideration, perhaps not at this time but later.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Oxford for his additional suggestions. The point is well taken. To the extent that the Chair can exert influence in such matters, I will be pleased to intervene. I am not sure in what way that can be done. Perhaps I could do it by communicating within the next 24 hours, or even the next few days, with the House Leaders to try to bring about meetings between the House Leaders in an attempt to find an effective way to overcome the difficulty which has been brought to the attention of the Chair.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader has complained that Bill C-207 has taken too long before the committee of the whole. May I suggest to him that passage of this bill through committee of the whole would be speeded up if he were to make sure that the ministers who are responsible for the various clauses of the bill are present when those clauses are being discussed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Including the Prime Minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: We are
coming to part II of the bill which deals with the new department of energy, mines, resources and technical surveys. If the minister concerned is not in the House when that part is discussed, how can the government expect the committee of the whole to deal expeditiously with that part of the bill. The same remarks hold true for other parts of the bill which require the presence of the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General, and others. The President of the Treasury Board has been present throughout the discussions on the bill. In his case there has been no difficulty.
I want to make it clear that, so far as this party is concerned, if the minister whose powers are being augmented is not present when relevant clauses are being discussed, we shall insist on those clauses being stood until the minister is present. If the President of the Privy Council wants to speed up passage of this legislation, he ought to urge the ministers whose departments are under review and whose powers are being altered-


Mr. Drury:: Augmented.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -or
augmented to be present in the House when we are dealing with those particular parts of Bill C-207.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I respond briefly to the hon. member's point. I think his point is well taken. I certainly agree that if, at any particular moment, the minister concerned is not in the House, that that part of the bill ought to be stood until he is able to come to the House. That is understood.
In the past, when bills like this were brought forward in the name of the Prime Minister, the various relevant parts of the bill were carried in committee by the various
ministers concerned. We hoped to follow this procedure on this occasion and bring in the appropriate minister at the appropriate stage. I regret that on Friday this system broke down temporarily. We were agreeable to standing that portion of the bill until the appropriate minister could come to the House. He is here today and we can deal with that part of the bill.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]



[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Ways and Means motions to amend the Income Tax Act.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide that the surtax imposed on individuals and corporations by Part IA of the Income Tax Act be applicable in the case of individuals to the 1971 taxation year and in the case of corporations to taxable income earned in 1971.
That it is expedient to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that a taxpayer who acquires prescribed property in the period between December 3, 1970 and April 1, 1972 for use in a manufacturing or processing business, shall, for the purpose of computing capital cost allowances in respect thereof and for other related purposes, be deemed to have acquired the property at a capital cost to the taxpayer equal to 115 per cent of his actual capital cost.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to.
❖ * *

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-225, to amend the Income Tax Act and to amend An Act to amend that Act, be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 12, 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:: When the committee rose on Friday, February 12, clause 6 of the bill with the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West was under consideration. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?

}'{y
it
i
%

(Mr. Nesbitt.]
February 16, 1971


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In view of the fact that three very important standing committees are meeting this afternoon to examine important government bills which requires the presence of members of this House, I move that the committee do now adjourn. I wish to make a correction to put it in the proper phraseology. I move:
That the committee rise, report progress and request leave to sit again.


Russell Clayton Honey: If the hon. member will let me have his motion in writing, I will be pleased to put it to the committee. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion (Mr. McGrath) negatived: Yeas, 27; nays, 47.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the motion lost.
On clause 6-Protection of environmental quality.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, when we concluded our last sitting on this particular bill, there was an amendment to clause 6 before the committee which would add the word "national" in front of "objectives or standards" at the top of page three. We feel that this amendment is vital, because if we are to get to the root of pollution problems in this country and cut out the pollution havens, we must have national standards from one end of Canada to the other.
On Friday we had a very lengthy debate on this issue. A number of members on this side of the chamber expressed their views on the need for national standards in Canada. This morning I heard a radio report that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who will be the minister of this new department, was urging some business people to get behind him in the fight to have tough standards. He talked in terms of national standards. He said that this was his objective and this was what the government wanted.
All we are asking is that the phrase "national standards" be included in the act. We are fed up with loose legislation which permits the government to say one thing, but when we get down to the nitty gritty of the legislation we find that it means something else. I suggest that this afternoon the minister should state his views on the type of standards we should have in Canada. I suggest to the minister that we must have the word "national" in this particular clause if we are going to have national standards in Canada.
There is no use saying you are in favour of national standards and then being afraid to put into the legislation exactly what is meant. If we can get some agreement on this issue, I am sure there will be little difficulty in having the clause passed early this afternoon. As I said before, we have had a good debate on this subject. I have expressed my views. This is the only way in which we shall prevent pollution havens from springing up in Canada. The minister has told us he wants this provision to apply nationally. What we are saying is: put it into the legislation and give a clear indication to the Canadian
Government Organization Act, 1970 public that this is our objective, and that this is what we intend to achieve. I trust the minister will see fit to use the term "national" in the first line so that we may have national objectives or standards in Canada related to pollution control. If not, I presume there will be additional debate on this clause.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I believe very firmly in national standards. I expect that the government will support me and that I shall have the backing of Parliament with respect to national standards. I agree that there must be national standards if we are to avoid the creation of pollution havens. New legislation we are introducing to deal specifically with air, water and soil in this country will make specific reference to national standards. The hon. member for Kootenay West may not have studied the clean air bill which received first reading in this House recently. It makes frequent references to national objectives and national standards; in other words, the language he would have us apply in the case of Bill C-207 establishing this department is used in our new clean air bill.
Earlier, hon. members argued that the new department of the environment should be concerned with environmental affairs which are in some measure the concern of other departments. I would argue that the department of the environment should be concerned not simply with national standards but also, on occasion, with the development and promotion of international standards. My main reason for suggesting that we leave out the word "national" here, but use it in specific pieces of legislation such as the clean air bill, is this: we must not prevent the-department of the environment from working with other countries and endeavouring to develop international standards, hopefully projecting our own standards internationally, and that this should not be a job reserved for another department, for example, the Department of External Affairs, simply because the terms of reference of the department of the environment refers exclusively to national standards as opposed, say, to international standards.
I am, however, sensitive to the point which the hon. member is making. He is really asking: Do you intend to leave out the word "national" to permit pollution havens, endorse regional standards, endorse provincial standards and even give federal approval to local standards? This is not the intention. It is not my intention as the responsible minister. It has no parallel in the particular piece of legislation we are about to pass.
Please note that regulations under the Fisheries Act are national. They are not local or regional; certainly, they are not provincial. The Canada Shipping Act is national in its scope, so our standards will be national under that piece of legislation. National health and welfare legislation is national, and our clean air bill was based on this assumption. One might of course allow that it was in the national interest occasionally for the department of the environment at the federal level to encourage provincial governments to develop standards which are province-wide in areas within provincial jurisdiction,, so as to promote the adoption of objectives and standards

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 which, in provincial cases, and I am talking now about provincial jurisdiction exclusively, might be desirable. These provincial standards may not be good enough. Nevertheless they would be desirable if we were raising standards in a provincial area of responsibility. Here is another reason for omitting the word "national".
I do not want to leave the impression that I would undermine national standards. We must have national standards. We must administer our national affairs in a national way from coast to coast. There must be no exceptions. On the other hands, I believe the department, when it is set up, should occasionally be able to move into the international arena and promote international standards. I would also think that on occasion we might do some research, and lend some aid and advice to provinces administering standards which are provincial under the law. I also want to be free to support provinces and municipalities which want to set standards higher than national standards.
In short, I am making a plea for full flexibility in the administration of the department while making it abundantly clear that our own legislation pertaining to the national affairs of Canada and to matters within federal jurisdiction should be national in scope. I think the word "national" should appear again and again in specific pieces of legislation but I do not think it should be included in this particular clause defining the whole range of the department's activities, since it would limit those activities exclusively to the pursuit of national objectives and standards.


Randolph Harding: If I might comment for a few moments-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. With respect, I suggest the Chair be given an opportunity to recognize hon. members before they begin to speak. The hon. member for Kootenay West.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I make a comment on the minister's statement? I am pleased to hear him say once again that he is interested in national standards, but I want to make it clear that the hon. gentleman is just playing with words. Let him read the clause. He is saying, in effect: Let us leave this wide open so that provinces can set standards higher than national standards. I want to tell him that it is being left open in order that the provinces can set standards which are lower than national standards.


John (Jack) Davis: Not in areas under federal jurisdiction.


Randolph Harding: Let us go back to the clause. It says the intention is to initiate, recommend, undertake and coordinate programs of the Government of Canada. We are not talking about the provinces but about the government of Canada. And what type of program? Programs which are designed to promote the establishment or adoption of objectives or standards relating to environmental quality of pollution control. We are talking here about federal government programs, and this is why we urge the minister to take another look at this clause. We want national objectives.

The minister also maintained that the wording we suggest restrict his work internationally. Well, let him put in the word "international". That is simple enough. Make it "national or international", I don't care. But I believe he is doing a disservice to the legislation, to the general public and to the intentions of Parliament with regard to this legislation unless he agrees to the addition of the word "national" in that clause. I urge the minister once again to accept the new definition. We want national standards. The minister has told us he wants them, too, and that he intends to work toward them.
o (3:30 p.m.)
All we are requesting the department to do is to put this word in the legislation so we have no more loosely worded clauses that could mean anything. Once more, I urge the minister to read over this part of the bill dealing with federal programs. We must be firm and tough in our determination to tell industries, organizations, governments and individuals in Canada that we are aiming for high national objectives, and that these objectives are stated in the legislation. Without this word, the clause can mean anything, which is exactly what it will mean without it in the years to come.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I have already indicated that I am going to support the amendment, but since the minister is here I should like to ask him one or two questions. I ask them objectively because I realize there are problems the minister has to face. Under our constitution, as it now exists, any federal government would face serious problems in dealing with environmental issues. In this regard, the question is not what should be done. From what I have seen of the minister and from what I have heard him say, I have the feeling he would like to go further than this legislation goes. However, I think he will agree with me that federal jurisdiction is now limited to jurisdiction based on the criminal law. This is the springboard of our jurisdiction, and it does offer only limited opportunities to the federal government.
This morning I was listening to a CBC radio report about some legislation that had just been introduced in the province of Alberta regarding pollution. The legislation provided for regulations to be made. Since the legislation dealt with matters of provincial jurisdiction the legislature was able to provide for regulations rather than simply imposing sanctions. Nevertheless, sanctions are essential. Large corporations and companies, as well as individuals, in Canada must understand that failure to comply with standards of safety in matters dealing with the environment will lead to some form of punishment, such as in the form of a fine. But in addition to this, the right to regulate, which is a very important one, ought to be available and it is very limited at the present time as far as the federal government is concerned. Regulations are only made vis-a-vis the Criminal Code, and it is this which poses great difficulties.
I do not need to elaborate on the importance of this subject. Although I will have a lot to say about other parts of this bill and will raise objection to them, with
February 16, 1971

that part relating to the environment and attempts- imperfect though they may be-to consolidate all federal legislation dealing with the environment within some over-all authority, I am in full accord. After all, the earth is our home and our only home; we do not know what we will find on the moon or on Mars, so we have no other home to which to go. Consequently, a large number of people are deeply concerned about the permanent damage being done to our environment on earth and at the delays in rectifying the situation. As far as Canada is concerned, I do not blame the minister for these delays.
Eight years ago I was a member of a committee of this House-I believe, Mr. Chairman, you were on the committee as well-that dealt with environmental questions. The committee became involved in a study of the effects of agricultural pesticides and herbicides, and also had an opportunity to study the book "The Silent Spring" written by the late Rachel Carson. I believe this was in 1962, and this book was branded by some as being far too radical.
In light of what we know today, certainly it would not be so considered now. However, at that time some members of the committee thought that Miss Carson had made a very valid case. Her case was buttressed by statistical information and records, and I, myself, think that the committee rather cavalierly dismissed some of the propositions which had been advanced. Since that time there is no doubt whatever that the earth's environment has been even more poisoned by continual use of pesticides and herbicides. Within the last year the government has begun to recognize this, but who knows what incalculable and permanent damage may have been done in the interval? I think it will take generations to discover the effect that these poisons may have on the human species and other living organisms that inhabit the world.
I could give a lot of other illustrations but I do not have the time to give the details of all of these intricate constitutional arguments. In my opinion, if the people of this country had a choice they would want this subject handled in one way by one authority, the federal government, and not by 10 provincial governments. This would not preclude the implementation of policy at the provincial level, just as is the case with our national health and welfare programs. It is probably more logical and sensible that these programs be implemented at the provincial and possibly even the regional level. However, there must be one over-all, overriding, national, policy-making body, which can only be the federal government.
I am convinced that as the people of Canada begin more and more to realize within the next year or two the need for this, the proposition I have put forward will become accepted; and I think the minister feels this way, too. I did raise this question on Friday. The minister has referred to international treaties, and we are now much closer to the point where there must be international obligations in the environmental field. Not long ago I visited the Council of Europe meetings at Strasbourg, and the members of the consultative assembly of that Council have now reached the stage where they are even contemplating discussions with countries behind the Iron
Government Organization Act, 1970 Curtain on environmental matters. They have come to realize just what the issue embraces, and since Europe consists of many small countries there must obviously be international standards and controls established.
I think we can assume that in Canada we shall have to enter into international treaties, possibly on a wide scale under the aegis of the United Nations or some other body. I think this country and the United States will probably have to work out some agreements in this regard. But how is the minister or any federal government going to be able to implement international obligations while provincial authorities may be in the position under our constitutional law-though this question has never been tested-of saying no?
I did make this point on Friday but let me repeat it for the benefit of the minister. A great many years ago this country solemnly entered into international obligations with regard to labour standards, some of which fell within the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. These have been implemented. But others have not been implemented, and cannot be implemented until agreement is reached with the provincial legislatures, and this looks unlikely. The United Nations declaration of human rights comes into the same category, and there are a great many other examples to which I could refer.
I am not asking the minister at this stage to set aside the constitution because I know he cannot do so. There are some who say that if the constitution is a difficulty, let us simply override it. I recall a case I had years ago when, as a young lawyer practising in the Peace River country, I defended a man on a charge of stealing a pig. He was not guilty. I never defend clients who are guilty and I should like you to know that. The evidence was bad and it appeared as though the accused was guilty. However, this distinguished judge, Mr. Justice Noel, even after he had found him guilty, sentenced him to a short period of incarceration. The Crown prosecutor said: "How can you do that?" And His Honour said: "It was such a little pig". I make that comparison because this matter involves a problem the minister must tackle. He must also obtain the support of his colleagues and members of this Parliament.
I do not want to initiate a provincial test, but I feel that in the final analysis there is only one jurisdiction which can deal with these matters, and that is the national jurisdiction. It must deal with these problems in co-operation with provincial legislatures with the greatest possible scope for provincial and regional implementation. We must set as our goal the objective of obtaining complete national control in respect of this important issue. We must decide on a national basis whether this world is going to survive and provide a decent place for human beings to live.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. Chairman, I recently attended a meeting of a Moose Jaw organization and I am sure the minister will have paid close attention to the number of briefs presented at that meeting. These briefs were directed towards the adoption of national standards.

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 These organizations believe if there are not national standards, the municipalities and the provinces will pay less attention to pollution standards than they might if there were a national policy in effect.
One of the important elements that came across at this hearing was the fact that the nation requires national leadership in respect of pollution control. Let me use as an example some of the municipalities which have in the past adopted municipal regulations. When they were asked to enforce their regulations they were confident that they would have the co-operation of the various industries involved. I am sure everyone here is aware of this situation. At the same time, I think the municipal or provincial people would deny that there should be this type of national legislation in this field, although they admit that there should be this type of leadership.
I can't understand why the minister refers in the same terms to the clean air act and to the national emission standards act, about which he spoke a while ago. It would seem to me that if he is prepared to put the national emission standards act and the clean air act before the House, this means that we are taking over the destiny of our own country as far as clean air is concerned. By the same token, we should put the word "national" in clause 6 of this bill.
We find that now we are talking about a national clean air act, and if we leave out the word "national" we will have a lot of people complaining about the reference to two separate acts. I still fail to understand why the minister would suggest that it would be difficult to include the word "national" in this bill as suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay West. I suggest that we included the word "national" in the clean air act we should include it in this measure in order to make this clause clear. It seems to me that control of air pollution internationally is as important as control of any other kind of pollution internationally or nationally.


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


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister to give us some information in respect of the observations that were made yesterday during a very eloquent speech by the Minister of Transport. He said we should draw a happy balance between correct industrial growth and pollution control. I noticed that he threw out a challenge to engineers and the news media for assistance in securing a moral approach by industry. I am wondering whether he anticipates a danger of an over-reaction in respect of this whole business of ecological control, or whatever the correct term is.
I feel that in Canada we should appreciate the fact that in the United States, at every level of government, there does not seem to be the slightest attention being paid to port and industrial development. They seem to have gone wild in this area of ecological pollution control. It is impossible to obtain an orderly industrial development program. I should like the minister to take a minute or two to express his views on this aspect. Will it be possible for Canada to regulate pollution control in respect of industrial development. We are aware of great industrial

growth and the continuation of this growth. I hope we do not lose everything in our mad dash to set up these controls.
I should like to ask the minister whether he has any thoughts in this regard, and whether he has a policy for the education of people, so we do not build up in our minds a fear which will prevent us from sitting down for a moment and thinking over a sensible approach to this pollution control problem. In eastern Canada, we are interested in port development and industrial growth. We believe in pollution control but, at the same time, we want to strike a happy balance such as the Minister of Transport referred to in his eloquent speech yesterday. I hope the minister will indicate that there will be an educational program to prevent people in this country from over-reacting to this whole business.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River has quite rightly expressed the fact that the people of Canada are looking to the national government for leadership in the battle against pollution. I think it is up to us in this Parliament and this government to provide that leadership. The hon. member raised one difficulty, if I might call it that, which is the result of our present constitution. He referred to the possible difficulty of implementing international treaties entered into by the government of Canada with governments of other nations. To paraphrase his words, he suggested such treaties might not be enforceable because the provinces have certain powers of their own which are not enforceable by the federal government.
The hon. member may not have read the press release on policy from the last federal-provincial conference, but there was a federal proposal to the provinces which has been studied by the provinces on which there was some acceptance. The federal proposal involved a concurrency of powers in respect of environmental control. If the proposal made by the federal government was adopted by the provinces, it would help to clear up two difficulties; one involving the enforcement of legislation for the protection of the environment stemming from international agreements treaties. The other would help to clarify interprovincial boundary situations, which I gather are also uncertain from a legal or constitutional point of view in this country.
In other words, a proposal has been put forward by the federal government which has been considered at a federal-provincial conference, and which will again come up for review in June, 1971. We are looking at it from a national point of view, from the point of view of enforcing high standards interprovincially right across Canada, and also internationally in a binding way as between Canada and other nations.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw stressed the need for national standards and international standards. I agree 100 per cent with everything he said in that regard. He asked how we might project the new clean air bill into the international arena. Given flexibility in the terms of reference of the new department of the environment we
February 16, 1971

can attempt to promote internationally pieces of legislation which we are imposing nationally in this country. He at least urged the inclusion of the word "international" with the word "national" in his amendment. I would prefer, however, to leave this matter open in the terms of reference of the department and make it quite specific in particular pieces of legislation such as the clean air bill.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster asked about over-reacting to the problems posed by pollution, the tendency to hold back job producing industries and to discourage perhaps economic growth in the guise of protecting the environment. Personally, I think with more care and more attention, we can have both economic growth and a clean environment. I know of a number of cases where properly designed plants have been more economic, more profitable and better able to pay high wages than others which were designed a few years earlier without any regard to the environment.
New pulp mills meeting our national standards and regulations under the Fisheries Act, for example, are perhaps faced with an increase of 2 per cent in the cost of new plants and less than 1 per cent in the cost of the product, but these costs are common to all new mills across Canada and, increasingly, to new mills built in other countries such as the Scandinavian countries which are beginning to adopt our new techniques. Eventually, the rules governing this industry will be the same the world over.
So, while these costs may be significant, though not large, they will be common the world over. They will not affect our competitive position. They will help preserve our environment and make other industries feasible in the nearby localities. In other words, we can have what the Minister of Transport envisaged as the best of both worlds, economic growth and a clean environment as well.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, in my view it is encumbent on every member of this House to become articulate and vigorous in supporting this proposal. Irrespective of where we sit in this House, it is our duty to do so. I am glad that these two ministers are in the House. The Minister of Public Works also took a position of this kind when he held another portfolio. I think there is a responsibility on the members of this House, and on the people who report what is said in this House to arouse, not inflame, public opinion in a reasonable way in respect of support for the proposal contained in this communique. That is the reason I spoke as I did. I am convinced members of our party will support that particular aspect-other members may debate other aspects-of the proposal and what is contained in the communique. There will be co-operation to the fullest extent, and I seek the same co-operation from all parties in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, since I was absent attending another committee meeting, perhaps this question has already been put and, if so, it need not be answered. Does the minister foresee any difficulty in respect of jurisdiction? I am thinking now of the fact
Government Organization Act, 1970 that some provinces have set up their own legislation. I know the province of Newfoundland established a clean air and water authority with appropriate legislation. Will there be any duplication of effort and are there any jurisdictional problems? If so, have these jurisdictional problems been resolved? Is there any working mechanism to be set up within the department so that both the federal and provincial authorities may work harmoniously toward a common objective?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the simple answer is that with divided responsibility in a federal country there are bound to be some difficulties. I think in this area of pollution control there are fewer difficulties than in other areas where there have been old disputes and a host of vested interests. In my travels across the country and in my discussions with ministers in the provinces having responsibility for the environment, there has been a willingness to talk about these matters and a willingness to work out standards which would apply right across Canada and project outside Canada. There has been surprisingly little concern about local problem areas, about constitutionality, about provincial boundaries, jurisdictions and old department names in our effort to start afresh in this field.
I could perhaps give an example. Currently, we are developing a national standard under the Fisheries Act. Representatives of the provinces have joined us in a national task force. The pulp and paper industry has supplied several experts. The task force has travelled to Scandinavia and the United States. It is developing one set of standards for pulp mills. A draft of the regulations will be sent to the provinces for comment. We will publish them nationally. We will listen to critical comment, but co-operation is the rule and the tendency is to enforce the highest standards. The various mills which have already put these standards into effect are having no trouble operating, Mr. Chairman.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have one or two brief comments to make on the amendment before us. It is obvious to me that the minister and the government are prepared to leave the objectives and standards in respect of pollution open to negotiation. No other interpretation can be taken from the legislation which is before us. The mere fact that the government has refused to accept the amendment is a clear indication that we will have different standards in different parts of this country. It is the same old story we had last year when the Canada water bill was before the committee. We could not get national standards. Now, apparently the minister accepts the view that the national standard issue should not be established in this bill. I am disappointed. However, we have had a good discussion on the amendment and I should like to see it come to a vote. I am disappointed in the minister and his approach to this particular amendment. This legislation is meaningless. It can mean a lot or nothing. This is not the type of legislation we should be placing on the statute books of Canada.


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

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Russell Clayton Honey: The question is on the amendment to clause 6. I will read the amendment because it is now three or four days since the committee last dealt with it.
The hon. member for Kootenay West moved:
That clause 6, subsection (a) of BUI C-207 he amended by adding thereto on page 3, line 1, the word "national", so that line 1 will read "or adoption of national objectives or standards".
The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Harding) negatived: Yeas, 11; Nays, 34.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I think clause 5 has been stood. I am wondering whether you intend to go back to that clause now.


Russell Clayton Honey: If hon. members agree, we might deal with clause 7 and then go back to clause 5. There is an amendment to clause 5 before the committee. Is it agreed that we deal with clause 7, and then go back to clause 5?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Before clause 7 is carried, may I ask if it is the intention of the committee to go back not only to clause 5, to which there is an amendment, but also to clauses 1 and 2 which have been stood? The hon. member for St. John's East has an amendment that he wishes to move to clause 2 of the bill. So, from a procedural point of view I should like to have some guidance as to whether we will deal with that amendment this afternoon or whether it is the intention of the committee to proceed with the entire bill before going back to clause 2.


Russell Clayton Honey: It has been the Chair's understanding that once we dispose of clause 7 we might go back to clause 5 to which there is an amendment, and then proceed to clause 2. We would then have completed that part, subject to returning to clause 1 later. I understand that, in the normal course, we would complete the other parts of the bill and return to clause 1 at the end.


Gerald William Baldwin: Has not clause 2 been stood?


Russell Clayton Honey: The suggestion I am making to the committee is that we deal with clause 5, when clause 7 is carried, and then go back to clause 2. Clause 1 relates to the whole bill, so we would deal with it as the last item. When we dispose of clause 2, we will have disposed of this part of the bill. Is this course agreeable?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 7-Annual Report.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is clause 7 agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 5-Duties of Minister
Russell Clayton Honey: An amendment was moved to clause 5. The hon. member for Kootenay West moved:
That clause 5 of Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereto next after line 37 on page 2 a new subsection (h)
(h) pollution prevention and control


Randolph Harding: When the clause was stood several days ago, the President of the Treasury Board indicated that the government wished to see whether or not it could accept the amendment. Possibly the minister could indicate whether or not it is acceptable, and if it is, I do not think there will be much more discussion on it. This is the position in which we found ourselves last time the clause was debated, and possibly we should hear from the minister now.


John (Jack) Davis: The proposed subclause (h) adds an additional responsibility of the minister of the environment, namely, pollution prevention and control. I believe that this, in more restrictive words, repeats much of the intent of the preceding and presently worded subclause (e), the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality. Subclause (e) is couched in broader terms. I might also describe those terms as clearer. We talk about quality in subclause (e). In the amendment, which would add a subclause, reference is made to pollution prevention and control. I think the words "environment and quality" are more generous, more positive, than the words "pollution prevention and control". I suggest that to add this subclause is redundant and also restrictive. For that reason, I urge that the proposed amendment which would add a subclause with the words "pollution prevention and control" be rejected.


Randolph Harding: I moved this amendment and I will briefly outline again my reasons for doing so. I think members of the committee should realize that the bill before us, which sets up a new department of the environment, does not cover all environmental problems in the nation. I believe that this is wrong. If a department is going to deal with environmental problems, nothing should be excluded. I gave as an example a large portion of northern Canada, which is 40 per cent of the total land mass of our country. We have land use regulations for that northern area which are going to be administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We have the Arctic Waters Pollution Act which establishes a pollution control zone in the Arctic area. This zone is not included in this bill. Does the minister mean to tell me that the protection of this area is not part of the job of protecting the Canadian environment? Just how nonsensical can we become? If we are tackling environmental problems, let us tackle them with a central organization about which a number of members have spoken in this debate.
We are trying to make sure that the minister has the right, for example, to move into our northern territories if pollution control and prevention are needed.


John (Jack) Davis: How does the hon. member's amendment do that?
February 16, 1971


Randolph Harding: It is obvious that this amendment will add to the area over which the minister has jurisdiction. I want to say the minister should be proud that we are trying to give him firmer control over environmental problems in Canada. We are not trying to cut down the work of the department. We want to make it more effective, and we think this amendment will enlarge the scope of activities of the department.
Again, I say that we have covered this before. I point out to members of the committee that it makes common sense, if we set up a department of the environment, to let it do the job for all of Canada. One of our big troubles in the past has been divided jurisdictions, one department doing one job and another department doing another. There has been a lack of co-ordination and a host of legislation on the statute books which has never been enforced or only to a very limited degree. This is what we are trying to avoid and this is why I am suggesting that the new department of the environment be all embracing. This, in effect, is what this amendment will do and I am going to suggest that the House accept it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Amendment (Mr. Harding) negatived:	Yeas 10,
nays 28.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.
Shall clause 5 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff erin-Waterloo.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who interjected is one of the members who should be on his feet talking about this problem in relation to Lake Erie. The municipalities in that area are going to be in trouble because they have to find the $30 million with which to buy the nutrient removal equipment that has to be added to sewage disposal plants. There are several members in this House who should be on their feet speaking about this question and I do not know why they are not putting more pressure on the minister to do some of the things that I feel he should be doing.


An hon. Member:: Give us the bill.


William Marvin Howe: Let's put some formula in the bill which will make it worth while. Mr. Chairman, the last time I spoke on this bill the minister in charge of housing was in the House and I asked him this question: In the new estimates for CMHC, how much of the budget is going to be directed towards helping the municipalities improve sewage treatment facilities? I understand that since then an announcement has been made, but I have not been able to find it. I wonder if the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry could tell me just how much of this budget for
Government Organization Act, 1970
CMHC is to be spent this year in assisting municipalities to improve their sewage treatment facilities. Have there been discussions on what the figure is for this year?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to answer because I do not know whether an announcement has been made. I have discussed it with the minister in charge of housing and also the minister for the province of Ontario. A larger sum of money is allocated both nationally and to the province of Ontario. We are also looking at the possibility of mounting a special program, yet to be delineated, which could follow from recommendations of the International Joint Commission for the cleanup of Lake Erie. I have asked the Hon. George Kerr of Ontario to come up with a set of cost estimates. These additional requirements might be considered as additional to anything that has been announced so far by the minister responsible for housing.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Chairman, do I take it that, over and above the amount that is going to be given for local sewage treatment programs, the federal government is willing to help with that $30 million that is going to be required to put in the nutrient removal equipment?


John (Jack) Davis: I have asked the Hon. George Kerr for the figures, Mr. Chairman. When these are received I will take the matter to the government and it will be given serious consideration.


William Marvin Howe: Now, Mr. Chairman, the question I keep asking in connection with this water development program is, what is the formula going to be. The commissions and the authorities looking after these river basins should have some idea when they start to plan how much assistance the federal government will provide. I think it is essential that there should be some indication of this by the federal government, as there was in the old water conservation assistance program. These people know what is needed for the Grand River and the Speed River, and all the areas that have problems.
In his speech the minister mentioned the necessity of private industry doing more for itself in this area. But private industry is not able to, Mr. Chairman. The time is now. By increasing the flow in a lot of these rivers and using other proper water management methods, we will be able to carry forward until the time when these companies can recycle their effluent and disposable waste. At the present time they do not have the technical knowledge to go forward. They do not know how to go about recycling their waste.
Probably some members read a suggestion in the Globe and Mail this morning outlining how paper can be made into cattle fodder with molasses and minerals added. Then, compost can be made from the manure. These things are important, Mr. Chairman, in relation to these particular environmental problems. I have a book here entitled "Garbage As You Like It". It has some very outspoken and new ideas on composting and things that can be done with garbage. Garbage will also come under the clean air bill because part of the air pollution of cities comes from the burning of garbage.

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the formula which I think is so essential in the areas of water control and water management. Probably each should be treated differently, but if there were some base it would give encouragement to those people who have spent years studying water basins. They should be assisted in every way possible by every level of government. If the department had a base formula, it would be of tremendous assistance to them in trying to carry out the programs on which they have been working for so many years.


Russell Clayton Honey: Shall clause 5 carry? The hon. President of the Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Before it carries, Mr. Chairman, my attention has been drawn to the fact that in line 17, page 2, the French translation does not reflect exactly what is meant.


An hon. Member:: It never did.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The French version-perhaps I should not say English translation or French translation-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You will screw it up anyway.


An hon. Member:: What was that word you used?


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is better than the one the Prime Minister used.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The English version reads "non-domestic flora and fauna". "Non-domestic" and the term in French "non indigenes" are not quite the same. I move that we change the French version to substitute for the words "non indigenes" the word "sauvages". It would now read: "la flore et la faune sauvages".


Gerald William Baldwin: Does that include the cabinet?


Russell Clayton Honey: The committee has heard the amendment to clause 5. Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 5 (as amended) agreed to.


Russell Clayton Honey: The committee will now consider clause 2.
On clause 2-Short title.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment to clause 2 which relates to what will happen to the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the special responsibility that the minister has in relation thereto. Since the present minister took over the responsibilities that he now has, I think it is only fair to say that the Department of Fisheries and Forestry has come into its own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I do not mean to diminish in any way the importance of this department in the past because, indeed, it is one of the great federal departments of the government of Canada. It is one of the oldest, if not the
oldest, departments. Prior to the administration of the present minister, the department always seemed to emerge in the scheme of things as the poor, black sheep, if you like, of the government. It never received the recognition it deserved from either the minister or the House. The minister has done a great deal to change all that.


Mr. Laing:: Which minister is the hon. member talking about?


James Aloysius McGrath: I am talking about the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and about clause 2 of the bill.


Arthur Laing: I thought that the Department of Public Works had the record for being the best department.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I will extend the same accolade to the Minister of Public Works when he accepts some of the many requests which are pending from my constituency.


An hon. Member:: Touche.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the minister is a good Minister of Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Flattery will get you nowhere.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is true that down through the years the department of fisheries did not receive the recognition it deserved from the government of Canada or the Parliament of Canada. The present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry took over that department and brought to it new vitality. Of course, he was aided and abetted by Members of Parliament from the Atlantic provinces, not the least among whom are, I suggest with great humility, the Members of Parliament from Newfoundland. Through the coincidence of events involving the election of 1968 and the appointment of the minister to head that department, the department of fisheries finally came into its own. The department was given a new lease on life and began to envolve new and meaningful policies which gave new hope to this long down-trodden and sometimes forgotten industry. Today that industry in eastern Canada is in a relatively healthy state; it is certainly healthier than it has been for a long time. That is a direct result of policies which have emerged from the application of the expertise and knowledge of the minister, advice that has been tendered in this House and consultations which the minister has engaged in with individual members and with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In the new scheme of things, the new department is to have a sexy name and the minister is to have sexy responsibilities. This, after all, is a very attractive proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Everybody is talking about pollution. It is very much in vogue; it is very much the "in" thing.
[Mr. Howe/1
February 16, 1971

We are concerned that with this new state of affairs, the special responsibilities of the minister relating to the fisheries of Canada will be forgotten. That is not an idle suggestion. It is based on concern that is being expressed in this House, in the Atlantic provinces and, I suspect, in the minister's own province of British Columbia.
I put on record during the debate on the second reading stage of the bill statistics supporting my contention that the fishing industry is important to the people of Canada and to the economy of Canada. That industry is of special importance and significance to the Atlantic provinces, to the Gaspe coast of Quebec and, perhaps to a lesser extent, to the province of British Columbia. Although it is important in that province, it is not quite as important there, in the over-all scheme, as it is to the economy of Atlantic Canada. The industry is important on the inland waters of Canada; I am thinking of the Great Lakes fisheries and the western freshwater fisheries. It is very important to the over-all economies of those regions. It generates substantial moneys for our balance of payments and pumps millions of dollars annually into the economy of Canada. Parliament has recognized that it has special responsibilities in this area and hence there has always been a department of fisheries, presided over by a minister whose prime and indeed sole responsibility has been the fisheries of Canada. In this case, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has that responsibility. Under this legislation, the name "Fisheries" is to be dropped. For the first time since confederation, there will not be in Canada a department of fisheries. The new department is to be the department of the environment. It is only natural that, as the name disappears, so the relative importance of the fisheries end of the department will diminish as a consequence. That is what concerns us; and it is a genuine concern.
I expect that the minister will reply by saying that so long as he is the minister of fisheries, this will never happen. I believe him. I believe that will be the case so long as the minister retains this responsibility. I believe that he will always give his prime attention to the fishing industry of Canada. Yet, he will not always be the minister of the environment, and therein lies the difficulty. He may very well be succeeded by somebody who is not interested in the fisheries of Canada, either on the west coast or the east coast. The new deputy minister has had no experience or connection with the fishing industry on either of the coasts of Canada. I think it is regrettable that the committee did not accept the amendment of the hon. member for South Shore to add two Deputy ministers to the department. The very same arguments that can be advanced for appointing two deputy ministers can be advanced for retaining the word "fisheries" in the name of the new department.
I put to the members of the committee and to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry this proposition: what would be wrong with calling the new department the department of "fisheries and the environment" or, if you like, "the department of the environment and fisheries". Either one would be acceptable. Either name would allay our fears, because we are afraid that the special responsibilities that Parliament has under our constitution with
Government Organization Act, 1970
respect to the fishing industry will be diminished or forgotten.
There is ample precedent for including or retaining the name of the old department in the name of the new department. For example, previously there used to be the department of industry and the department of trade and commerce. Those departments were merged and became the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am sure that the old name was retained in the new to make sure that the special responsibilities of the government in promoting industry in this country would not be forgotten.
Going farther, we note what happened with respect to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is the successor to what used to be the department of mines and technical surveys. You will notice that in the new name of the department the word "mines" was retained, for the reason that the special responsibilities of the federal government with regard to natural resources of Canada and the exploitation of those resources had to be kept to the fore. Then, there was established the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which deals with equally important responsibilities under our constitution, both of which are spelled out in the name of that department. The same arguments could apply to the Department of National Health and Welfare. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs exercises two separate jurisdictions or responsibilities, each of them being equally important and each of them being spelled out in the name of the new department, to make sure that the minister will not lose sight of his responsibilities either in the field of consumer affairs or in that of corporate affairs.
The same arguments apply to the Department of Supply and Services and to the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The name of the department delineates the responsibilities of the minister. There is the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. The department of forestry was created, and subsequently the government decided to merge it with the Department of Fisheries. There were valid reasons for merging the departments of forestry and of fisheries; yet the name of the original departments was retained. The new department became the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. Consequently, I ask, why cannot we ensure that the new department will retain the word "fisheries" in its name? That would not diminish in any way the concern of the House and of the people with respect to the environment and the steps which must be taken to protect it. The name should be changed in order to ensure that the minister or any subsequent minister who will follow him will not forget the special responsibilities that Parliament must exercise in relation to the fishing industry of this country.
I submit these arguments are reasonable, Mr. Chairman. I hope the minister will see fit to accept the amendment which I now submit for the approval of the committee. I move:
That clause 2 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out the words "Department of the Environment" where they first ap-

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
pear, immediately after clause 1 on page 1 thereof, and substituting therefor the words "Department of Fisheries and the Environment" and similarly thereafter in the Bill and Schedules thereto wheresoever the words "Department of the Environment" appear; and, consequential thereupon, that the words "Minister of the Environment" be struck out wheresoever in the Bill and Schedules thereto the same appear and the words "Minister of Fisheries and the Environment" substituted therefor.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has some reservations about the amendment. I have two reservations which relate to the procedural aspect. If the committee adopted this amendment, it would require the amendment of clauses of the bill that have already been dealt with by the committee. That is one aspect which comes immediately to mind. The other is not that important, but I will mention it. There is a reference with respect to amending short titles at page 560 of May's seventeenth edition. It reads:
The title can only be amended if the bill has been so altered-
In this particular case, we should read: "if the part has been so altered" because we are dealing with Part I.
-as to necessitate such an amendment; but any amendment to the title that may be necessary is made.
I think in this case the amendment is not necessary in the sense that May refers to it. He further states:
-an amendment... has been permitted to be made in the standing committee ...
On that point, I also notice in clause 5(a), the minister would have authority with respect to the seacoast and inland fisheries. In my mind, unless hon. members on the government side want to argue it, I am prepared to accept the amendment with respect to clause 2. However, I have reservations as to whether we can now go as far as amending clauses which have already been adopted by the committee. I just throw out these suggestions. They might serve the purpose of the hon. member who moved the amendment. Subject to what hon. members have to say, I will accept that part of the amendment which reads:
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".
I suggest to the hon. member that if this part of the amendment serves his purpose it would be acceptable to the Chair at this point, subject to what other hon. members may have to say.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I just point out that Your Honour's qualification of the amendment is acceptable. I will be pleased to move it in that form.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. Before he speaks to the substance of the amendment, other hon. members should have the opportunity of speaking to the procedural point. If no member wishes to do so, the Chair is prepared to accept
the amendment, as amended, with the consent of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Russell Clayton Honey: The amendment is accepted.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise to speak briefly in support of the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. As the committee is aware, during previous discussions on this bill dealing with clause 4, I moved an amendment to appoint a deputy minister of fisheries who would be entirely responsible for fisheries matters. That amendment was overruled by the committee.
I share the concern of the hon. member for St. John's East that the department of fisheries will be swallowed up by the new department of the environment, with a consequent loss of identity to this important primary industry in so far as Canada is concerned. If it were not for the fisheries, Canada may never have been discovered. It was the prolific supplies of fish, particularly codfish, off the Atlantic coast of Canada which encouraged the French, English and many other nationals to come to this country to pursue the fishing industry. If it had not been for the prolific cod fishery off eastern Canada, we would never have known about such romantic ships as the Gertrude L. Thibauld, skippered by Captain Ben Pine, or the Bluenose captained by Captain Angus Walters, or the famous International Schooner races held off the coast near Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Perhaps, we would not now have a replica of the famous sailing ship Bluenose on the back of our ten cent piece.


An hon. Member:: Or the Newfoundland members of Parliament.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Someone has suggested that we may not have the Newfoundland members of Parliament. That would be a tragedy. There is a great deal of tradition, romance and history associated with the department of fisheries. The federal government has jurisdiction over this resource under the British North America Act. The department has been known as the Department of Fisheries and Forestry and the department of fisheries and marine since confederation. I express genuine concern about its demise.
By phasing out this department, some of our problems may not be thoroughly investigated by a minister known only as the minister of the environment. By phasing out the department of fisheries and no longer having a minister of fisheries by that name, I believe we will lose a certain amount of advertising value which is essential to our fishing industry. I say this because this industry is now going through very troubled times. As hon. members are aware, this industry is suffering from incidents of mercury poisoning which have been found in the larger species of fish, mainly tuna and swordfish. We are also suffering from a decline in fish stocks which has resulted in a serious problem for the industry, particularly in Nova Scotia. Important decisions must soon be made on behalf of our fishing industry at an international conference to be held sometime in 1972. We need a representa-

February 16, 1971

tive at this conference who is knowledgeable on fisheries matters and who has the entire industry at heart, otherwise the discussions will bog down on questions of jurisdiction over seabed minerals while pollution control and the preservation of fisheries resources become issues of a secondary nature. This must not be allowed to happen.
We learned only recently that no progress has been made in talks between Canada and the United States to establish the median line which crosses Georges Bank and which should be an international boundary line dividing this section of the offshore banks between Canada and the United States. This boundary was established at the 1958 Geneva convention on the continental shelf on the basis of the median line between neighbouring coasts being the international boundary.
Since 1964, we have seen Ottawa issuing seismic exploration permits covering the northeast corner of the bank to a number of oil companies. But this begs the question. Is Ottawa following the proper course? If oil is discovered on Georges Bank, who will own this resource, Canada or the United States? Who will collect royalties if oil is found? Then again, if a major mishap occurs followed by an oil spill, who will clean up the mess? Who will pay for cleaning up the oil and which government will reimburse our fishermen for the losses they incur as a result of oil polluted waters? Will it be Canada or the United States? These are all very important questions, and they are questions which can only be resolved by an alert minister of fisheries, since obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs is asleep at the switch, incapable or unable to reach agreement with the United States with regard to them.
Another area of concern is the thorny fisheries dispute involving Canada and the government of France which owns the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. In 1964 Parliament passed the Territorial Seas and Fishing Zones Act establishing a 12-mile limit off Canada's east coast. The Secretary of State for External Affairs at that time, the Hon. Paul Martin, told this House that the terms of the legislation were to be implemented as soon as possible. Well, they have not been implemented yet. It is true bits and pieces have been put into effect, and I will not detract from the efforts of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I think he is giving of himself in a manner unlike that of any previous Liberal minister of fisheries. He has worked hard at his job, but his job is a very complicated and difficult one.


James Aloysius McGrath: And now he is giving it up.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: And now, as my hon. friend from St. John's East says, it appears he is giving it up. These are situations which concern us. As I said, the legislation passed in 1964 has not been fully implemented and at the rate we are going our fishermen will have a new understanding of the meaning of the word eternity. I would ask the minister this question: is the median line the bone of contention in the dispute between Canada and France? I refer to the line which is in dispute between Canada and the United States as it crosses Georges
Government Organization Act, 1970 Bank? This is a question which affects our territorial rights and fishing zones vis-a-vis the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. This is an important point and one which must be resolved, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has indicated to us that Canada accepts the median line as the dividing line between Canada and the United States where it crosses Georges Bank. Are we being hoist on our own petard if we accept that median line as the dividing line, the international boundary line, between Canada and the United States? Do we accept this as the dividing line between Canada and the French-owned islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?
If so, I should like to know whether the median line is the dividing line accepted by the French government. If this is the case it would appear we are issuing seismic survey permits and oil drilling permits with respect to sections of the continental shelf which may well be claimed by France. These are some of the questions which the present minister of fisheries has been unable to resolve. These are problems which have been given the brush-off by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Oh, he goes to international conferences, but when he returns and we ask him whether he has consulted with the French with regard to these and other matters he tells us he has not had the time. And when we ask him what progress is being made with regard to them he says they are still under discussion. This is not good enough.
What about our swordfish industry? The United States food and drug directorate has established a rule that five parts of mercury per million is a tolerable level of mercury but that no fish containing more than this amount of mercury is acceptable as an import into the United States. I know the minister has made representations to the United States authority to ascertain whether this standard could be relaxed in order that we might retain our swordfish industry. Some 50 ships will be tied up on the south shore of Nova Scotia alone as a result of these developments, throwing 300 men out of work through no fault of their own. These men are desperately seeking an alternative form of employment. Here again is a matter which should exercise the concern of a minister of fisheries who has no other duties but to look after this particular primary industry.
Speaking of mercury pollution, another question occurs to me. Has the same level for fitness for human consumption been set for tuna, for example? If so, does cooking the tuna lower the mercury content? Swordfish are sold fresh. Could they be processed in any way so that this delicious seafood could once again be made acceptable?
I could go on for another hour talking about the fishing industry-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Private Members' Hour begins at five o'clock.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -but I am reminded that Private Members' Hour is approaching, so I shall not detain hon. members further at this time. But for the reasons I have given, I am happy to support the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from St. John's East. I

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 hope that in the interests of maintaining the traditional name of the department and its association with the fishing industry the amendment will meet with the acceptance of this chamber.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment and I am sure it will meet with no opposition from the minister of fisheries or his friends on the government benches. After all, it does little more than give due recognition to an industry which is of great importance to eastern Quebec, four Atlantic provinces and British Columbia. A little more than a week ago, my hon. friend from the south shore of Nova Scotia moved an amendment which would have meant the appointment of a full-fledged deputy minister of fisheries. He, of course, would be the chief executive responsible for fisheries matters in Canada. At the moment, we have a minister of fisheries in the House of Commons and we shall continue to do so until this measure meets with parliamentary approval.
In the two years and eight months during which I have been a member of this House I have raised fisheries issues with the department on many occasions. I suppose there is hardly a member sitting here who has not expressed concern about the decline in stocks of fish off our coast as a result of exploitation by the Soviet Union, by the Scandinavian countries, the Iberian countries and, in fact, by all western European countries. Some of the North African countries are now planning to harvest fish along our continental shelf.
We have been pressuring the minister of fisheries to make an attempt to convene an international conference that will give our fishing industry some special direction and impetus to enable it to take its rightful place in the Canadian economy. This would provide our fishermen with a proper return for their labour, and also enable the fishing industry and our marine resources to make a proper contribution to the general welfare of the Canadian nation.
The passage of the bill now before the committee, which seeks to create a department of the environment and to subjugate the fisheries department to a minor role within the proposed department of the environment, we feel would seriously downgrade the role of the fishery in Canada. My colleague from St. John's East has put forward a very simple and sincere recommendation, namely that we give the fisheries department at least some semblance of its original status by renaming this proposed department the "department of fisheries and the environment". I cannot see any objection to the amendment and I am sure the minister of fisheries will accept it with the respect it deserves.
I imagine that in the very near future the minister of fisheries will have to sit down with the representatives of a number of European and Scandinavian countries, as well as the Soviet Union, and engage in a debate on the fishing industry and marine resources. I think he would have less status speaking as a minister of the environment responsible, on the one hand, for the effluent of the pulp and paper plant across the river here, as well as, on the other hand, for the fishing stocks in Groswater Bay or off the coast of Vancouver Island. He would have more status speaking as minister of fisheries and the environment, and this is the main reason I support the amendment.
It has been said that the fishing industry of Canada has never occupied the status position that it should have in the Canadian economy. I suppose there are a number of reasons for this. Successive governments, in my opinion, have not treated the fishery as an industry which could contribute to Canada's economic development. As an industry it has never been fully recognized, even though it was originally the staple industry in the Canadian economy.
For example, I can go back to the 15th century, when the original settlers from Europe came to what is now Canada in 1497 and exploited the fishery. I am sure the minister has become familiar with all the stories that have been told about this since he became minister. For example, he probably knows how they used these great baskets-unsubsidized baskets, by the way-put rocks in them, threw them overboard and then dragged them up full to overflowing with fish. In fact, fish were so plentiful that they rolled ashore on the beaches.
Cod are far from plentiful at the moment, though occasionally we do get hake on the shore. However, during the last 20 years or so there has been a tremendous decline in the fishing resources of the Atlantic. The minister is in his seat, and I presume he is listening to the debate, so must be aware that what I am saying is a fact. On Georges Bank the fishery is all but eliminated. On the Hamilton Inlet banks the Russians were responsible in 1968 for taking a quarter of a billion pounds of fish. I think that is the correct statistic, but certainly over a billion pounds of fish have been taken from the Hamilton Inlet banks. These are the spawning grounds of the Labrador fishery, which at one time was a major industry.
There was a time when thousands of men would sail down the coast of Labrador and set up residences somewhere for a few weeks or months in the summer to reap a great harvest of cod that was swimming along the shores and which populated the bays and inlets of Labrador. But during the last few years not only Russia and other countries, but Canada as well, have declared war on the fishing grounds on the Hamilton Inlet banks 250 miles east of the Labrador shore. As a result, we have seen the almost complete destruction-no, I submit the complete destruction-of the Labrador fishery, thus affecting the livelihoods of thousands of Canadians.
Let me put on the record once again the amount of fish that has been taken off the Hamilton Inlet banks off the Labrador coast. These fish would be sufficient to keep the largest plant in my riding going full blast at its present capacity and employment rate for 100 years. This particular plant, which is situated at Twillingate, Newfoundland, employs something of the order of 350 people during the peak period.

February 16, 1971

Even in spite of the tremendous exploitation of the fishery that has taken place, it is not too late for the Canadian government to ensure that end marine resources provide one of the major economic thrusts of this country. The fishery could be a top priority and the government should give it almost special status in terms of setting priorities for Canada. It should be given special status when it comes to negotiating a good deal with other countries for the Canadian fishery and conservation and management measures. Certainly, this is what I should like the Canadian government to do. It is what all Canadians would like, whether from British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or the Gaspe. Incidentally, I am waiting for my hon. friend from Gaspe, for whom I have a tremendous amount of respect, to make his position on this issue clear. We want the fishery given as much status as possible.
The amendment moved by my colleague from St. John's East seeks to give the fishery some of the status it deserves. I submit that eliminating the office of minister of fisheries is a retrograde step that will have a debilitating effect on our attitude to the fishery, which in turn will result in the downgrading of the role of the fishery in Canada.
I hope that when I continue my remarks this evening the government will see fit to accept this very simple amendment that has been moved with the best interests of the fishing industry at heart, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I call it five o'clock.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress, and request leave to sit again later this day.
Progress reported.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Information Canada-representations from publishers of original Canadian books respecting assistance; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)- Labour Conditions-Unemployment-immediate amendment of Unemployment Insurance Act in view of increase in fund-increase in federal share of welfare costs; the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Agriculture-Consolidation of farms-preservation of family farms.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely public bills.
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North) moved: that Bill C-22, to amend the Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act (off-store instalment sales) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I sponsor today involves a principle which was the subject of a bill enacted in 1962 by the Conservative government in the United Kingdom. That bill was entitled "An Act to amend the law relating to hire-purchase and sales on credit of goods; and for purposes connected therewith". The purpose of this bill is to protect the Canadian consumer when he or she is approached in his or her home and is pressured into signing a contract for goods, services, labour or materials that are to be paid for by the consumer in future instalments. The principle of the bill is to afford the consumer a period for sober second thought.
I am sure there is not a Member of Parliament here who has not heard, either directly from one of his constituents or read in a newspaper publication, of the case of a high pressure salesman calling at the door, meeting a housewife or an individual living at the house who is retired or is on pension, and giving a high pressure sales talk resulting in the signing of a contract which obligates the person to purchase something like aluminum siding for his house, aluminum windows, the encyclopaedia Bri-tannica or some other type of magazine.
The salesman very often creates the impression that this so-called service or product will be provided to the person to whom the sales pitch is being made at a very small cost; if not at a small total cost, at a small weekly or monthly cost. Very often people are charged substantially more than they might have paid if they had purchased the articles or the service in the regular way from a reputable place of business. Often they are lead to believe they will be given or provided with magazines, encyclopaedia or other items at little or no cost. Subsequently, they find to their horror that they have really obligated themselves to a contract for purchase. They often find they have agreed to purchase a large amount of aluminum siding for their house, which could amount to $1,000 or $2,000, or aluminum windows, which could run into hundreds of dollars, or a set of encyclopaedia which could cost $100 or $200, or even more. I might add that most people find little or no use for these books, magazines and other articles they become obligated to purchase at a cost of between $20 and $50 in interest on the contract.
Since I raised this matter first before the Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, which was looking into consumer credit, a number of individuals have dealt with the matter, and several provinces

February 16, 1971
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act have initiated legislation patterned upon the bill originally passed in Great Britain. It is not surprising that provinces have done this because such contracts, about which I have been talking, involve property or civil rights which fall under provincial jurisdiction. These matters also involve the Bills of Exchange Act which is a federal measure.
I propose to deal with the problem under the heading: "provincial legislation", which has been passed and which is excellent, but varies from province to province. A number of provinces such as Manitoba and Ontario have such legislation. Some provinces, such as Quebec, are considering the passage of such legislation. A number of provinces do not have this type of legislation, but even those provinces have passed legislation containing provisions for the protection of consumers.
The amendment which I propose to the Bills of Exchange Act would give the consumer three full days to cancel any bill of exchange or promissory note given as collateral or security. It provides that if the bill or note has not been negotiated meanwhile to an innocent third party, the individual has no further liability.
The bill provides that if a third party has been involved, the responsibility of the person who originally signed the contract is limited. The kind of protection I have been referring to is not at all unusual; in fact it is very common. The Toronto Telegram of last week, February 12, in its regular feature called "The Action Line", in which letters are directed to Frank Drea, contained a half dozen examples of the sharp practice to which I am referring. Let me put on record a couple of examples which were printed in the "Action Line" column in the Toronto Telegram of February 12, 1971. The first reads:
I need help. For some time now, I have been receiving magazines in the mail when I did not order or pay for them. I have returned them to the sender. In the mail today, I received three magazines.
I also received a notice from Trail Collection Agency saying that it had been retained by Civic Reading Club to collect $19.70 from me. That notice said previous attempts to notify me that 1 was a delinquent had been ignored. How can there be an account when I returned the magazines immediately.
I am a pensioner and have neither the means nor the desire for their magazines, (one that was sent was True). Now I have had a phone call and the lady asked for money. I told her I always returned the magazines with a note to say I did not want any more.
Mr. Drea, with the co-operation of the Consumer Protection Bureau of Ontario, had the contract cancelled. Let me read another letter:
My husband signed a piece of paper for seven magazines from Civic Reading Club. I phoned this company as soon as I got home from work. I didn't want these magazines. I told them I wouldn't accept them.
My husband does not read or write. He can write his name on a cheque and a few other things. But he can't read a letter or a contract. I tried to tell them this. In fact, the company provided the down payment of $5.90.
Now, they expect me to pay $5.90 a month for the next two years. I don't read these magazines and I hardly get time to read the paper. I refuse to accept these magazines. I have to send back Look, Maclean's, Rod and Gun, Atlantic, Field and Stream, Argosy and one that I can't remember. Please do something.
Again, "Action Line" went to work with the Consumer Protection Bureau of Ontario and got the contract withdrawn. A look at the list of magazines to which this lady from Oshawa refers is an indication of how ridiculous the whole situation is. Individually, these are good magazines. I submit, however, that very few, if any, people would be interested in reading not just that many magazines but that spectrum of magazines. Field and Stream and Rod and Gun are magazines for people interested in fishing and hunting. Then, there is Argosy. I have not looked at it recently but as I remember it is a man's magazine; it is an adventure type magazine. Look magazine is a good magazine composed of articles and photographs. Maclean's magazine is a good Canadian magazine and Atlantic is a pretty high-class, high-brow, United States magazine. These are all good magazines, but I submit again that there would be very few people who would knowingly buy all these magazines.
What happened was precisely what this woman said in her letter. A very sharp, aggressive, knowledgeable salesman, interested in the very high commission he receives on each sale, made a very hard pitch to an old man who could neither read nor write and could hardly sign his name to a cheque. This man signed a contract in which he agreed to pay $5.90 a month for two years, making a total of something in the neighbourhood of $140 a year. I suggest to members of the House that what we have here, to say the least, is a very sharp practice. If it is not illegal under our laws, it certainly is an immoral practice. What I propose in my bill is that we provide, through a federal statute, the same kind of law a number of provinces have so that the consumer will have the type of protection he needs and to which he is entitled. Then, he will not be subjected to the kind of sharp practices which unfortunately are all too prevalent in this country. I do not think any legitimate businessman, retailer or company selling from door to door is involved.
My bill is not intended to be a blanket criticism of door-to-door selling. There is a very legitimate role to be played by business which sell from door-to-door. I have no objection to door-to-door selling. It is not the purpose of my bill to prohibit door-to-door selling or, indeed, to inhibit it where it is done in a legitimate way.
What this bill proposes, and I hope members of the House will support it, is that people who make purchases off premises, in other words people who make purchases not in a store but rather at home, will be given a period of three days in which to think about the purchase they have made and the obligation they have undertaken. In this way, they would have an opportunity to consult members of their family or friends who are more knowledgeable about business matters. Then, if they should feel they really did not wish to make the purchase, the contract could be voided by notifying the selling agency. I believe the fact that a number of provinces have already passed similar legislation is an indication that such legislation is useful in controlling the over exuberant selling which is sometimes practised. I believe this legislation is both worthwhile and necessary, and I hope members of the House will support this bill.

February 16, 1971


Mr. Sleven Otlo (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with this bill in a favourable light, although I believe it really touches the tip of the iceberg. The hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) outlined some of the complaints of citizens of Toronto as reported in a Toronto newspaper. I recall having been involved in business, not door-to-door although I was familiar with this type of selling, when we had the example of the water softener. This was an example of a confidence racket. The whole production and the presentation was drawn up in Boston, Massachusetts, by three psychiatrists. The presentation was so beautifully outlined that it would sell the water softener to anyone. I recall the training the salesmen received. I am speaking of a product which is in fairly frequent use at the present time.
The salesmen were trained to use the visual presentation, fear, and every conceivable apprehension to which a future customer could be subjected. When one looks into the facts, one finds that one would have to drink about 82,000 gallons of water a day in order to harm his health if the water were hard. Very few people could take in that much liquid. If a pot were used for 27J years it would accumulate minerals to the extent that it could not be used, and a 79 cent pot would have to be thrown away. People today are purchasing water softeners at prices ranging between $400 and $1,400 strictly because of this door-to-door selling. The purchasers have every opportunity to break the contract but do not do so.
As I say, door-to-door selling is only the tip of the problem we really have here. The hon. member has pointed to the Bills of Exchange Act, which we control federally and which could have a great bearing on the conduct of business and consumer credit in general. I take it that the bill proposed by the hon. member would not take effect after delivery of the goods, but only before the goods have been delivered could the contract be cancelled. I take it also there would be a time limit in respect of when the notice should be sent. As the hon. member is aware, the salesman could predate the contract and provide witnesses to establish that the contract had been entered into on the specified date. So, it would be almost impossible to make this work.
As I have stated, the tip of the iceberg is there but the real issue is what we do in respect of consumer credit because that is really what we are talking about. We are talking about salesmen in and out of stores who tell a customer to buy the best merchandise, not to worry about the price, pay nothing down and eventually somehow it will work out. In Canada, there is approximately $13 billion outstanding in consumer credit. Since approximately 30 per cent of the families in Canada do not use consumer credit, according to my calculation the remaining families are each indebted to an average of approximately $3,700. The interest on that sum alone is upwards of $700. Yet, DBS tells us the disposable income of an average family is about $500. What we are doing in fact is becoming more deeply involved in consumer credit to the point that it is inconceivable the indebtedness will ever be repaid; it is impossible.
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act
At one time, I was in discussion with a man fairly knowledgeable in finance who said "you may be right that this consumer debt can never be repaid. You are not only right, but it should not be repaid. Let us suppose that only 50 per cent of the people now obligated to pay money decide to pay the interest and principal and never to borrow again. The result would be that 75 per cent of our nation could not buy T.V. sets, clothing or furniture, and we would be in a depression the like of which the world has never seen." So here we are, stuck with a system which we ourselves have allowed and into which we are entering deeper and deeper. The result is that 18 per cent to 20 per cent interest now has to cover not only the interest but supposedly the principal as well. In other words, industry has acknowledged that this principal will never be paid back and that, therefore, they have to settle for the interest alone.
Why is this consumer credit so prolific, and why do people buy? I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that consumer credit is really promoted by industry, by people who manufacture the goods, but it is not promoted with any discretion. Industry does not say to a viewer of television or a reader of advertising in the newspaper that if your earnings are $14,000 or $15,000 or $20,000 a year you should buy this new car. Industry does not say "Be careful, do not go over your limit". There is absolutely no discretion, and industry promotes indiscriminately the purchase of a product, whether or not the purchaser is able to afford that product. However, the money is often collected through the courts. This is not done merely by an action in court, but rather by using many devious means.
For example, if there is a collection department within the finance company they will ask for a payment several times, following which they will telephone the employer and suggest that the debtor is far behind with his payments; that he is really not responsible. Then, they suggest that there may be a lien. The employer then finds a defence by telling his employee "get it straightened away or you will be out of a job. I will not bother with this type of thing". That is one way in which they act. If they do not succeed that way, they go to the court. They use the whole majesty of our courts to collect a debt which they themselves have promoted.
But I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the original Bills of Exchange Act was not consumer credit. The act was introduced a long time ago for commercial credit for businessmen. It was introduced so that commerce could be conducted, so that in due course the holder of a note, a cheque, a conditional sale agreement, a bill of lading or a bill of exchange, would have a reliable document on which to collect his debt. At that time no one had heard of consumer credit, and if they had, the government would have automatically excluded the consumer purchaser from this act. I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the Bills of Exchange Act does not apply to any type of bill, note or document for consumer credit. We should eliminate completely the provisions of this act, and the great body of law based on this act, which permit finance

February 16, 1971
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act
companies to use the courts. We should say to them that they cannot use the courts to collect their money but rather they should use promotion. If they promoted the borrowing of that money, they should use the same promotion to get it back, or alternatively, be careful how they lend their money.
I think that consumer credit would still be granted, but this step would save us the fantastic cost with which each province is burdened and would take a lot of pressure off the courts. However, most important, I think that if this industry-which claims to be an industry, but at one time these people were called usurers-wants the goodies at the end it should also have the responsibility to ensure that all their sales and promotion are geared to the ability of the customer to pay. Then, society would not be burdened with the costs of collection.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. member?


Steven Otto: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated a while ago that the bill was quite sensible and that he regretted having to discuss the matter. Could he tell us why, if the bill is so satisfactory, he does not hasten its passage?


Steven Otto: I am all in favour of it. I cut my remarks short, so that the bill could carry now.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the speeches of my colleagues on Bill C-22 introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), and upon reading the first paragraph of the explanatory notes, I realized that this bill is not only extremely important, but that it is designed to alleviate the problems facing Canadian consumers today.
Mr. Speaker, when one considers that Canadians as a whole owe more than 10 billion, whether in consumer credit or in loans of all kinds granted to individuals, that is an indication of the frightening indebtedness of Canadians, which the government does nothing at all to curb. That shows also the importance of the matter which interests the hon. member for Winnipeg North, namely the protection of the consumer.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote from the bill:
The purpose of this bill is to protect the Canadian consumer when he or she is approached in his home or other "off-store" premises and is pressured into signing a contract for goods, services, or work, labour and materials that are to be paid for by the consumer in future instalments. The principle of the bill is to afford the consumer a period for "sober second thought"-
-before getting involved in those gimmicks which will contribute to ruin him financially.
Mr. Speaker, recently, in Victoriaville, I saw several of my fellow citizens being submitted to pressure from aggressive salesmen who greatly annoyed the people. I even noticed in one case that some salesmen went to the
homes of my fellow citizens and told them: We shall get you a product of such quality. Their sales pitch was the most convincing speech.
But, and that is the snag, those salesmen, even though they did not represent a bad company nor did they offer a bad product, claimed that the purchase of the goods could be financed with a loan from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation at an interest rate of 4J or 5 per cent.
Now, when one knows the current interest rate charged by CMHC and other credit sources, this claim becomes really extraordinary and my fellow-citizens, at that moment, have absolutely no way of obtaining information of the transaction.
It is well known that such salesmen say: Do this now, do not miss your chance? And people do not want to miss their chance; they need a certain product and they are swayed by certain arguments. And it is precisely those arguments that make them fall into the trap.
Consumer credit amounts to more than $10 billion. This is how the individual runs into debt. It shows how important is the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and how the House should readily support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, these pressure salesmen have two advantages: first, professional sales training and then, the ignorance of people on which they rely. Not that people are really ignorant and have no good sense, but they lack objective and full information. These salesmen speculate on the advantage of speed and swiftness and try to corner citizens into a position where they have no other choice but to sign the contract. At that time, it is certainly not a well considered purchase.
This is why, on the whole, this bill aims at automatically affording the consumer a period for "sober second thought" during which he will be able to seek advice from consultants, specialists, friends in order to take the wisest decision.
One cannot assuredly blame the advertisers of these products because sales methods are directed towards the use of pressure. But, when the two contribute to make Canadians run further into debt, in view of the appalling economic conditions that exist at this time, it is all the more important for the Canadian government to protect the consumers.
That is why I readily join with my colleagues in supporting Bill C-22 and I want to congratulate the sponsor of this bill.
In conclusion I simply say that when one sees the way Canadians are running into debt and considers the economic conditions that prevail at this time in Canada, one finds that the government has long been concentrating its efforts on production and protection of producers through fiscal policies and so on. The government protects producers, but does nothing for the consumers. A board for the protection of consumers has been set up, but it is just a joke. Things remained as they were and complaints directed to that board are dealt with ever so slowly. In fact you would have to wait ten years before a complaint is investigated by that board as red tape has the effect of

February 16, 1971

burrying officials under tons of paper, which does not make for efficiency at all.
That is why it seems important to me that we pass legislation in this field, especially with regard to that economic problem and to the fact that Canadians are indebted for more than 10 billion dollars. It seems to me that in such a situation the government has to protect consumers against all these means used to squeeze money out of them.
That is why we shall support Bill C-22 and we hope that it will be passed as soon as possible.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, since pre-confederation itinerant sellers have performed a very real service to the Canadian housewife. This has been particularly true in rural areas, where the periodic visits of the man selling spices, thread, brushes or other household articles were social occasions and a great purchasing convenience. I remember my own experience as a boy visiting my grandparents on the Prairies. I know how it was when itinerant salesmen came with their horsedrawn vehicles and later on with their automobiles and trucks.
In the early days, the salesmen were usually small-scale merchants without any ties to large suppliers. Gradually, however, a number of companies saw opportunities for expansion in this field of endeavour and some of the enterprises which developed became very large and profitable. Many of these companies also acquired a high reputation for the quality of their products and the probity of their salesmen. There was always a small representation of rascals, however, who were overendowed with persuasive ability but not heavily burdened by conscience.


James Aloysius McGrath: Carpetbaggers.


B. Keith Penner: These people regarded the farmers and housewives as fair game. The lightning-rod salesman of another day usually had the gift of the gab and it was said that he could sell lightning-rods to people who had never heard thunder. In more recent times these unscrupulous individuals have concentrated on more obvious symbols of affluence such as aluminum siding, encyclopedias, freezer plans, fire alarms, vacuum cleaners, correspondence courses and an amazing variety of get-rich-quick schemes.
Purchases of this type normally involve large expenditures and it was not long before some of the disreputable operators in the field of intinerant selling discovered the convenience of conditional sales contracts and promissory notes. It was typical of the shady operators to sell the promissory note as quickly as possible to a finance company or other financial institution which would normally acquire the status of a holder in due course. This meant that the purchaser was obliged to pay the holder of the promissory note even though the original transaction may have turned out to be completely unsatisfactory.
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act
I have here an account of an actual case which illustrates the problem. It concerns an elderly lady who was crippled and living with her disabled husband on a small pension. A salesman called to try to sell them a mattress. She said the salesman was very nice and acted as if he were sincerely interested in helping her because it was apparent that she was crippled. The lady told the man that she did not need a mattress but had been thinking about getting a rug, which he said he could get for her with no difficulty. She had been prepared to pay $125, but after she had signed papers which the "nice" salesman offered she discovered that she would be paying $300, plus $30 down, plus a $10 delivery charge.
She realized she had made an error but felt there was nothing she could do about it because she had signed a contract. When Christmas and New Year came and she had no rug, she tried to cancel the order but was told this was impossible. The outcome of it was that she did not receive her rug and a finance company was trying to garnishee her husband's income for the amount of $300.
This kind of scandalous behaviour has, naturally, provoked a good deal of dissatisfaction and there has been increasing legislative action in recent years in providing a so-called cooling off period for transactions conducted by door to door salesmen. This whole matter was looked at in considerable detail by the Molony committee in Great Britain in 1962, which received a good many complaints on the subject. The committee reported that the activities of door to door salesmen provoked greater wrath and indignation among the witnesses than any other subject. As a result of this, the Molony committee recommended a change in the law which would permit a purchaser to withdraw from a so-called "doorstep sale" within 72 hours. The British Parliament accepted the principle and it was incorporated in the Hire Purchase Act in 1964 and 1965. Specifically, the British act allows the purchaser four days from the receipt of a notice to advise the seller that he has rescinded the agreement.
In the United States, statutes providing the right to cancel were passed in Pennsylvania and Michigan, but they were limited to contracts dealing with home improvements, a field which has been the focus of a good deal of fraudulent activity. About five years ago proposals for cooling off provisions of a more general sort began to appear and a number of statutes now provide for the cancellation of itinerant sales contracts. This issue was dealt with in the Uniform Consumer Credit Code which was drawn up by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Law.
In the final draft of this code, dated 1968, there is a recommendation that any buyer should have the right to cancel what they describe as a "home solicitation sale" until midnight of the third business day after the day on which the buyer signed the contract. The most recent development in the States has been the issuance of a proposed rule by the Federal Trade Commission which would impose a cooling off period quite generally. The brief presented to that commission specifically indicated

February 16, 1971
Bills of Exchange Act and the Interest Act that there was a need for a broad type of cooling off period to help citizens of that country.
Although I have been talking about developments in Great Britain and the United States it should not be taken to mean that the problem has not been dealt with in Canada as well. Since the passage of the first consumer protection bill in Nova Scotia in 1967, there has been a general adoption of similar legislation in all but one of the Canadian provinces. The province of Quebec has not yet passed its consumer protection act; it is currently before the committee of the Quebec Assembly and is known as Bill 45.
It is provided in all the provincial legislation of this type that doorstep contracts can be cancelled within a specific period. The period is not uniform in all provinces. Ontario provides two days while British Columbia provides three days. The three prairie provinces specify four days. Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia specify a five-day period, while Prince Edward Island allows seven days and Newfoundland ten days. These longer periods are a recognition of the fact that some people in the Atlantic provinces may be away from home for a longer period. There is, therefore, some extension of what is known as the "decompression period", a phrase used to describe the period after the signing of the contract when the intensity of the consumer's desire drops rapidly. This is sometimes a period for handwringing and sober second thought.
It is undoubtedly true that high-pressure selling techniques are used in stores as well as in the home, and there may well be many occasions when individuals find they have been mesmerized into concluding a contractual arrangement which they subsequently realized was unwise. The legislation which has been passed in this field in other countries and in the various provinces does make a distinction between these two methods of doing business. It is evidently the view that the need for protection is not as great in the case of persons who go to stores or visit showrooms because their interest in the articles on display is self-inspired.
It should also be pointed out that nearly all the provinces provide additional protection against unscrupulous, itinerant sellers apart from the cooling off period. It is generally the case in the Canadian provinces that door to door salesmen are required to be licensed by provincial bodies. In some cases there are also bonding requirements. This means that any sellers who generate complaints from consumers render themselves liable to investigation by the provincial authorities. This could in some cases lead to the cancellation of their licences.
Since door to door selling usually falls under the law of contracts it is primarily a matter under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It should be emphasized, however, that the federal government has taken definitive steps to eliminate certain types of abuses in this general field. There was a path-breaking amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act which became law on November 1, 1970, which changes the law governing promissory notes used in consumer purchases in a way which protects consumers generally. The amendment, of course, applies to any

promissory note or similar instrument that is used in a consumer credit transaction.
The amendment is designed to stop abuses of promissory notes by unscrupulous or irresponsible sellers. Consumers who buy on credit often sign promissory notes attached to sales contracts without understanding that the promissory note will be sold to a third party such as a sales finance company. In most cases a third party holder of a promissory note can legally enforce payment of the note even if the seller of the goods does not live up to his part of the contract. This can lead to severe injustice when a seller has gone bankrupt, skipped out, broken a warranty or service agreement or has otherwise failed to perform his part of the contract. It has been possible for the so-called "holder in due course" of a promissory note to insist on payment when the goods bought by the consumer were not even delivered.
The amendment has two main provisions. The first is that all promissory notes given by consumers under sales contracts must be marked "consumer purchase" on their face. The second is that consumers will for the first time be able to offer as a defence, in case of suit for non-payment, the fact that the original seller did not fulfil his part of the bargain. This means that sales finance companies and others buying promissory notes will have to be careful that the sellers they buy them from are not engaged in any fraudulent or shady activity. The new rules will also apply to cheques which are postdated more than 30 days. This has been done to prevent any evasion of the intent of the amendment by substituting postdated cheques or other types of bills of exchange for promissory notes.
Promissory notes were originally used in transactions between merchants or businessmen who understood fully the nature of promissory notes. In more recent years, the widespread use of such notes in consumer credit sales has meant that often they have been signed by people who have not realized their unconditional obligation to pay. Fast talking and fly-by-night operators, interested in getting the signature of the consumer, neglect to explain the "holder in due course" aspect of the Bills of Exchange Act.
The change in the law follows recommendations made by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on Consumer Credit, the Consumers' Association of Canada, the Canadian Consumer Council, provincial authorities responsible for consumer credit legislation and various experts on consumer law. It is a sad fact that legislation is not the sole answer to the kind of problem we are dealing with. It is also essential for individual consumers to behave in a prudent fashion. There are myriad warnings about the pitfalls of signing contracts with charming but unknown peddlers. The skill of certain salesmen in persuading people to sign documents is remarkable, and the point must be hammered home that care and time should be taken before a major purchase is made. It is often quite easy to make inquiries through friends, relatives, lawyers or others concerning the credentials of the sellers and the quality of their products.
February 16, 1971

There would be much less weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth if people would learn to resist the blandishments of the fast-talking salesman who is in a rush to have the deal concluded. It would be a great deal easier for all concerned if people would reflect on some of their plans and consider them in the cold light of early morning long after the salesman has gone, before signing some allegedly innocuous paper. Until people learn to be wary of glowing promises and claims of magic performance, they will involve themselves in difficulties. It is true that the assortment of consumer protection laws which we now have may permit them to escape serious financial harm if there is chicanery involved, but it would be simpler all around if consumers would exercise a reasonable degree of prudence and caution.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to number myself among those who have praised the basic principle of the legislation or at least the spirit behind it. I have some misgivings about its workability and constitutionality about which I will speak later. Others have spoken of a cooling off period of three days in the signing of door to door contracts. I am sure no one disagrees with this sound idea.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis) is in the chamber. In line with her avid interest in family planning, it would be remarkable if the hon. member could come up with a three-day cooling off period for that sort of thing, something which would operate retroactively in the same way as the legislation now before us.


David Orlikow: Find a way and we will support you.


James Alexander Jerome: If you could find a way, 1 would support you. A three-day retroactive pill would be a big seller. I would like to be among those who had the patent on it, as well as the patent on legislation with the spirit of this bill.
Provincial jurisdictions have gone a long way on this road. I realize that the hon. member has introduced this legislation because only some of the provinces have taken the necessary steps. This brings me to the main reason for participating in the debate. If the spirit of this legislation is to be effective, we will be dealing with what is primarily provincial responsibility. I do not doubt that the spirit of the legislation now before us is a circuitous way of accomplishing a praiseworthy objective. If this is to be accomplished, the legislation must apply to all provinces. By dealing with amendments to the Interest Act and the Bills of Exchange Act, the hon. member is attempting to get at the law of contracts and at the root of contracts dealing with property and civil rights. This, of course, is fundamentally and essentially a provincial responsibility.


B. Keith Penner: Will the parliamentary secretary permit a question?


James Alexander Jerome: Certainly.
Government Organization Act, 1970


B. Keith Penner: I am interested in the remarks he is making. Could the parliamentary secretary say from his own knowledge whether Bill C-22, if enacted, would give the consumer any real protection in addition to that now provided by the provinces in their legislation which allows for a cooling off period? The only exception is the province of Quebec which has not yet passed a bill of this type. It is now before a committee of their Assembly. Could the parliamentary secretary indicate whether any real, additional protection would be given to the consumer by this bill?


James Alexander Jerome: My opinion on that is in the negative, Mr. Speaker. Of course, it is only a personal opinion. A question like that could be better answered at another time by experts in the constitutional and contract fields. The hon. member who sponsored the bill may want to comment on that matter at another time. In my opinion, the protection extended by this bill is no stronger than the basic protection under the Ontario legislation. This is actually a provincial responsibility. In the province of Ontario the legislation allows for a cooling-off period. What the hon. member is attempting to accomplish by this legislation has already been accomplished.
The intention of the legislation dealing with bills of exchange is to get away from the "holder in due course" aspect of the matter, which is the most infamous and odious. A holder in due course under a promissory note can pursue collection of the note regardless of the good faith or purpose of the original vendor. It has always been an extremely odious situation. Steps to correct the situation have already been taken by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. The time allotted for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
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. Richard in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. When the committee rose at five o'clock an amendment to clause 2, moved by the hon. member for St. John's East, was under consideration.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, first I must congratulate the committee for arriving at a quorum so early this evening. Before the debate was interrupted at five o'clock we were talking about an amendment by my hon. friend from St. John's East regarding the need to reinstate in the bill now before the committee, the government reorganization bill in the name of the right honourable, esteemed and distinguished Prime Minister of Canada, a title which would give fisheries at least the status which it deserves as a priority economic issue in the Canadian nation. In presenting our amendment we have tried to show the importance of marine resources to this nation. When we say "marine resources" perhaps we ought to indicate what that phrase means in terms of the Canadian economy. We are not referring to the need for a minister to protect the cod fishing industry.
We are not referring to the need for a ministry or a fisheries department to protect flatfish or the groundfish industry. We are referring to the need for a spokesman in the House of Commons for everything to do with marine resources.
Most nations of the world, including the Soviet Union, the western European nations, the Scandinavian countries and the Iberian nations recognize marine resources as one of the last great frontiers in the development of their countries. Until the introduction of Bill C-207 we had a fisheries department in Canada which, though lacking in initiative, lacking in spark, in ingenuity and aggression, occupied some kind of prestigious position because the representative of the fisheries department did sit on the front bench and could assume responsibility for answering for the Canadian fishing industry.
It has been our contention that it is necessary for Canada to increase the prestige and the importance of the Department of Fisheries. We do not propose this on a sentimental basis. It is not my intention as a Canadian-parliamentarian and as a representative of a fishing constituency, by and large, to argue that we should have a Department of Fisheries which occupies a top-level role in the Canadian government, on the basis of sentiment or simply to see our east coast and west coast marine areas recognized. It is primarily a consideration based on the fact that marine resources occupy a strategic position in the economy.
My hon. friend from South Shore, who moved an amendment in recent days, suggested that we should first reinstitute the Department of Fisheries and keep it as a unique and distinct department. Failing the acceptance of that recommendation we moved an amendment asking that there be a fully-fledged Deputy Minister of Fisheries who could assume the full role of a deputy minister answerable to the House of Commons. That proposal was defeated. I cannot recall exactly how the vote went but I do recall that every supporter of the government voted against the motion. This was unacceptable to the Canadian fishing industry. It was unacceptable to Canadian fishermen. It was an unbelievable response from the "just" Prime Minister of Canada who promised to eliminate regional disparity-and I am talking about the four Atlantic provinces, the eastern part of Quebec and British Columbia.
My hon. friend from St. John's East has moved an amendment which is very simple. It suggests that instead of having a department of the environment under which we have subsumed a number of branches, one of which is fisheries, another of which is ecology, the environment, everything to do with pollution-including the effluent produced by pulp and paper plants and the mercury effluent from various industries, and so on-we have a Fisheries Department which is recognized in the total title. It is suggested that we have a department of fisheries and the environment. I cannot imagine that the government of this nation will not accede to this very simple request that fisheries at least be placed in a recognized position in the Canadian economy.


An hon. Member:: What about wheat?


John Howard Lundrigan: Back in 1957 we had a Department of Fisheries. Someone told me today that the Department of Fisheries gained its true status in 1932 after decades of talk, contemplation and activity by interested people in Canada. Perhaps we might have watered down the issue a little when talking about a Department of Fisheries and Foresty, but now we are taking steps completely to eliminate the Department of Fisheries and to set up a department of the environment which will have to do with all kinds of pollution including, I suppose, pollution caused by thermometer breakage. Last evening on national television I heard a report about so many pounds of mercury being released into the atmosphere as a result of the millions of thermometers which become broken during the course of a year.
e (8:10 p.m.)
I see the President of the Treasury Board, who holds the pursestrings, looking at me, and my hon. friend who spoke about pollution yesterday in Vancouver and wants part of the action is also in the chamber. Hopefully, these esteemed and honourable gentlemen have come into the committee to take part in the debate, and we have no objection to that. Everything having to do with the environment and the quality of life should occupy top priority in government circles today.
If we relegate the fisheries department to the third-grade level, if instead of having a fully-fledged Deputy Minister of Fisheries we are to have an acting deputy minister away down the line who once in a while, when he can get an appointment, is able to talk to the minister, then we should at least have a department of fisheries and the environment. The government cannot argue that this would be confusing or cumbersome because we already have multiple departments, such as the department of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who also looks after the Wheat Board, or I could refer to the present Department of Fisheries and Forestry.
We suggest that this would be a legitimate reason for accepting our amendment. It would give the fisheries

February 16, 1971

department the prestige that it deserves in the Canadian nation as well as the prestige it deserves internationally. When we meet the various countries of the world in 1971 and in years to come we must speak as a nation that exemplifies and demonstrates great concern for the fishing industry of this country.
If the government cannot accept the amendment and demonstrate to the Canadian people in the Atlantic region, in Quebec and in British Columbia that it is concerned about the fisheries, then my recommendation to the Prime Minister, this right honourable, eminent, omnipotent gentleman, is that we renege our commitment to send candidates to these areas in the next election on the ground that we are not interested in the economy or the future of their people because we want to eliminate the fishery as an industry.
I notice that the Chair is getting a little anxious to get the amendment through, so perhaps the minister would get the floor and give the committee an indication that the government will accept the amendment. We could soothe present feelings in the House of Commons and shortcir-cuit a good deal of debate if the Minister of Fisheries, who could not attend a great economic conference in Newfoundland a few days ago because of his commitment to this bill, were willing to indicate the government's acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. John's East, which provides that the new department be called the department of fisheries and the environment. If he were willing to accept the amendment we would be quite agreeable to allowing the vote to take place and-


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order. The hon. member's time expired some time ago.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the minister would like to indicate his position on this amendment.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Chairman, I feel impelled as a former Minister of Fisheries to say a few words about this amendment. I do so because I feel that the Department of Fisheries is not only an historic one but has been a very important department of government. There was a period when it included what are now some of the responsibilities of the Department of Transport. This was in the days when it was known as the Department of the Marine and Fisheries. It then became the Department of Fisheries and was responsible for the fisheries and nothing else. Subsequently it became the Department of Fisheries and Forestry. This old, historic department is now to disappear as a name from the departments of government.
I think this is unfortunate, not only because the commercial fishery is very important economically for Canada but also because the Canadian Department of Fisheries has rightly acquired a world wide reputation for capability, competence and efficiency. Furthermore, in a day when such matters as pollution and environmental control had little public interest, the Department of Fisheries as such, I think more than any other department of government, pioneered in the field of pollution control. The Department of Fisheries did much in the way of 23966-7
Government Organization Act, 1970 preventing pollution of our fish streams and the dumping of pollutants like mill waste, mine tailings and chemicals of various kinds into our water courses and lakes. The Department of Fisheries has a longer and more praiseworthy record of pollution control and environmental improvement than any other department of government.
Therefore, I think the government should reconsider its decision to call the proposed department simply the department of the environment and should agree to this very reasonable amendment which would set up a new department to be known as the department of fisheries and the environment. Or if the government has some other suggestion to make to the committee, I think we might be able to agree to it and in this way get on with the business of the House, having preserved an historic and important department. If that were so, then when ministers attend international conferences and deal with their opposite numbers from other countries they would be known as ministers of fisheries and the environment. It is true that very few countries have a department of fisheries as such. Many countries have departments of fisheries and agriculture, or fisheries and something else; but I suggest this is an important consideration that the government should not forget.
This is a field in which there is no hard and fast rule about what should come within the department and what it should be named. One could juggle the functions of departments endlessly and advance logical reasons for doing so in light of the current situation. We have had a lot of experience of this sort of thing during the last few years. Certain functions have been taken from one department and put into another from time to time. We have established such bodies as Information Canada and Statistics Canada. It seems to me that one of the reasons for these creations is the elimination of old, historic names such as the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, functions of government that have had the same name since confederation. I think it is unfortunate that we are losing some of this heritage. Sometimes I think this government is intent on innovation for the sake of innovation, change for the sake of change. If we wanted to do this I could make many suggestions. We could take the Department of Finance, part of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and part of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, put them under one minister and call it "unemployment Canada". We could do that if we wanted to be that ridiculous. I am serious about the suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That's no joke.


John Angus MacLean: It certainly is not. I am serious about this scrapping of the old, historical functions and names of departments which are well known not only to Canadians but throughout the world. I think we cure losing something which we cannot replace through the creation of this new department with an entirely new name. I seriously recommend that the government reconsider its decision and include the word "fisheries" in the name of this new department.

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the former Minister of Fisheries I found myself mentally referring to him as the hon. member for Queens. In that sense I might join him on this occasion by taking a small "c" conservative attitude toward certain things. Let me say a few words in support of the proposed amendment.
I, too, sentimentally reject the suggestion that the word "fisheries" should disappear from the title of a department of the Canadian government. I realize that the hon. member for Malpeque was not being merely sentimental when expressing his regret at the proposed disappearance of this name from a Canadian government department. Like the hon. member, I believe there is a series of valid reasons why there should be a Department of Fisheries in Canada. During the last two or three days I have attended a symposium on mercury pollution, under the auspices of the Royal Society of Canada, at the National Library. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say as a member of this House how proud I was of the contribution made to that symposium by the officers of the Department of Fisheries. They were a credit to that department, to this House and to Canada generally.
If it was not obvious to me before, I have realized in the last two days the very close relationship between Canadian fisheries resources and the state of the environment. One thing pointed out at that conference on mercury pollution-I should like to underline this as a member of the fisheries committee of this House-was that despite all the concern which has existed in recent months about the mercury content of fish, the officers of the department made it clear that fish products in Canada are relatively uncontaminated. There is no more input of mercury through the consumption of fish products than there is in the general range of food which Canadians consume.
The former minister has underlined my view that there are circumstances under which must be apparent both nationally and internationally that official voices are being raised in respect of the fisheries industry of Canada. When reflecting on the question raised by the amendment now before the House, it seems to me that in the international realm, if not domestically, it is important that it is known around the world that we have a fisheries department in Canada. It should also be known throughout the world that the Canadian government is responsible for the Canadian fishing industry. Canada is a signatory nation to many international fisheries treaties and conventions. I hope Canada will become increasingly involved in international negotiations leading to a more rational management of sea resources. For this reason I feel it is not merely a sentimental attachment that the preceding speaker and I express regret at the disappearance of this department which has been in existence since confederation. Consideration should be given to the retention of the word "fisheries" in the title of this department.
I think there is another reason of importance. We live close to another federal state where constitutional jurisdiction in respect of fisheries is different from ours. In the United States there are departments of fisheries in various states. The primary constitutional jurisdiction
there, in respect of fisheries, rests with state governments. We also know that many provinces in Canada have fisheries departments. Unfortunately, the province from which I come has not in recent years seen fit to maintain a provincial department of fisheries. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if we abolish the title Department of Fisheries there may be a tendency on the part of people outside our borders who are interested in the development and administration of fisheries to direct their attention toward our provincial departments rather than to the federal government.
There are valid international reasons for the retention of the word "fisheries" in the title of the new department. During earlier discussions I suggested we should have two deputy ministers. At that time it was my view that it was quite proper to establish a department of the environment, that this should be a matter of great importance to the government and that it should establish a department concerned with general environmental problems. There is this close and natural relationship between the two departments. I was not quarrelling with the idea that the minister who has been the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is to be the minister who will head this new department. I think that is generally accepted by all members of the House. I believe, however, this is one of those cases where the government would be well advised to accept the proposal put forward from this side in good faith and with a good deal of seriousness.
I recall that in an earlier discussion on the reorganization of various branches and functions of government a proposal was placed before this House which would have done away with what was a fairly historic name in respect of government departments, namely, Indian Affairs. I remember at that time the hon. member for Skeena and myself, among others, took up the question of doing away with the title Indian Affairs in a department of government. We suggested that the title Indian Affairs should be added to the name of the department. This idea was taken up on the government side, and rather to our surprise the name of the new department when finally adopted was not the Department of Northern Development and Indian Affairs but, rather, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This, in effect, placed the name that was to have been abolished at the top of the totem pole.
The amendment which has been moved would do nothing more than was done in respect of Indian Affairs. I think it is agreed that that was a worth-while move in view of the developments which have taken place among the Indian people of Canada since that time. I suggest that the question of the fisheries of Canada will be a matter of increasing, rather than decreasing importance and that it would be right and proper that this House recognize that fact by adopting the name proposed in the amendment as the title of this new department.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I do not see the minister rising. If he would indicate his acceptance of the amendment I would quickly sit down. However, I believe arguments could be made for recognition of this historic

February 16, 1971

department in addition to those so eloquently advanced during the past few hours. I make no apology for presenting my arguments now. For one thing, within Halifax-East Hants there exists the swordfishing capital of the north Atlantic, in the fishing village of Sambro, and we know that the swordfishery is in serious straits at this time.
Let me remind the minister of a few other points. We are a country with one of the longest, if not the longest sea coast in the world and it seems very strange that we pay remarkably little attention to our marine heritage. I would bet that if anyone attempted to take the Department of Agriculture and change it into something else, there would be a huge outcry from at least one-third of the membership of the House of Commons. So I do not understand why those of us who represent the fishing communities of Canada, although we are smaller in number than those interested in agriculture, should not stand up and speak as loudly for our rights.
I ask myself why this step is being taken in this strange reorganization bill. I think the obvious answer is that this happened to be the one department of government which had the expertise, the people available and the laboratory facilities which would make such a change possible. So this time-honoured department is to be the victim of twentieth century whims and notions simply because it is progressive and well ahead of other departments. Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will yet realize that we on this side of the House want to retain the name "fisheries" within the scheme of things. We cannot do it tonight if we are beaten down in our attempts, but we can bring forward other motions on third reading. We can fight it and fight it again. I hope the minister realizes that.
Now, to say something kind about the minister, I suggest the strongest thing that is selling the idea that there should be a department of the environment and that fisheries as a department should be swept away is the personality of the minister. I say this without flattery but simply as recognition of a fact. Probably what has enabled the government and the insensitive technocracy that has drawn up most of this bill to get away with it is that they can see they have a very reasonable minister to sell as head of the new department. The fact is the minister is a quite reasonable fellow; he is very conscientious and we know he takes his responsibilities seriously. But that may not be true in respect of ministers over the next ten years as we go down the "pike" of this venture.
So I do not believe we should allow the minister's good name and reputation to be used in bringing about this change. We resist it on that account. We do not do so because we distrust the minister; indeed, the reverse is true. We do have trust in him. We know that he can make bad judgments like anyone else around here, but we also know that at least he will have given the matter his thoughtful attention. So we do not object on that ground but, rather, on the ground that we are dealing with institutions which will continue for a long time, and not necessarily with the people who will lead them in the near future.
23966-7!
Government Organization Act, 1970
Finally, I was very pleased to receive in the mail an invitation from the minister to attend one of the parliamentary functions wherein we whoop it up on a Wednesday evening instead of looking around for something to do. The minister has asked us out to have some fish with him tomorrow night, which I think is splendid. I am sure the fish will be done up in the best methods of the experts of the Department of Fisheries. As soon as I received the invitation, I answered and accepted it-but I do not know that I would have been so happy to accept it if it had had above it the fearsome name of "minister of the environment". However, I am prepared to go along with the Minister of Fisheries tomorrow night and eat his fish, but I would not be prepared to go along with the minister and his government and eat their environment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, for about two or three minutes I would like to say why I support this amendment. I think it is logical for "environment" to be in the title of the Minister of Fisheries. I hope the minister will not be shy about this. After all, look at the long title of "minister of energy, mines, resources and technical surveys" as it will be in the future. It is a title almost as long as he is and I am. I think the "minister of fisheries and the environment" is a logical title. I for one, and I think many members of this House feel that he is a minister who means business regarding our environment and its treatment.
We feel the same about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We feel that he, more than some of his colleagues, means business. In addition, we like the Minister of Fisheries; we think he is a decent fellow and that his intention is much more apparent in terms of action than that of some of his colleagues. I hope he will be able to persuade his colleagues, who have been sitting around him in a huddle, to accept this amendment. As I said, he is a decent fellow and we think he should have both fisheries and environment in his title. I would hate the minister to not have one of these titles. It might make him only a half-decent fellow. This reminds me of the fellow who after making a reservation on Canadian National got into his lower berth and found two ladies there. He said, "I am sorry, ladies, but one of you will have to leave: I am a half-decent fellow".
In more serious vein, I believe this amendment will be looked upon by the minister and his colleagues as setting out the proper designation for the department. Probably it is one of the few areas where these two designations could be combined. While there is no fishing fleet in Regina-Lake Centre, there is an environment and I would feel much more comfortable if this function were under the jurisdiction of the minister rather than some of his colleagues whom I could name but will not. I express my support for the amendment and for the remarks made by previous speakers.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Chairman, I have no hesitation in rising to support this amendment and what it implies.
I think that the title of "fisheries and the environment" is extremely appropriate. I take this opportunity to reiter-
3456	COMMONS DEBATES
February 16, 1971
fisheries department I fear that we may be blinded by the environmental aspect. Environmental clean-up constitutes a tremendous problem, but we may miss placing sufficient emphasis on the maintenance and improvement of the fishing industry. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope that the committee will accept this most reasonable amendment.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, under this clause of the bill the committee is being asked to give the minister additional powers in the new department and to co-ordinate some of the responsibilities presently held by other departments of government. The duties, powers and functions of the minister of the environment will extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction. These include:
(a)	sea coast and inland fisheries;
(b)	renewable resources, including
(i)	the forest resources of Canada,
(ii)	migratory birds, and
(iii)	other non domestic flora and fauna;
(c)	water;
(d)	meteorologist;
(e)	the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality;
(f)	technical surveys within the meaning of the Resources and Technical Surveys Act relating to any matter described in paragraphs (a) to (e); and
(g)	notwithstanding paragraph (f) of section 5 of the Department of National Health and Welfare Act-
Mr. Chairman, I point this out to indicate additional grounds for our concern. In addition to all these new responsibilities which the minister will acquire if Parliament passes this bill, he will have responsibility for matters which now come within his jurisdiction as Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. These are substantial. I think it is worth while to spell them out because they are very important. The minister now has, and will continue to have, responsibility for the following:
Coastal Fisheries Protection Act Fish Inspection Act Fisheries Act
Fisheries Development Act
Fisheries Prices Support Act
Fisheries Research Board Act
Great Lakes Fisheries Convention Act
Northern Pacific Fisheries Convention Act
Northern Pacific Halibut Fishery Convention Act
Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
Pacific Fur Seals Convention Act
Pacific Salmon Fisheries Convention Act
Whaling Convention Act
Government Organization Act, 1970 ate what the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants said about the present head of the Department of Fisheries. But, like him, I feel there may be a little trading on his fine reputation in order to bring about this change.
My interest in this matter is probably not as intense as that of some hon. members from the Maritimes and from the east and west coasts. But I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there are many people from the lower Great Lakes who are affected by pollution as it affects the fishing industry. I deplore the efforts which are being made to downgrade this industry. The problem in the lower Great Lakes is common to both these departments. It is extremely necessary that we have a department to look after the environment and to clean up pollution, because pollution has already depressed the fishing industry. The situation of the fishing industry in the lower Great Lakes is desperate. This is all the more reason why the fishermen should have a department to which they can turn.
The situation in that area is fresh in my mind because only last night I was speaking by telephone to a fisherman from the central Erie area. He is extremely upset and I will tell the committee why. A scientist, an academic, an egghead-and we need them-suggested to this fisherman that it would be better for him if the government gave him some money and moved him. He suggested that they move this man to an inland lake where he could continue to fish. What the heck did he think the man was fishing from-a rowboat or a canoe? How in the name of Harry is a 75-foot tug to be moved to an inland lake?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McCutcheon:: If you would like to make a speech, get to your feet.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Yes, that hon. member is always yacking.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: That is right. The point is that the Minister of Fisheries is a dedicated individual and we feel sure he will do an excellent job. However, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants stated, the present minister will not always hold that position and the next minister may have a different approach to the matter. The question is whether this is the first step in the fishing industry being phased out. Lord, I hope not! In 1968 there were $6,717,000 worth of fish marketed out of the province of Ontario. This is no small amount. As I see it, when the department is downgraded the fishing industry is indirectly also downgraded.
Efforts must be made to clean up pollution, otherwise we will not be able to save the industry. Therefore, I place a very high value on environmental clean-up but I place an equally high value on steps to improve the fishing industry. These aims are complementary; they should be given the emphasis that I have mentioned. With the downgrading of the fishing industry and the

In my view, each of these statutes carries with it tremendous responsibilities which are significant and numerous enough to warrant retention of the name "fisheries" in the new department. I am sure the minister is just as concerned as we are. He is not concerned about the present administration because he knows he will continue to devote his attention to the fisheries. However,

February 16, 1971

he does not know who will follow him, and we may very well end up with a minister of the environment who has no interest in the fisheries of Canada and who has not been remotely connected with them. Such a minister might very well devote his time to those provisions of the act dealing with the environment and the new air pollution bill which the minister introduced a few days ago, or to the Canada Water Act and all the additional legislation which will be introduced under the aegis of the proposed new department.
In his introductory remarks in the debate on second reading the minister suggested that the fisheries interests will be protected by a division of the new department to be designated as, I think, the Canadian fisheries service. This would place the special responsibilities of fisheries in the same category as the Canadian Wildlife Service, the meteorological service, the water section, now under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and parts of the environmental legislation currently under the Department of National Health and Welfare. By his suggestion the minister is inadvertently-I say inadvertently because this certainly is not his intention and I am not placing that construction on what he said-downgrading the department over which he has had responsibility since this Parliament convened 2| years ago.
I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, and I repeat, that the minister has dedicated himself to his responsibilities as Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. He has done a good job and has introduced new policies and given a new lease of life to the fishing industry of Canada. As a consequence he has made a reputation for himself in the government of Canada. I suggest to him that he is being patently unfair to the department over which he has presided and which has been so good to him. I am suggesting that the minister is selling out to the cabinet in this instance, because I believe the minister subscribes to the view that we should retain the name "fisheries" in the title of the new department. I believe he subscribes to that view because he is genuinely interested in ensuring for all time that this important aspect of the new department will receive the attention it deserves from whoever presides over it in the future.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps that is why the minister has been reluctant to enter the debate. I think it is very significant, Mr. Chairman, that members opposite, including the minister's new parliamentary secretary who comes from a fishing constituency in New Brunswick, have failed to get to their feet. It is also significant that the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, who has the honour to be chairman of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, has failed to participate in this debate. I think it is significant, too, that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond has not risen to his feet to participate in this debate.


Mr. Corbin:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent is sick in bed. That is why he cannot be in the House tonight.
Government Organization Act, 1970


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I apologize and I hope the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent will soon recover and be back on his feet so that he can return to the House and participate in this debate and give us the advantage of his great knowledge. However it would appear that the parliamentary secretary is in exceptionally good health tonight, so what excuse does he have for not participating in this debate? I am also surprised that the independently-minded member for Esquimalt-Saanich has not risen to his feet and seen fit to be present at the examination of this bill in committee. He has great responsibilities and great interest in fisheries, coming as he does from one of the fishing constituencies of British Columbia.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: I rise on a point of
order, Mr. Chairman. Since the hon. member seems to be taking a roll-call I would mention that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is in Washington participating in public hearings on the important question of transporting oil in tankers from Alaska to parts of the United States.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is a very important member of the House; that is very obvious. I think we ought to consider standing this clause of the bill until he is back in the House.


An hon. Member:: What else is new?


James Aloysius McGrath: In all fairness, I know that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich would wish to participate in the debate. I therefore think that later this day consideration should be given to standing this part of the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to see the kind of fish that you can catch with so little bait. It is intriguing. Perhaps I ought to make one more cast. I now refer to that distinguished young member for Gloucester.


An hon. Member:: He is here.


James Aloysius McGrath: He has great interest in this bill; I know how important are the Department of Fisheries and the fishing industry to his constituency. It strikes me as very strange that he has failed to speak either for or against this amendment. Perhaps before the evening is over he will honour us with a few remarks. Last, and by no means least, is the distinguished former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I am sorry that I do not see him in the chamber.


Mr. Whelan:: I am here.


James Aloysius McGrath: I beg your pardon; I see the honourable and distinguished former parliamentary secretary in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope that he, too, will honour us with a few words, because the Department of Fisheries was very

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 good to him. It was not the Department of Fisheries that was responsible for his demise, so to speak. He should not take it out on the Department of Fisheries. When he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, the minister placed great stock in his expertise, not because he is a distinguished tomato farmer but because of his great interest in the fishery. He resides in an area where the freshwater fish industry used to thrive before pollution caught up with it.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that our area is still a fishing area.


An hon. Member:: What is the hon. member's point?


Eugene Whelan: I, along with the fishermen of my area, am more interested in getting on with this legislation than participating in a filibuster. I suggest that the name of the new department ought to be the "department of environmental control and carping".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member certainly is an expert at carping. I can well understand his interest in the subject. I know how concerned he is about what is happening to the Department of Fisheries. I know that deep in his heart he subscribes to the arguments which were advanced this afternoon and evening, arguments for retaining the word "fisheries" in the name of the new department. Hope springs eternal in the human breast; perhaps some day he will again be Parliamentary Secretary to the present Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. We hope so, because he did an outstanding job. We shall have more to say about that matter when we reach the portion of the bill dealing with the appointment of additional parliamentary secretaries. We are concerned about the way the hon. member was treated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: We are concerned about the hon.
member and his colleagues who served Canada, on the periphery of the government, with such distinction. They never even had a look in. Mr. Chairman, I have run short of bait; the last fish that rose took it all. I have no more fishing to do. This bill before the committee is very important to the part of Canada that I represent. It is important in general to the Atlantic provinces and important to the part of the country represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I hope that before the minister gets to his feet the parliamentary secretary will live up to his responsibilities and make a useful contribution to this debate.


Eymard G. Corbin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I refer the hon. member for St. John's East to a speech I made at the opening of this debate. At that time I tried to cover the point that he has put before the committee this evening.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Tell us again.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, we have not heard those remarks lately so perhaps the hon. member would honour us by repeating them tonight. Some of us did not have the privilege of hearing the parliamentary secretary.


Eymard G. Corbin: The hon. member was not in the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: We shall wait until he has had a chance to pick up his music, so that he can contribute something to this debate. After all, he has a responsibility. I think it is a shame that the distinguished Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has sold out to the glory boys in the cabinet, because that is what he did. I know that he is just as concerned as every hon. member who has participated in the debate on this amendment. I want the minister to know that we are prepared to hold up this part of the bill until hell freezes over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Question.


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


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity this afternoon of participating in the debate. Quite frankly, in view of the well thought-out and reasoned amendment that has been moved by my colleague for St. John's East I was hoping that the minister, having eaten a good fish dinner, would realize that it is a sensible amendment to the bill and would come to the committee and say that he and his party are willing to accept the amendment. Unfortunately, he has not said that that is his intention. I feel that I must again impress upon him the need for including the word "fisheries" first and foremost in the title of the new department. I am, therefore, adding some more words to those that I placed on the record earlier.
After enjoying a fish dinner, I had occasion to read the Ottawa Journal. In it I found a most interesting article which more or less endorses some of the remarks I made this afternoon. At that time I pointed out to the committee and to the minister my concern about the loss of one of the most important parts of the fishing industry, namely, the swordfishery of Atlantic Canada.


Robert Jardine McCleave: That has meant $4 million down the drain.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As my colleague has just said, that fishery was worth $4 million to our fishermen in Atlantic Canada. This industry will not easily be replaced. It is not easy for the men concerned to find some new type of employment. They face a multitude of problems which I shall not burden the committee with at this time. The cost of changing their ships to enable them to undertake another form of fishing involves a large sum of money that is beyond their reach.
I know that discussions have been held with the provincial Minister of Fisheries and officials of the federal department. However, to date there has been no solution
February 16, 1971

of this problem. This raises the question whether the swordfishing industry should be placed in this position because of tests which have been carried out. It questions the validity of the tests and whether they are accurate. I wish to place on record parts of an article which appear in the February 16, edition of the Ottawa Journal. The article is entitled "The .Great Mercury Mistake". In view of the importance of this industry and the fact that Atlantic Canada is a depressed area, we cannot afford any mistakes that will add to the unemployment we already have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I do not know where the regional desks are which advise the Liberal party. If they are functioning, Mr. Chairman, they should be made aware that there are 675,000 unemployed people in Canada. We have more than our fair share of unemployment in Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is time we stopped playing politics and got down to the nitty-gritty of this issue. It is time we tried to do something not for our political parties but for the people of Canada who sent us here and expect us to do something about the problem.


An hon. Member:: All they do is laugh.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Some members may laugh. I read my mail daily. Some of the pleas I receive and forward to members of the cabinet are not funny, Mr. Chairman: they are no laughing matter.


Thomas Miller Bell: Watch your language.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you Mr. Whip. I will try to watch my language. I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to statements made in this article as follows:
Even the best scientist using the most sensitive and accurate instrument techniques can make mistakes.
In the case of what may become known as "The Great Mercury Mistake of 1970," the public may have become unduly alarmed about reported contamination of important Canadian foodstuffs.
Or at least so thinks Dr. Emmanuel Somers of the federal food and drug directorate (FDD).
And Dr. Somers attempted Monday to set the scientific record straight at the special symposium on Mercury in Man's Environment, sponsored by the Royal Society of Canada and attended by some of the world's leading mercury experts.
Dr. Robert Jervis, a University of Toronto chemist, had reported in May at a Toronto chemical meeting that he had uncovered an "alarming" level of about 0.4 parts per million of mercury in Manitoba wheat flour gathered by federal health officials the previous November.
The accepted maximum level for mercury in food products is 0.5 ppm. Dr. Jervis reported similar levels of mercury in samples of wheat.
Concerned FDD officials, on receiving seven of the wheat and flour samples back from Dr. Jervis, ran some tests of their own later in the summer. They used a technique called atomic absorption, which produced results about one per cent of those reported by Jervis. A later check using neutron activation analysis, the same technique used by Jervis, produced similarly small results.
Government Organization Act, 1970
For example, Dr. Jervis had reported a level of 0.4 ppm. of mercury in a wheat sample. The FDD and other private laboratories revealed levels of 0.007 and 0.012 ppm. of mercury in portions of the same sample.
Similarly, where Jervis showed 0.38 ppm in flour, the FDD and other labs showed 0.007 and 0.010 ppm of mercury.
As a further confirmation, FDD experts believe, a larger "basket" survey of foods purchased in Ottawa area stores in 1969 had shown there were no residues of mercury above the detection limit of the technique used, 0.02 ppm.-
Dr. Somers emphasized that no analytical technique is free from error.
And he criticized the public news media for publicizing what he considered to be unsubstantiated "startling" findings.
These facts are very relevant to the situation which exists today. The federal Department of Fisheries have carried out tests on swordfish. We do not know the method they used or the accuracy of their tests. We do know that the fishermen have contributed fish to the Department of Fisheries, in one case over $34 worth which the federal government is unable to pay for. They have taken samples of fish. The fisherman waiting to sell his fish not only cannot sell his catch but cannot get payment for the samples taken by the federal government for testing. This is the way in which the fishermen are being treated. The Minister of Fisheries who will assume responsibility for this industry must take it much more seriously than at present. I gave the minister every kudos this afternoon for being one of the best Liberal fisheries ministers we have ever had-but his work is far from finished. If he is of the opinion that he can now lay the fishing industry aside and go on to other things, he has another thought coming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In a press release to Members of Parliament on December 10 it is stated:
The offshore catch has increased since 1960, and the inshore catch has fallen off as a result of increased activity out over Canada's continental shelf.
Fisheries and Forestry Minister Jack Davis said: "While fishing with foreign fleets does not conflict with the international law it threatens to deplete our fish stocks. Overfishing has occurred in important areas off Newfoundland and Labrador and entire species are in danger of extinction. This cannot go on-
I agree with the minister 100 per cent that this must stop. What action has the minister taken since this statement was issued that is in any way stopping the overfishing on our offshore banks? I submit there has been no action. What has been the result. The result is that we have yet another industry in Nova Scotia going to the wall. I refer to the saltfishing industry. The minister and his government established the Saltfish Corporation. One of the stipulations in the corporation being established was that the provinces of Atlantic Canada would have to participate in order to be able to buy salt codfish. In answer to a question I directed to the minister recently, he stated that only two provinces, Newfoundland and Quebec, were today participating provinces. Where does this leave those who have a tremendous investment in the saltfishing industry in my native province of Nova Scotia, or those who have an investment in Prince Edward Island or New Bruns-

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
wick? The minister has been made aware of these problems. In reply to a letter from A. M. Smith & Co. Ltd., dated November 5, the minister stated:
In 1971, there will obviously have to be a system, and both the corporation and the advisory committee are now concentrating on this problem. Moreover, the 1971 season will also call for a rationalization of the industry because the drying capacity is much too large, both on the basis of 1970 production and what may be expected in future. Allocation of fish to individual plants involves, of course, determination of which plants are really needed in the long run, and what is to be the position of plants in a non-participating province.
This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. Yet another of our fishing industries may have to close down. At the present time Nova Scotia is not a participating province. I asked the minister a few days ago what efforts he had made and whether he had used his influence on the Premier of Nova Scotia so that it would become a participating province and could purchase supplies of codfish from Newfoundland. In reading the minister's reply, I was not very impressed. As a matter of fact, he did not choose to answer my question; he simply stated that only Quebec and Newfoundland would be participating provinces. This means approximately 200 more people engaged in processing saltfish in my native province of Nova Scotia will more than likely be unemployed in the near future.
The Minister of Fisheries gave the assurance that Nova Scotia saltfish plants which can perform the services needed, at no greater cost, would receive a reasonable share of fish. However, it would appear that the share allocated to Nova Scotia fish processors has been very small indeed. I mention these matters so that hon. members may realize the extent of the problems facing the fishing industry. These are not dissimilar to those which face other primary producers. I have sat in this House and listened to what has been said on behalf of wheat farmers and western producers. In Atlantic Canada we face equally serious difficulties which require the concentrated effort and attention of a minister of fisheries.
The bill before the House calls for a minister of the environment. The amendment moved by my hon. friend from St. John's East asks that it be amended to provide for a minister of fisheries and the environment. I see only one objection to that amendment-that it comes from this side of the House and has been made by a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament. This makes the amendment partisan and therefore it cannot be accepted by the government. What a farce this government is and what a sham and delusion it is making of power. Not one Liberal member from Atlantic Canada has had the backbone to stand up and declare himself on this issue. They have the backbone of a jellyfish.


An hon. Member:: Hear hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They are as limp as the net which hangs over the side of a ship.


An hon. Member:: They are afraid of what the Prime Minister might say.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As one of my hon. friends has said, they are afraid of what the Prime Minister might say if they take a stand to indicate that the interests of the people in Atlantic Canada and of those who make a living from the sea ought to be given a measure of priority by the government. I ask, in the name of this vital industry which is struggling desperately for its place in the sun, that we at least give it the benefit of the advertising advantage which would accrue to it if we had a minister of fisheries and the environment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to present the argument again from a slightly different aspect than we have heard so eloquently for the last hour or so. I make no apology for it. The last two speeches have been powerful indeed but they have also accomplished something else. We know that my hon. friend from St. John's East, by a skilful flick of his wrist was able to induce many fish to snap at the bait he was throwing out to the committee. This was an amusing display in itself and I hope we all profited from it, including, most of all, the victims. I will not name the victims because they have stood up and been counted.
What impressed me more than that, though my hon. friend from St. John's East is a pretty good angler, was that the message is finally getting home. One could see landlubber members on the other side appreciate that there is more than just a quibbling exercise going on this evening; that there are people here from a part of Canada that feels very strongly that a department which has had strong ties with the history of Parliament should not be allowed to disappear in the way that insensitive technocrats propose it should. I intend to elaborate on this argument again because I think it is important.
As I said before, there is no primary producer in this country who would willingly allow the name of the department serving him to disappear. If we tried to get rid of the Department of Agriculture there would be such a beating of plowshares about the ears of a minister who proposed such a dastardly step that the country would echo and re-echo with it. Perhaps we do not have the same power on behalf of our fishermen or the same acreage to represent, but we intend to do what we can for them.
It seems to me that when my hon. friend from St. John's East was casting his skilful line and drawing those responses, and also when my hon. friend from my neighbouring riding in Nova Scotia, South Western Nova, was making his point, that suddenly there were members on the other side whose consciences were becoming alerted-


James Aloysius McGrath: Would my hon. friend permit a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I wonder if I could finish the sentence first? Then I will be glad to accept a question.


[Mr. Crouse.1
February 16, 1971


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants prepared to accept a question?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would like to finish the sentence first and then I will permit a question. I was trying to make a point that there is more than simple pride involved here; there are basic principles involved. Now I will be glad to accept the question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would my hon. friend tell the committee whether there is a minister designated as the minister of fisheries in Nova Scotia? Perhaps he could tell the committee how the government of Nova Scotia would react to the downgrading of the department of fisheries and, indeed, the elimination of the department of fisheries in this legislation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, there is a department of fisheries in the government of Nova Scotia. The minister of that department has several other occupations at the present time. I do not think I should get myself into that subject. My hon. friend from St. John's East is so skilful in casting bait-


James Aloysius McGrath: I am trying to get a rise from the President of the Privy Council.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I prefer to deal with the issue which is before us. I am pleased that the speech made by the hon. member and the speech made by the hon. member from the riding next to mine should have encountered such a reception, because I think that is where the heart of Parliament lies-its essential guts and its essential workability to the people of Canada-when it can respond in a human way, and I suggest that this argument is very much along those lines.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke about the blow which the swordfish industry has received because of the mercury problem. This illustrates the problems the minister will face when he marches off with his new title as minister of the environment. As we know, because the catches have contained a certain level of mercury the whole industry has become suspect and the fish cannot be sold for human consumption. There are serious questions whether the level of mercury, the measuring device, is too high. I shall not deal with this matter. But I would draw attention to the schizophrenic element which is imposed on the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, soon to become minister of the environment. On the one hand he is being asked to look after fisheries matters, and on the other he is being asked to look after the environment in which all of us live.
I suggest that there are essential conflicts in the duties of the position that the minister must occupy. He must weigh one factor against the other. If he makes a decision relating to one part of his responsibilities, the other part may suffer, which I think is asking too much of any minister of the Crown. I would prefer to see the ministry split into two; then both ministers could be conscientious and could present the best argument that they could
Government Organization Act, 1970 make. If one minister was of the opinion that swordfish containing a certain level of mercury would be damaging to human life, the other would be able to argue that over the years swordfish had entered streams containing a fairly high content of mercury and had thus become contaminated. In this way the two ministers could argue back and forth and somebody else could be arbiter. I think no man, even one with the wisdom of Solomon and the sharpest of faculties in the world, should be put in the position of both judge and jury.
Another factor that has to be taken into account both bureaucratically and ministerially is the good old Ottawa pecking order. We all know that within the ranks of the public service of Canada there is a pecking order, and a precious thing indeed it is when you see it in operation. When you have a pecking order within a department consisting of a deputy minister and two assistant deputy ministers, one dealing with the environment and the other with fisheries, who pecks first? Who does the chasing as far as expenditure is concerned? So on the ground of pecking order alone, in addition to this schizophrenic aspect to which I refer, no minister faced with such a conflict could make a success of his portfolio.
As I talk of these things in this chamber I can close my eyes, eliminate the cackle and buzz from opposite and think of parts of Canada where life is lived to the full. Instead of the hubbub and indifference opposite I can visualize parts of Canada where people go out in all kinds of weather to take part in the advancement of this country. I think of people who venture forth in miserable weather to support their families, feed their neighbours and the like.
I can visualize the fishing village of Sambro with its great wharf, albeit inadequate to meet the needs of the fishermen who have made Sambro, in Halifax county, the fishing capital of the North Atlantic. Most of these fishermen are not very talkative, but by God they can fish and bring in the catch. They are not as polished or sophisticated as the yackers opposite, but they know where the action is. Each of these fishermen who owns a fishing vessel is financially obligated to the extent of tens of thousands of dollars. I would ask members of the opposite side, or on this side for that matter, how they would feel if they were faced with such an obligation. What would the minister say-not the one with the money, the other one-if he had a capital obligation of $50,000 to meet at an interest rate of 8 to 10 per cent on a shortterm loan, which is all one can get on an asset like a fishing vessel?
I have pressed the minister on three different occasions in the House on this matter. These sword fishermen are facing personal disaster. If they go bankkrupt, then no amount of retraining for any other kind of fishing will help them. If you sent them out fishing sardines tomorrow it would not help them meet their financial obligations. Special boats are required in the swordfishery. This is the sort of conflict that would arise if the fishery and the environment were combined within one department. The minister can sentence these men to a life of debt from which they can never escape; it is as simple as that.
3462

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I wonder how many members here tonight would like to be put in that position.
I have made this point because we want greater recognition of this most ancient of government departments. With that I rest my case and I hope the minister will see fit to change his position.


Steven Otto: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question having to do with the schizophrenia that he mentioned in his speech. I listened very carefully to his speech a few days ago and his objection to the bill was that there were too many ministers, too many parliamentary secretaries and too many departments being created. If I heard him correctly this evening, he now wants a minister of fisheries as distinct from a minister of the environment.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That is not true. That is typical Grit distortion.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York East who wishes to ask the hon. member a question.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I answer the hon. member's question? This was a point that I made in my speech, it is true, and I have to thank the hon. member for York East for reminding me of it. However, I think a fair reading of my speech would reveal that I was not complaining about the number of ministers so much as about the number of floating ministers, the four or five who will have no specific responsibilities. If the hon. member reads my speech on second reading I think he will find that I did say that. I said I thought it was a shame that with all the reorganization that was planned there could not be one minister specifically assigned to an ancient and honoured government department. I know I said that in my speech.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I am really relaxed because the Prime Minister is not in the House.


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, he is not here tonight.


John Howard Lundrigan: Even though it is the Prime Minister's Bill C-207, he is not here and we can be assured that he will not make a contribution to air pollution in the House this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: I have lots of support from the rump and I am honoured because I am an unofficial member of that area. I have been invited to their next festival, and I indicate to the committee that I accept that invitation right now. As of today, Mr. Chairman, I understand we do not have to pay.
I want to go on record as strongly supporting the presentations of my three colleagues, two from Nova Scotia and the distinguished member for St. John's East, Newfoundland. Those hon. members presented a very logical argument in support of the amendment that the new department be entitled the department of fisheries
and the environment. This seems to be the appropriate nomenclature for the proposed department.
The establishment of this department is the result of a decision by the Prime Minister who is very much aware of pollution in Canada and is concerned about trying to establish a government department to take advantage of an issue which now exists in the United States. Let me direct a question to hon. members from western Canada who are interested in agriculture. I am looking at the government benches across the way and I see that we have here the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the Wheat Board. This minister has a special designation. He answers to Parliament for the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: That's just a sideline.


John Howard Lundrigan: One of my colleagues indicates that this is just a sideline. Nevertheless, he is responsible for the Wheat Board. I see another hon. gentleman who is away down the list of importance, the hon. member for Medicine Hat who is called the Minister of Agriculture.


An hon. Member:: Yahoo!


John Howard Lundrigan: And we have another minister who is called the minister of-I can't remember the name but he is the hon. member for Langelier. I must be careful of my pronunciation in view of the remarks today of the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin. As a member from a small Newfoundland fishing community, I have to be very careful that I pronounce these names properly. In any event, he is an hon. member from somewhere in la belle province. This gentleman answers to the House in respect of regional economic expansion. When we talk about regional economic expansion we are talking about the great province of British Columbia, we are talking about the great oil sands of Alberta, we are talking about the great northern part of the prairie provinces which are rich in resources. This is an area which some members claim to be the great hinterland development of Canada.
We are also talking about the minister from Cornwall and the minister from Renfrew, where they unfortunately lost their great industry and now have some 200 people unemployed. In any event, he is the minister for that area. We are also talking about the minister who represents a great deal of Quebec where there are 200,000 unemployed at this moment. We are also talking about the minister from Prince Edward Island, the minister from New Brunswick, the minister from Nova Scotia and the minister from the cultural province of Newfoundland.
Mr. Chairman, the last three ministers I have mentioned could really be classified as ministers of rural affairs or rural development, or something to do with rural Canada. I have in mind the Minister of Agriculture, the minister of regional disparity and the minister in charge of unemployment and the disadvantaged areas of Canada. Surely this is what we are talking about. I wonder how the members from western Canada-


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. With great respect, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he is thinking about the amendment which is before the committee.

February 16, 1971

It is some hours since the amendment was proposed and I should like to remind hon. members that the committee should now be considering that subject. I will not read the amendment, but it is essentially a proposal to change clause 2 of the bill in order to incorporate the word "fisheries" in the title of the new department of the environment. With great respect it seems to me that we should try to relate our remarks to that matter and the question of whether the word "fisheries should be incorporated in the title of that department. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to that subject.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I always have the greatest admiration and respect for your person and your office. Perhaps it has not become apparent that my remarks relate to the amendment presently before the committee and I will hasten to abide by the rules of the House and direct my remarks to that subject. I know other hon. members wish to speak on this matter so I will direct my remarks in a relevant way, as Your Honour has proposed to the amendment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are right on, John.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, what I am really saying is that the designation of the minister responsible for the Wheat Board and for immigration-


An hon. Member:: And statistics.


John Howard Lundrigan: -statistics, unemployment and manpower, and the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion are all involved with rural development. How would hon. members from western Canada, including the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member from Camrose, the hon. member for Yegreville, the hon. member for Vermillion-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


John Howard Lundrigan: -the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, hon. members from the great province of Manitoba and from the great province of Saskatchewan, feel about the government deciding to eliminate the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Agriculture and the Wheat Board and create a department of rural development?


An hon. Member:: They don't have to; they are fragmented into non-existence anyhow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I am getting all kinds of side remarks. How would these hon. members react to such a change? How would these hon. members who are on the bandwagon of the right hon. gentleman-I suppose I can still call him the right hon. gentleman-react to a bill changing the name of those departments? I have in mind the hon. member from western Canada who attended a Liberal organization meeting in Regina. He is concerned with unemployment in Canada. I wonder how the eminent gentleman from Assiniboia would react to a change in the name of the Department of Agriculture. I wonder how the hon. gentleman from the Prairies and the hon. member from the Gaspe-I almost left him 23966-8}
Government Organization Act, 1970
out-would react to such changes? That hon. member is a distinguished Canadian who is in favour of retaining the word "fisheries". I should also like to know the reaction of the hon. member who now holds the position of parliamentary secretary. How would the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria react to the creation of a department of rural development through the elimination of some departments which have been in existence for years? I should like to know how hon. members from the province of Quebec would react to this change. How would they resign themselves to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce being eliminated and having in its place a department of manufacturing? What would they say if we put all aspects of economic development, in terms of manufacturing, under one department? How would those hon. members react to the creation of that kind of a department as a subsidiary of another department? I would like those hon. members to stand in their places and indicate how they would react to that kind of situation. I raise this suggestion in the hope that my friends from the rural parts of Canada will indicate how they would feel about that kind of distinction being made in respect of government departments.
Of course, we have not yet reached the stage where we can have a major voice in the Canadian economy. Members from various Canadian provinces have expressed concern today. Our concern about the degradation and downgrading of the Department of Fisheries is not a minor concern; it is a major concern. When Bill C-207 becomes legislation over our dead bodies-


James Aloysius McGrath: Over the dead bodies of the fishermen.


John Howard Lundrigan: -over the dead bodies of those who are concerned about the fishing industry in Canada, we will represent the only part of Canada which has no department of fisheries. Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the federal government taking an initiative to downgrade fisheries to this point? In British Columbia there is a minister of fisheries. His colleague is now visiting Washington, but he will be back and I have great confidence in his ability to show the Canadian people his concern for the fishing industry. We have many members from British Columbia. Last year, as a member of the fisheries committee I visited the southern part of British Columbia and Vancouver Island, as well as some parts of the great constituency of the Minister of Public Works for whom I have great admiration.
The point I wish to make is that I also visited the northwestern part of British Columbia and the area of Prince Rupert. I remember running into a gentleman there who is a member of the Legislative Assembly. I refer to Mr. Britt who comes from Prince Rupert. Some members are acquainted with him. He was not only a member of the British Columbia Legislature but he also became a great mayor of the municipality of Prince Rupert. This man was born in Fogo, Newfoundland and in the constituency of Gander-Twillingate.
Of course, this is how we have contributed to Canadian confederation: we have exported our great men to the

February 16, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 various parts of Canada and they have contributed in many fields, not the least of which is the fishery. In any event, the fact is the department of fisheries in British Columbia is a major department. This industry is a major one in British Columbia's economy. In the various prairie provinces where the fishery does not have a position of great priority it is, of course, a recognized feature of the economy of some areas in terms of the freshwater fishery.
I remember reading about the impact of the fresh fish marketing board and the legislation introduced by the Minister of Fisheries, which I believe was piloted through the committee inadequately by an hon. member who is sitting in the chamber tonight. Then we come to the province of Quebec where there is a minister of fisheries, and Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island which also have ministers of fisheries. Newfoundland has a minister of fisheries. In that province this title was assumed over the last 20 years. I am trying to point out that in all these provinces this is a major aspect of the economy. Now we are to have a downgrading of the fisheries department to the point where it will no longer exist even on the Prime Minister's roster which is open to a great deal of question.
When we became part of Canada 22 years ago we did so with the understanding that there would be at least some initiative on the part of the federal government in respect of fisheries. I do not doubt for a moment that it is questionable whether constitutionally the federal government can move toward eliminating a department of government which has responsibility for a major part of our economy, without consultation with the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, some members of the Liberal party are not satisfied with that suggestion. I raised this matter in the House of Commons some time ago. I asked the Minister of Fisheries what consultation had taken place and he said that we do not interfere with their legislation so why should they interfere with ours? He said that if we want to have a department of the environment and eliminate the Department of Fisheries, what does that have to do with the governments of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick?
I remind the minister that when we entered the Canadian confederation we assumed that fisheries would occupy a priority position in this nation. I say right now that the hon. member who says we are being double-crossed is right; this is what is happening. A major part of the economy in our province is the fishery. The hon. gentleman who sits on his fanny down in the rump and does not say anything day after day-what is his name; would someone place his name on the record? He sits here day after day and does not say a word. What is that gentleman's name? This hon. gentleman sums up the concern of members opposite for the fisheries, and that is not very much.
We came into confederation on the assumption that the government of Canada would pay some attention to the
problem of our environment and our economy. Out of 75,000 workers in Newfoundland there are 20,000 in the fishing industry. Am I to stand up here as a member representing these people and see fisheries go out the window? Would that be responsible behaviour on my part? Should I not accept the amendment of the hon. member for St. John's East and the arguments of my colleagues from Nova Scotia?
As a member of a confederation of 22 million Canadians, representing 75,000 Newfoundlanders in this House of Commons-and this should apply to a member from any province in Canada-I cannot permit this kind of legislation to pass, because it will downgrade the role of one of our major industries to a level where it will never be heard from again in this House of Commons.
I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board what the business will be for tomorrow.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will continue the filibuster.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Will the minister be the first speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, January 27, as recorded at page 2820 of Hansard, I asked the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada whether he had received representations from Canadian publishers of original Canadian textbooks requesting government assistance and, if so, whether the government had given consideration to those requests, and also when the House might expect a statement on government policy concerning this matter. The question of making viable the Canadian book publishing industry is one which must interest any Canadian concerned about the continued existence of this nation.
In the autumn of this year W. J. A. Gage Limited, a Canadian publishing company, was taken over by U.S. interests and the government did not utter a peep. In answer to a question which I placed on the Order Paper, question No. 270, I was informed that in 1968, at the time when W.J.A. Gage was still Canadian-owned, 22 Canadi-

February 16, 1971

an companies supplied textbooks to Canadian schools and provided only 40.3 per cent of the total factory shipments of textbooks to Canadian schools.
Since then W.J.A. Gage and Ryerson Press, two of the largest Canadian publishers of textbooks, have been sold to American interests, again in the case of Ryerson Press without a peep being uttered by the government. Thus, the percentage of the textbooks being supplied to Canadian schools by Canadian publishers must be substantially below the 40 per cent figure supplied to me in answer to my question. I suppose that figure now would be approximately 20 per cent, since Ryerson and Gage were two of the largest publishers of textbooks.
What has been the result of this situation? I can give one small example from my own experience. I have a seven-year old son who is attending a Canadian school. The teaching aids provided to his teachers for assisting him in the learning process are issued by U.S. publishing houses. The result is that he knows all about the American Pilgram Fathers, even the obscure fact that a ship called Speedwell accompanied the Mayflower on the first portion of her voyage across the Atlantic. Had it not been for his mother and myself, he would know nothing about Cabot, Cartier, Champlain, LaVerendrye and the other Canadian explorers.
What I am saying is that because of our government's lack of interest in ensuring that Canadian literature, Canadian textbooks and Canadian magazines are given the same opportunities to be seen, purchased and read by the Canadian public as are their American equivalents, all that remains of a distinctive set of values, attitudes and outlooks-the underpinnings of a distinctive way of life in this country-is rapidly being engulfed and submerged by the wave of printed material from south of the border. No wonder we are confused when we attempt to define the Canadian identity.
I am also suggesting that it is essential that the government take immediate action to correct this situation, which perhaps constitutes an even more pressing danger to our existence as a nation than does the U.S. ownership of most of the other key areas of our economy-and that makes my hair stand on end. I suggest that the government must immediately give financial assistance to the Canadian book publishing industry if more Canadian publishers are not to go broke or be taken over, and if the nation is to avoid a cultural catastrophe. The Massey commission made us see the need in other areas of cultural endeavour and the Canada Council is one of the results. We need a similarly imaginative approach if we are to save what is left of our book publishing industry and to foster a native Canadian literary tradition.
I am not suggesting any sort of artificiality; I am suggesting that Canadians possess the talents and intellectual resources to produce in this area of endeavour if the opportunity were presented to them. It is not being presented to them largely because the economics of research and production militate against Canadian publishers being able to compete on any sort of equal footing with their U.S. counterparts, especially when the distribution and sale of general trade books and magazines in Canada is also in the hands of U.S. owned companies
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion such as Benjamin News, American News and United Cigar Stores. To meet the need in Canada for a healthy publishing industry, a need which must be met if we are to remain a sovereign entity, this government must take action in a number of areas simultaneously.
First, it must create a Canadian book development corporation similar to the Canadian Film Corporation, which would share the cost of the printing of books likely to make a profit and which would also share the profits. Here it is necessary to caution that books could not be considered individually but, rather, each publisher would submit a group of books for consideration, hoping to achieve a profit with the whole group while perhaps sustaining a loss on one or two of the books within the group.
Second, the Industrial Development Bank or an extension of it would have to make long-term, low interest loans available to publishers so that they would not become totally dependent on the Canadian book development corporation for operating capital, since that organization might very well develop certain rigidities.
Third, regulations would have to be developed to ensure a market outlet for Canadian books, something which is not presently the case because, in part, the distribution system is largely controlled by American companies. This would enable greater quantities of Canadian books to be printed, thereby making them competitive in price with their American counterparts.
Fourth, more funds must be made available through the Canada Council and the Humanities Research Council for the production of scholarly and prestige publications, and both those organizations must be made more responsive to the needs of Canadian book publishers.
Fifth, a Canadian publishing house must be established in the United States, just as foreign publishers are now represented in Canada, in order to give Canadian books meaningful access to the vast American market with its potential to lower costs by permitting printing in greater quantities. I would like hon. members to note, Mr. Speaker, that each of these measures is positive in nature and in no way restrictive. They reflect my confidence that the Canadian literary and scholarly community can compete with any in the world, once placed on a roughly equal financial footing.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am replying to the hon. member for Selkirk's question on behalf of the Minister without Portfolio responsible for Information Canada and Citizenship, who is unfortunately absent from the House this evening because of a previous departmental commitment. I listened to the hon. member's words with considerable interest and paid close attention to his concern which is shared by many.
The minister wishes me to inform the House that in the interest of both his major responsibilities for ensuring adequate access to information about federal government activities and for developing the proper resources for Canadian citizenship, he has been engaged along with other of his cabinet colleagues in discussions with periodical and book publishers in Canada. As this House

February 16, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion knows, the problems of finding a balance of policies that will ensure the health of Canadian publishers of all kinds and ensure access for all Canadians to the literature of the world are many and complex. All avenues of activity of the federal government that can contribute solutions to these problems are being actively investigated. As the government's publishers, one of the largest publishers in Canada, Information Canada is heavily involved in these investigations.
We have also been exploring ways in which other countries with comparable problems are providing for their solutions. Because of the complexities involved, I anticipate no formal statement to the House relating to all of these activities at the present time.



LABOUR CONDITIONS - UNEMPLOYMENT - IMMEDIATE   AMENDMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT IN VIEW OF INCREASE IN FUND-INCREASE IN FEDERAL SHARE OF WELFARE COSTS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on February 2, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether the government was giving consideration to increasing the percentage of costs paid by the federal government to the provinces and municipalities for welfare, in view of the very sharply increased costs to the cities and provinces last year as a result of the government's policies to combat inflation, which have led to a marked increase in unemployment. The Prime Minister replied simply that the federal government shares the cost of welfare with the provinces and the cities by paying 50 per cent of all costs.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister ignored the point I was trying to make. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) who I presume will be answering for the Prime Minister, because he is a member from metropolitan Toronto and because the issue which I raised has been so sharply delineated in the past few days in that area will not give me the kind of Paul Martin answer, which is no answer, that he gave to my colleague the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). A very short investigation which I made last week brought forward some interesting statistics. In metropolitan Toronto the cost of welfare will rise from $50 million in 1970 to $75 million in 1971. The only good thing I can say about that, Mr. Speaker, is that some of the wealthier constituents represented by the parliamentary secretary may have to pay more taxes to help meet that bill. In my own city of Winnipeg, costs have gone up from $3,900,000 in 1969 to $5 million in 1970. Officials of the welfare department estimate that costs for 1971 will rise to $6 million. Hamilton, which is a prosperous city with a tremendous amount of basic industry and with well paid workers, is to pay an increasing amount. Welfare costs to the city will have risen from $1.5 million in 1969 to an estimated $2.5 million in 1971. In Windsor, the auto capital of Canada, welfare costs in 1969 were $1.6 million; in 1970 they were $2.27 million. In Calgary, the oil capital of western Canada, welfare costs went up from $200,000 in 1969 to $450,000 in 1970. It is estimated that in 1971 they will be $550,000.
I am not talking about the total cost of welfare in those cities; I am talking about the actual amount which has been paid and will be paid by the local taxpayers. I have not been talking about the 50 per cent of the welfare costs which are to be paid by the federal government, or of that percentage which varies from province to province and which is paid by the provincial governments; I am talking about the actual sums of money which are to be paid by the municipalities which I have mentioned, as well as by other cities in Canada-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Out of
property taxes.


David Orlikow: -out of property taxes. With living costs rising as rapidly as now-the increase for January was almost half of one per cent-this has become a very serious matter for the cities and for the taxpayers in those cities. I urge the government to reconsider its hard-headed and hard hearted decision not to increase the federal share of welfare costs beyond 50 per cent. After all, the large increase in welfare costs has been caused by the very serious increase in unemployment. At present our unemployment is higher than it has been at any time since the end of World War II. It is no accident that this unemployment exists, that 668,000 people were out of work in January, they were out of work as a result of policies devised by the federal government.
The Prime Minister would like us to forget what he said one year ago. When defending the anti-inflationary policies of his government, he said that the government was going to be tough, and that if people thought that the government would not be tough they ought to disabuse themselves of that idea. The Prime Minister, who of course has never been unemployed and has never experienced any difficulties, was prepared to tolerate a 6 per cent unemployment rate if that would help to overcome the threat of inflation in Canada.
The present rate of unemployment is not 6 per cent; the actual rate is 8 per cent as calculated by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Because of this large-scale unemployment, because many people have been out of work for more than six months, because many people have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits and have been forced, through circumstances created by the federal government, to apply to the cities I have mentioned and to all other cities in Canada for welfare, costs in welfare have increased. These increased costs have resulted directly from federal government policies. I think, therefore, that the federal government ought to increase its share of those costs, if only on a temporary basis, if only in this emergency situation, beyond the present level of 50 per cent to 65 per cent.
I suggest this percentage to the parliamentary secretary. I hope he will bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister, who may not give me the kind of answer that he is alleged to have given to another member in the House today. I urge the government to give serious consideration to the suggestion I have made. It has also been

February 16, 1971

made by other mayors in cities from one end of Canada to the other. Those mayors are not members of the New Democratic Party; some of them are known Liberals and known Conservatives. They are faced with tremendous increases in costs which they in turn have to pass on to local taxpayers. The local taxpayer is finding this burden increasingly difficult if not impossible to carry.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am "on live" this time. Yesterday I and some of my colleagues, including two from the hon. member's party, met with the municipal council of Toronto to discuss some of these problems. They arise from some of the difficulties we face with a rather inadequate tax base. I think it is unfair to the municipalities that the tax base is mainly on property tax. In my opinion, that is an unfair distribution, one that should be rectified.
It is true that we have a tax sharing arrangement with the provinces whereby the government pays 50 per cent. In the hon. member's province and mine, the province pays 30 per cent and the municipality picks up the tab for the other 20 per cent. It is interesting to note that some provinces do not pass along any of the costs to the muncipalities. They are not necessarily rich provinces. I refer to provinces such as Newfoundland and New Brunswick. Perhaps this is an area for a complete study of the tax base and structure within the province, which is an increasing problem.
The expenditures of other levels of government are increasing as is a percentage of our gross national product. The municipalities are being strangled. This is not only because of welfare payments but because of sewers, subways, parks and many other services which the municipalities have to provide. If the federal government became centralized and paid the complete cost, the provincial government could lose these powers. In some cases this is not even a possibility: sending money is not the answer. We have to look at the more fundamental causes of the difficulties, causes which we vividly saw when discussing this situation with the municipal council of Toronto yesterday.
As our cities grow and as a greater percentage of our population flows into the cities, a trend which we know will continue, we must reshape our whole tax structure within the muncipalities and provinces. Certainly we have to do it federally. We are far from perfect. We are trying to do something along this line. That is not the only answer. Relief of unemployment is of prime concern to the government as it is to all members. I think we have to do something to provide relief. The answer is not relief by way of handouts; it is in trying to stimulate jobs. In so far as the cities are concerned, the most promising factor is the new housing starts announced the other day by the minister responsible for housing. Sixty thousand new jobs will be produced directly. This is a direct infusion into the economy.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Barnett Jerome Danson: This has the greatest multiplying factor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion AGRICULTURE-CONSOLIDATION OF FARMS- PRESERVATION OF FAMILY FARM


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on February 3, I directed the following question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson):
In view of the continuing and real threat to the existence of small and medium-sized farm units, is the Minister of Agriculture prepared to tell the House whether his study to encourage the adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size has taken into consideration the importance of the preservation of the family farm?
As suggested by Your Honour, this question was very general in nature and it was considered to be a representation to the minister. I now refer this question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Lessard).
The farmer has always been very self-reliant. Self-reliance is not a vague political slogan; it has meaning for every citizen, for every group and for the nation as a whole. A self-reliant individual is one who co-operates with others, one who is willing to help others and is willing to be helped by them; but one who does not depend on anyone else for food, clothing or shelter. He lives on what he earns, so he is truly a free person beholden to no one. This was once the position of the vast majority of our people and in particular it was the position of many thousands of farmers.
I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that today few farmers are in a position to be self-reliant. They are faced with a further increase in farm machinery prices. The government refuses to do anything about this even though the Barber commission recommended that an investigation be made under the Combines Investigation Act into collusion among farm machinery companies. Farmers are unable to buy the machinery they need and pay the high interest rates presently charged. When they try to re-purchase land which was taken from them by government agencies ten years ago, they find in many cases that the price has increased by 345 per cent, quite apart from interest charges. This makes it impossible for the small farmer to preserve his way of life. We realize there has to be social and economic planning but we believe there must be a strong rural community, and building a strong rural community means that social as well as economic structures must be taken into account.
In the proposals for a production and grain receipts policy there is one paragraph in particular which affects every individual in this country who is involved in the agricultural economy. It is to be found under the heading, "Encourage the adjustment of farm units to a more efficient size" and it states:
The problem of farm consolidation is one which is not peculiar to the prairie region and which, perhaps, is less critical in this region than in other areas of Canada. It is therefore believed that it would be inappropriate to propose programs for the prairie region to deal with the consolidation issue in advance of the availability of programs to deal with this problem in Canadian agriculture generally. Such a general plan is in preparation.

February 16, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I urge the parliamentary secretary to tell the House tonight, to tell those who are concerned about the agricultural economy and the preservation of the family farm, exactly what the government has in mind as far as the consolidation of farm units is concerned. It is our position in the NDP that one ought not to consider a stabilization plan without taking into consideration the special place which family farm units occupy in our national life. If we are really concerned about the preservation of the family farm and about social and economic conditions, we must take into consideration the probable effect of the paragraph I have just quoted upon the farming economy, its effect upon the producers.
In closing, I contend that since the agricultural industry is the most important industry in Canada it is high time we paid more attention to it and let the actual producer know what is going on in any plan which may affect him, especially as far as the family farm is concerned.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to thank the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) for the arguments he has just developed in the House and I can assure him that the future of family farms is certainly something of concern for all members of the House and particularly for the officers of the Department of Agriculture. Certainly no member can brush aside the subject of family farms but I simply wish to point out to the hon. member that there are several types of family farms and
that their future depends chiefly on the families which operate them.
In any case, we do not have much time and I wish to assure the hon. member that the studies carried out so far by the Department of Agriculture on the question of low income farms and operations known as family farms, whatever their size, have always taken into account the expectations and objectives of the people concerned and it will continue to be so in the future.
In the preparation of programs, it has been clearly established that family farms consolidation will depend on the decision of those who have to bear the consequences of such an operation, namely the farmer and his family. I think this is the most satisfactory way to insure that the farm structure of the future will be acceptable to those who shall make a living from it.
I must also remind the hon. member that as late as yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) indicated that discussions are under way between all ministers of Agriculture and premiers with a view to establishing the adjustment policy to be introduced in the House eventually and I can assure him further that there will be a high degree of consultation so that hon. members, the government and the people concerned can work out a system which will take into account the farmers' interests and aspirations.
I wish to assure him sincerely that we are very much concerned by the present state of family farms.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Wednesday, February 17, 1971