1971-01-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion with regard to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This matter concerns the general critical unemployment crisis confronting the nation at this moment and specifically the disproportionate percentage among the youth of this nation, resulting in the critical social disorder and unrest manifested yesterday in Victoria and forecast in other parts of Canada.
With unanimous consent I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan):
That this House urge the government to immediately hold emergency discussions with the provinces to develop and implement an urgent plan of action to bring relief to the problem and that the House urge the government to bring in immediate amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Canada Assistance Plan to bring immediate relief to the unemployed and those in need of social assistance.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Peace River under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



HARBOURS


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity in the matter of small
vessel harbours administration on the Pacific coast. The urgency has increased every year since 1964. The necessity arises from the failure of the government to act since the report of an inquiry instituted by the Minister of Transport was received in the fall of 1967.
I therefore ask leave to move seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the matter of small boat harbours administration on the Pacific coast of Canada, including the report of the inquiry into this subject conducted in 1967 by Dr. T. G. How, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with instructions to investigate and report its recommendations for action by this House not later than April 1, 1971; and that for this purpose the committee be authorized to travel from place to place within British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni under Standing Order 43. Unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will consider the immediate implementation of some temporary amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, either in the form of a supplementary estimate or in the form of legislation, in order to ease the burden and hardship on unemployed Canadians who cannot qualify for benefits under existing legislation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we are having some discussions with the provinces about the proposed legislation but until we have completed our discussions I do not think it would be appropriate to make a decision on such a proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the government consider making immediate amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan in

January 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
order to give the provinces more latitude in meeting the unemployment crisis as well as permitting the advancement of various types of social assistance, which is impossible under existing legislation or inadequate where the legislation does permit such assistance?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are meeting with the welfare ministers next week and I expect that this will be a subject of discussion.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister would clarify his answer. When he said that there were to be discussions with the provinces, was he referring to the general unemployment insurance amendments represented by the White Paper that was published, or was he referring to amendments of an emergency nature to deal with unemployment in the next two or three months of this winter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the provinces have expressed an interest in the proposals to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, and they would be interested in any amendments whether temporary or permanent. As the hon. member knows, if we were to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in the way he suggested it would have an impact on the future of the plan.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister therefore inform the House whether the discussions are to involve the making of early emergency amendments, or are the discussions related to something that will happen some months hence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are hopeful that we can bring the unemployment insurance legislation before the House reasonably soon. Discussions are taking place, of course, with respect to the white paper that has been tabled.



UNEMPLOYED YOUTH-CANADA COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE-FEDERAL OFFICIALS PARTICIPATING

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the Canadian Council on Social Development has just indicated that the youth problem is of an explosive nature and that they expect to hold a conference around the end of February, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate who the appropriate federal officials will be who will be taking part in this conference?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Acting Prime Minister is extremely busy and has to deal with many matters that must be brought to his attention, but I think unemployment is one concern about which the House and the nation are very anxious. I would ask the Acting Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Canadian Council on Social Development has indicated that youth unemployment has reached explosive proportions, whether he would indicate who will be
the appropriate federal ministers or officials who will attend the conference sponsored by the council, to be held about the middle or end of February?


Mitchell William Sharp: We have had representations from the council, Mr. Speaker, and this proposal is under consideration. I cannot answer the question until the cabinet have considered the matter.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED EMERGENCY MEETING WITH PROVINCES

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the only meetings scheduled with the provinces are meetings with the welfare ministers some time later this month, would the Acting Prime Minister give consideration to holding an emergency meeting with the provinces and specifically designating unemployment as the critical area for discussion? I ask this question because most Canadians are not prepared to wait till spring for the promise of the Minister of Finance to be realized in view of the manifestation yesterday in Victoria-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister has some urgent matter on his mind that is taking up his attention this morning.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. If there is no reply I suggest he cannot ask it a second time. It may be that the Acting Prime Minister did not hear the question, but I doubt whether it is in order to repeat it.


An hon. Member:: Is there anybody responsible for unemployment over there?


John Howard Lundrigan: Maybe I should repeat it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I misunderstood your action in the House. I thought you were rising to say this was in the nature of a representation rather than a question, but if the hon. member will repeat his question I will be very happy to try to answer it.


John Howard Lundrigan: I know we have a very competent Speaker, but we also have an aspiring Speaker in the House today. I repeat my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he consider an emergency meeting with the provinces in addition to the planned meeting with the welfare ministers to discuss immediate plans of action to try to at least ease the burden of unemployment in Canada, in view of the Victoria crisis yesterday and the impending problem in Quebec mentioned by Mr. Cour-noyer some time ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the question of unemployment and the payment of welfare to those unemployed will be a matter of first importance in the discussions to be held next week.

January 22, 1971



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he as yet received assurances from Canadian National Railways that the pensions of retired CNR employees will be increased along the lines recommended by this House?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have already held discussions with the CNR on this subject in order to get information as to what their response was to the report of the standing committee as concurred in by the House. I think I can say at this time that there is sympathetic response. I have asked for the specifics of what the company is anticipating it will do, and I should have this information on Monday or Tuesday of next week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in addition to seeking information is the minister indicating to the CNR that it would be highly desirable to act on this matter soon?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this question in various ways and on numerous occasions. To repeat, I of course take the historic position that it is not my role in any sense to influence the decision of the CNR in these matters in a formal way. But I would hope the hon. member would recognize that I am at least as charitable and responsive to the needs of pensioners as he is, and I have found my own ways of showing this.


David Lewis: How good an advocate are you?


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I think this could be a supplementary question. Will the minister report on discussions with another Crown corporation, Air Canada, as to the possible abatement of lay-offs, particularly in areas like Saint John and Yarmouth?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that is hardly a supplementary question. I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North has a supplementary to the original question.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. As the question of pensions is a prime item in negotiations with the CNR on the part of the non-operating railway unions, will he discuss with the CNR the necessity of reaching an agreement on this matter in order to avoid the possibility of a strike which would have very serious effects on the whole economy of the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As I have indicated previously, this is one of the complicating factors with regard to dealing with these people who are already on pension, because a
Inquiries of the Ministry
part of the issue is now a matter for collective bargaining. I am sure the hon. member would be among the first to agree that it would be highly inappropriate for me to inject myself into the bargaining process or for us to try to do the negotiating here in parliament. So I have tried to separate the two issues and deal with those already on pension as a somewhat separate issue from the one that is now a source or basis for collective bargaining.



REDUCTION OF PASSENGER SERVICE IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr.   Gaeian-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with Canadian National Railways service and is directed to the Minister of Transport. Following strong representations by northern Ontario Members of Parliament requesting that the transport committee hold public hearings in northern Ontario in order to assess the implications of the CNR's decision to abandon the services of trains Nos. 7 and 8 between Ottawa and Winnipeg effective January 31, can the minister advise whether the Canadian Transport Commission is in a position to hold such hearings or is prepared to force the CNR to maintain proper services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question. The hon. member is asking a related question and he will be given an opportunity to ask it in a moment.


Mr. Serre:: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat the question I asked awhile ago. Has the Minister of Transport any further report on the developments regarding passenger service in northern Ontario?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the Canadian Transport Commission has, I believe as of this morning-if the order has not been issued it will be issued some time today- ordered Canadian National Railways to institute dayliner service between Capreol and Nakina in northern Ontario. The dayliner service will have to be introduced under this order simultaneously with the changes affecting the two trains, Nos. 7 and 8, which I believe will happen within a matter of days.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that northern Ontario will have much better service when they lose these trains than was the case in Newfoundland?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
* # *



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport.

January 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Could he advise whether he intends to implement shortly a recommendation of the coroner jury which studied the circumstances of the crash in Toronto, July 5 last, of an Air Canada DC-8, to the effect that in the future air passengers be provided with identity cards bearing their fingerprints?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a reference to the coroner's inquest but only in the news media. I would prefer not to comment until I have seen a formal copy of the recommendation of the coroner's inquest.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS TO EXPRESS VIEWS PRIOR TO ACTION ON TOLLS

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Haslings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport of which I have given him notice. In view of the recommendation contained in the study made for the minister by D. W. Carr and Associates that the government should unilaterally increase tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway by 5 per cent annually for the next five years to recover part of the operating costs of the seaway, in view of the great pressure being put on the government by the United States government to raise seaway tolls, and in view of the news report from Washington yesterday which quotes the minister as saying it is highly likely that Canada will inform the United States of its desire to renegotiate the scale of St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, would the minister assure the House that the government will take no action until this very important matter has been thoroughly discussed by the House because of the great impact it can have on the economy of the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to go quickly through the various phases of that question. In the first instance, I have already indicated there will be no change in seaway tolls in the coming season of 1971. The government has decided that the existing rate of tolls will prevail except for the known increase that is to take place in respect of the Welland canal, which has been under way for four years. On the second matter of the reopening of discussions with the United States, I should be the last person perhaps to fall back on the claim that I was misquoted, but I did not indicate that we would open them purely and solely to deal with the question of increasing the tolls. There are a great many matters involved in our relations with the United States and it is to discuss the whole range of these that the discussions will take place. Finally, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I say that the reason for releasing the Carr report at this time is to get full representations from all parties concerned with the seaway operation, and of course we have indicated that we will make no decision until after that. I am sure
parliament will have ample opportunity to examine the report and perhaps even examine witnesses before a decision is reached.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might now go to the related questions raised a moment ago, first by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster.



AIR CANADA


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister report on discussions with Air Canada as to the possible abatement of lay-offs, particularly in areas like Saint John and Yarmouth?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the question concerns the possibility of ameliorating the situation of Air Canada employees who have been given notice. I have been in daily contact with the officials of Air Canada. I understand they are discussing this matter with the unions concerned as well as with officials of the Department of Labour. They are disposed to try to soften the blow as much as they possibly can. They have indicaed that their talks should conclude over the weekend, and I would hope for some word early next week.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, will the minister give us every assurance that there will not be extra lay-offs in any one area, that if there have to be lay-offs they will be across the board, and that there will not be a diminution of service in any city?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think this would
certainly be one of Air Canada's intentions and I will transmit it in the words of the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: I have a question I want to direct to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister. Having in mind the demonstration by unemployed youths at the opening of the British Columbia legislative session in Victoria yesterday and the generally black picture of unemployment in that province, has any request been received from the provincial government urging that additional federal aid be given in the form of useful public works projects?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not to
my knowledge, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the province of British Columbia is participating, as are all other prdv-

January 22, 1971

inces, in the measures that were announced by the Minister of Finance which enable the province of British Columbia to finance projects they would not otherwise be able to finance.



BANKRUPTCY


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I wish to direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Following the publication of the report prepared by the study committee on bankruptcy and considering the recommendations contained in this report, has the minister been officially informed as to the Quebec government's concern in this regard and, if so, what attitude does he intend to take?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I received a letter from the Minister of Justice of Quebec on January 18. There have been some discussions between officials of our two departments, and I am meeting a representative of the minister this afternoon in my office. Naturally, the Quebec government and anyone else interested in making representations will be and have been invited to do so, and an opportunity before any legislation is introduced for them to make comments will be provided.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question. Since the Quebec authorities are concerned with the fact that some of the recommendations contained in the report might be ultra vires, is the minister now insisting on considering these recommendations in order to establish whether such concern is justified?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the hon. member's questions are based on press reports. They are certainly not based on the letters and communications I received from the government of the province of Quebec.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is he now
Inquiries of the Ministry
in a position to reply to the question I directed on Tuesday regarding the Canadian government's involvement in the discussions and planning in reference to the Memini telecommunications satellite?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if I can find the reference. Perhaps you could go on to something else and I might be permitted to rise again.


Mitchell William Sharp: I should now like to reply to the question put by the hon. member for Hillsborough. The Canadian government has not been informed of and is not involved in any discussions with or between France and Quebec regarding this project. I take it for granted that no significant step would be taken in such a matter which concerns both Quebec and the federal government without full prior consultation.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: My question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the serious unemployment situation, would the minister do his utmost to accelerate work on the creation of a national park at Bonne Bay in western Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I have already given instructions in that regard, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Minister of National Defence but in view of his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that more than 1,000 sheep have died or are dying near a nerve gas testing sight in Utah, can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that no similar tests are taking place at Suffield, Alberta?


Gerald William Baldwin: How about the sheep over there?
23786-27J

January 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: May 1
take notice ot that question, Mr. Speaker.
* # *



BRIDGES


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the House if the Swan Wooster Report with respect to the First Narrows crossing in Vancouver harbour has been completed, has the British Columbia government been informed, and will the report be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the report has been completed. It has been delivered to the government of British Columbia and I believe to the municipalities. If members of the public are interested, I see no reason why we would not be able to make copies available.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he indicate to the House what steps are being taken by his department to ensure that there will be no loss of life this winter among Indian people who must travel from Lennox Island to the mainland of Prince Edward Island?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have no specific answer to that question, Mr. Speaker. The situation remains the same. Unfortunately these people are living on an island and they have to cross the channel. We try to advise them as best we can, and there is no other way. We cannot build a bridge immediately or next week. Anyway, I do not know if it would be economic to build a bridge.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that a number of Indians have lost their lives because of inadequate transportation, would the minister make a statement on motions shortly in order that this serious problem can be alleviated?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement on this subject. We are constantly examining the situation, and I am inclined to think that we will not have to deplore any loss of life this winter.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. M. Forreslall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the very serious situation that has arisen out of the crash of the DC-8 in Toronto last July, would the minister give serious consideration to the removal from his department of the responsibility for investigating such incidents and place it in the hands of an independent inquiry commission or board, so that the families of the victims may not in future have to go through the trials visited upon them as a result of the confusion arising out of this investigation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject what I deduce to be the allegation in the final observation of the hon. member because I am totally satisfied that the investigation of this unfortunate incident was thorough and objective. However, with respect to the broader question he raised, as I have stated previously I have no objection in principle to some other arrangement being made with regard to the investigation of accidents. The difficulty is that there is virtually no unanimity among all the parties concerned on what the technique ought to be. However, the matter is getting ongoing attention, and if a better arrangement can be devised we will be glad to implement it.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the almost complete breakdown of bus passenger service in Newfoundland, and the recent almost near tragedy when a bus with 25 passengers was lost for 12 hours, would the minister take the necessary action to have rail passenger service reinstated in Newfoundland?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I too noted, with a great deal of regret, that a bus had difficulty during a very severe snowstorm for a matter of 12 hours. I would be much more interested in the hon. member's suggestion if I still did not have very vivid memories of being stuck for four days on the Newfie Bullet half way across Newfoundland.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give consideration to providing the travelling public in Newfoundland with a service equal to that to be provided in northern Ontario-dayliner service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

January 22, 1971


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell the House whether, when he was stuck for four days on the Bullet, he had the comforts of a place to sleep and hot food to eat?


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport, first, if he was ever blown off the rails while travelling on a train and, second, if he ever hung over the Exploits River in a bus held back only by a tree?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and leave him as the only member from his province who has not asked a supplementary on this matter, so I will call on No. 4.



NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR REPORTS ON BUS ACCIDENTS

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my question is a very serious supplementary, but first of all I was on that train, and I do not recall the minister being there when that happened.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the minister give us an indication of when we will receive the reports of the investigations into the numerous bus accidents that have occurred since the institution of that service? I do not recall a single word of any report being released by the CNR. When can we expect the results of those inquiries?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be specific about this but I will find out. I can assure the hon. member that all such accidents are investigated. I regret the emphasis that hon. members have placed on the number of accidents. Generally speaking, there have not been that many and the safety record of the service has been excellent.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question I asked the Solicitor General on January 14 about the alleged attempt by police to plant drugs in a residence in a small Saskatchewan city, does the minister now have an answer to that question?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that this story is absolutely groundless.
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION



REPORT ON INQUIRY INTO MERCURY CONTAMINATION OF RIVERS FLOWING INTO JAMES BAY

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Has the minister received a report about the inquiry on pollution caused by mercury discharged into rivers running into James Bay? Does he know who is to blame for this pollution?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to look into the matter and report directly to the hon. member. I do not have any information on hand at this time.



POSSIBLE OIL TANKER ROUTE BETWEEN VALDEZ, ALASKA, AND SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Have discussions taken place with the United States government concerning the possibility of establishing an oil tanker route between Valdez, Alaska, and Seattle, Washington?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, other than the normal discussions that go on with the United States with respect to navigation matters on an international basis, there have not been any discussions on the specific subject of a tanker route in that area.



OIL AND GAS PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION IN NORTH-COMPLETION OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he tell the House when the present research activities in the Canadian north on the problems of oil and gas pipeline construction is expected to provide enough information for construction decisions in that area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that we shall obtain the required information in the course of next summer.



AIR TRANSPORT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I

January 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
would like to shift the action to western Canada for a moment. Has the minister received an invitation to preside at the official opening of the new air terminal subsidized by the Department of Transport to serve southwestern Manitoba? Has he accepted that invitation, and will he be announcing the restoration of class A regional air service during the ceremonies so that this fine new facility will have some useful function?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question is in order. The hon. member will appreciate that it is not quite in order to ask the minister if he has received an invitation to attend a public function, and whether he will attend. I think that the hon. member for Oxford might have an acceptable question so far as the Chair is concerned.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may 1 rephrase my question to make it come within the ambit of the rules. Will the Minister of Transport consult with his deskmate, the Minister of Supply and Services, concerning the importance of the restoration of class A service?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This further question, or reframed question, is in the nature of a representation. Perhaps the hon. member could look across the aisle and see if the minister is giving effect to his suggestion.



AIRPORTS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, since this seems to be the Minister of Transport's day in the House, so to speak, I also have a question for him. Has he any plans or is he in a position at the moment to announce plans to alleviate the increasingly acute traffic problem at Toronto International Airport? I refer specifically to those vehicles which are taking passengers to or from the airport. At the same time, could the minister reply to a question which he started to reply to about a year ago regarding the use of the RCMP to direct traffic and replacing them by the Corps of Commissioners or something similar?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered various parts of this question before. I would much prefer to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. The problem in Toronto is compounded, as the hon. member knows, by our anxiety to give a fair break to the Toronto taxi drivers in giving them access to fares from the airport. We are looking at the whole question of parking and the general control of traffic in the area. I hope that with a change in the manner of directing traffic along the lines proposed by the hon. member, or something of this sort, we can alleviate the situation.



PENITENTIARIES


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked a question of the Solicitor General concerning the riot at Prince Albert Penitentiary. I was then advised by the Minister that the report in connection with the investigation would not be produced. Is it not a fact that in the investigation it was decided that there was no negligence on the part of the guards or warders? If that is so, is it the intention of the government, now that these suspended guards have been reinstated, to compensate them for the money they lost during their suspension?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, six penitentiary officers were suspended following the inquiry, because it revealed circumstances where these officers had been negligent to say the least.
It is the intention of the department to be very strict in the application of internal regulations in prisons because those who are responsible for order there must be the first to set an example to the inmates.
It was in this light that we applied sanctions. As I mentioned yesterday, a grievance was filed by one of the officers. It is the only one. It is still being examined and we shall continue this examination in the normal way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question is, are those six who were suspended to receive compensation for the period during which they were suspended?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. Their suspension was without pay.


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, Mr. Speaker, why is the government concealing the nature and particulars of the report which I understand places the responsibility right here in Ottawa?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, suspension of penitentiary officers was perhaps not practiced in the past, but henceforth it will be. I repeat, it will be done fairly, and according to rules.


John George Diefenbaker: But the facts were concealed.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Consumer

January 22, 1971

and Corporate Affairs. In view of the spread in pork prices between the 20 cents a pound for dressed pork which a farmer receives in Saskatchewan and the retail price of pork products such as ham, which sells for $1.20 per pound, will the minister look into this price difference and consider appropriate action?



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister without Portfolio responsible for housing and urban affairs. Has the minister indicated to the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto since his recent meeting with him that the federal government will attend the conference to be called by Metro Toronto Council for all levels of government and all relevant transportation authorities?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge, this conference has not been brought to my attention. I shall certainly be receptive to such an invitation if it should come my way.



HOUSING


Robert Knight Andras: May I, on a question of privilege, correct an error that I made yesterday in answer to a question, as reported at page 2622 of Hansard. I used the word "mortgagee" whereas I ought to have used "mortgagor". I thank the hon. member for Hamilton West for bringing this matter to my attention.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will send the minister my bill later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I gave counsel without fee to the hon. member for Hamilton West as a result of which he suggested the correction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government decided to organize special continuing protection for foreign diplomats in Canada. If so, will the minister be making a statement on motions to outline it?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the department has, of course, in recent months taken very special care of diplomats who are resident here. We have also responded to the requests of diplomats who feel that their lives or safety are in danger. These arrangements are made partly with the local police and partly with the federal police.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport which is supplementary to questions asked earlier about transport problems. Will the minister once and for all put his foot down in his negotiations with Air Canada and Canadian National, and will he assure the House that he will protect the interests of the people concerned rather than the interests of the various organizations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last Tuesday I asked him whether he was aware of the intention of Renfrew Aircraft and Engineering Company to close its doors on March 31, thus putting a large number of people, in relation to the size of the community, out of work. The minister said that he had no knowledge of this but that he would inquire.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I inquired and the answer would take at least ten minutes to read. It is very complex and has to do with a general decline in the aircraft industry and with intercompany relations, in this case United Aircraft and Renfrew Aircraft. In checking, I found that since the designation of the Renfrew area in April, 1970, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has approved four applications for regional development incentives involving capital expenditures of $2.9 million and 241 new jobs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PROPOSED CLOSING OF MANIWAKI LUMBER PLANT

David Lewis: Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce seen reports of the intention to close a lumber plant in Maniwaki on March 5? Has he investigated that situation, since all over the country plants are closing and adding to the desperate unemployment we now face?

January 22, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is too easy a question. It is terribly easy for the hon. member to mention that plants, here and there, in Quebec or in Manitoba are closing. Indeed, plants will close in various parts of this country, but it is part of economic change and economic development that plants close and others open.


James Aloysius McGrath: That kind of progress we can do without.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand that a minister has the right either to answer a question or not to answer it, but I am darned if he has the right to read a banal lecture to members of the House instead of replying to a question. If he does not know the answer, he should say so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The question raised by the hon. member was one that was six months old. It has been fully covered and investigated by two or three departments of government. It is unfair for him to resurrect cases that are six months old and enumerate plants that are closing in the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the debate between the hon. member and the minister either on a point of order or a question of privilege will be very fruitful.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to restore calm to the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to take up time this way, but, as a member of the House I do not for one moment intend to sit back and take that kind of remark.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: The accusation of unfairness was unwarranted. I am concerned about the matter because the closing will take place on March 5. If the minister cannot do anything about it let him admit it instead of saying these things.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We still have not accomplished very much. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
its #	%



NATIONAL PARKS


George Harris Hees: The third time is lucky, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are both in the House, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. May I ask whether the takeover by his department from the Department of Transport of the Trent Valley system in order to turn that beautiful area into a national park has been completed, and whether we can expect work on this project to start soon?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the transfer has not yet been completed, but we hope it can soon be carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the question period I have been rising to ask what I regard as a very important question. I had hoped that Your Honour would not regard by brief intervention earlier as being anything more than a reflex action provoked by the previous question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may have an important question to ask but I am sure there are other hon. members who also have important questions which could not be raised. Unfortunately the question period is over. The hon. member might, with the unanimous consent of the House, ask his question if he so wishes. I tried to give an opportunity to every member who rose, and a number of hon. members who were given an opportunity to ask questions were rising for a second time. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the hon. member was called upon earlier in the question period. In any event, I hope his question can wait until Monday.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: When Your Honour expresses the hope that my question can wait, does it mean that if it cannot wait you will allow it?


Mr. Speaker:: I would be prepared to allow the question now. I suggest to hon. members that the hon. member be allowed to ask his question, though I was under the impression I had recognized him at the beginning of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Ambrose Hubert Peddle: My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announced 40 per cent reduction in forces by the United States Air Force at Goose Bay, can the minister inform the House whether, in the discussions which took place prior to the announcement,

January 22, 1971

the United States defence department gave any indication that they intend to renew the lease for the air base which expires in June of next year? Is it Canada's intention to renew the lease, and can the minister tell us whether the 20-year lease signed in 1952 between Canada and the United States superceded the original 99-year lease signed in 1945 between the government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I understand that the United States government does not intend to declare this base surplus. Negotiations for a continuation of the lease are now under way.
noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, January 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-215, to establish the Textile and Clothing Board and to make certain amendments to other acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to report to the House that conversations have been held with the leaders of the parties opposite in connection with the desire of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) to speak immediately after the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). It is evident that the remarks to be made by the Minister of Labour could benefit all members of the House, including hon. members opposite who will follow him in the debate, and it has been agreed that this somewhat unusual order should prevail in this instance.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is correct. We are always interested in hearing the novel comments of the Minister of Labour.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Last night, Mr. Speaker, I divided my speech into three portions. First, I dealt with what has been going on since May 14 when I announced in the House the government's new textile policy. I talked about the creation of the board, about promotion efforts, about the voluntary restraint agreements which had been signed or are being negotiated.
Then, I started explaining the ideas embodied in the bill before us. I dealt with the composition of the board and the criteria upon which it would base its judgments. I explained the functions of the board. I emphasized that
Textile and Clothing Board Act
the board has final authority when it comes to determining whether there is injury or threat of injury, and when it comes to determining the value of plans presented by the industry, but that it does not have final responsibility in matters affecting the degree of protection needed. That is a field of government responsibility; the board only makes recommendations. Some people have misunderstood this point. Next I tried to describe the changes the bill proposes to make to the Export and Import Permits Act. This is where I was last night when the sitting came to an end.
The new textile policy envisages the application of unilateral measures, including import quotas, in cases where a negotiated solution, such as a restraint agreement, cannot be reached. As I said last night, we always try to reach a negotiated agreement with low-cost countries whenever possible. The amendment in the bill would enable the government to do this. However, the new subclause could be invoked only after a formal determination of injury by the Textile and Clothing Board in the case of textiles and clothing and by the Anti-dumping Tribunal in the case of all other goods. Moreover, any restrictions imposed under this clause would remain in force only for the period required to prevent or remedy an injury. It is clear, therefore, that action under this new subsection would be taken only when needed and would take into account the provisions of relevant international agreements.
I might emphasize in this connection that most other countries have standing authority to take unilateral action of this type. However, the approach taken by the Canadian government contrasts sharply with the policy pursued by other countries in that many of them do not require a formal determination of injury to be made before proceeding with restrictive action. I think this is extremely important, and I suggest that hon. members commenting on this subject should take these facts into account.
Incidentally, I am sure the proposed amendment will commend itself to the great majority of hon. members. When another amendment to this act was before the House in February, 1969, the spokesman for the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness) and for the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), expressed a desire to see the act used more effectively and extended in terms of the products to which it applies.
A few words, now, about the changes in the Customs Act. There have been cases in the past where countries agree to restrain their exports in order to prevent a serious disruption of the Canadian market but were unable to do so effectively. I have in mind a voluntary restraint agreement with respect to which the country which had agreed to restrain was not in a position to implement the agreement it had accepted. As I indicated earlier, the new policy envisages continued reliance on negotiated restraint as the principal means of protecting against disruptive imports. However, such an approach
2668

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act can only work if the agreed restraint levels are effectively enforced. The proposed amendment to the Customs Act will enable the government to assist the exporting countries in fulfilling their commitments.
This should be enough on the main parts of the bill itself. The last part of my remarks concern what is left to be done, what is ahead.

It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that once this bill is passed, most of the main elements of the textile policy will have been put in place, including the establishment of the Textile and Clothing Board, the amendment of the General Adjustment Assistance Program, the introduction of the adjustment assistance program for workers, of which the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) will be speaking in a few minutes, increased export promotion efforts, and the amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act and the Customs Act required for proper implementation of the new policy.
There are three other elements; first, rationalization of the textile tariff; second, establishment of Development and Productivity Centres; and third better statistics. I will say a few words about each one.
With respect to rationalization of textile tariff, the officials of my department are at present endeavouring to establish-in close consultation with the industry-the extent to which the conditional drawback procedures now available to shirt manufacturers could appropriately be extended to other sectors of the apparel industry. We know what a drawback is: an industrialist pays the required import tariff but gets it back if certain conditions are met. I know that this is of special interest to the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance). If a workable solution can be found to this problem, costs to manufacturers of some types of garments could be reduced. In addition to any interim measures that may be taken along these lines, the government will undertake a systematic review of the textile and clothing tariffs. If the findings of this study make it possible to introduce an important change into the customs tariff, Canada will endeavour, on the other hand, to improve its access to export markets, or to obtain corresponding compensations. In plain English, it means that should it be decided to change the tariff, attempts wall be made to "sell" these changes in exchange for advantage from other countries. In this connection, I should like to reiterate the government's readiness to join with other countries in efforts to seek a liberalization of the highly restrictive environment in which the world textile trade takes place at the present time.
Secondly, task forces for the textile and clothing industries consisting of industry and government representatives have been created to develop detailed proposals for the establishment of the Development and Productivity Centres. It is expected that they will submit their recommendations by the middle of this year.
And, finally, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics has indicated that with some refinement in compilation and
reporting procedures it expects to be in the position to provide on a timely basis all the statistics required for the effective administration of the new textile policy.
I have now accounted, Mr. Speaker, for all of the elements of the new textile policy as announced on May 14 last year.
Following my announcement of the new textile policy on May 14, my good friend the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) made a vigorous plea for "a more equitable balance than exists today."
It is my contention that the new textile policy achieves an "equitable balance." In fact it may be unique in this respect, both as a textile policy and as a policy developed for a particular industry sector. It takes into account regional and social considerations, producer and consumer interests, our industrial development and trade objectives, as well as our international obligations. I am certain that some will consider it too protectionist, others not protective enough. That in itself is an indication of the careful balance that has been struck.
Mr. Speaker, it is essential that the textile policy succeeds. For the first time, the government defines and presents, I would say, a general framework for every sector of a secondary industry, covering all aspects: imports, exports, production, research, development, promotion, etc. I believe it is the first time such a framework has been offered.
All interested parties asked that it be done. Producers said: What do you want us to do? Exporters were also interested. Unions, consumers, in one word everybody was looking for a clearer philosophy, a more definite structure and that is what we are offering today in Bill C-215.
I repeat, it is very important that the policy succeeds. Therefore, the government needs and expects the cooperation of all sectors of the industry, all interested parties and, particularly today, all members of Parliament, both of the government and opposition parties.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I express my appreciation to the House for permitting me to speak out of what would be the normal order of speakers so that I may try to clarify, to some extent at least, clause 21 of this particular bill to establish a Textile and Clothing Board. I think the minister sponsoring the bill explained in great detail last night and again today the benefits that could flow from this new policy.
As Minister of Labour I am, of course, concerned with any policy that could cause disruption of any type in the working force of this country. I am not unaware of the particular problems faced by labour-intensive industries such as the textile industry and the need to make them more competitive and efficient so they are able to meet the challenge of other countries which are traditional competitors in the field of textiles. I think it is safe to say that over the next year we will be faced more and more with the question of labour-intensive industries compet-

January 22, 1971

ing with countries that have lower labour costs. The answer to this problem is, of course, to have a higher degree of productivity, which sometimes results only from a greater degree of automation and acceptance of technological change.
I think that society, and certainly governments that take the initiative the minister has taken to rationalize those sections of industry that require rationalization in order to remain viable and vigorous, have in turn an obligation to provide assistance to those workers in labour-intensive industries who are affected by this policy. For this reason, I am very pleased that the minister, in collaboration with me and my department, has seen fit to include in this bill clause 21, which provides financial assistance and a certain degree of security for those workers who can be identified by a formula as members of the textile industry.
I do not intend to prolong the debate, in view of the courtesy and co-operation extended to me by the opposition, by speaking at length on the whole concept of rationalization and the effect it has on the work force, together with the moral obligations imposed on management and on government to help displaced workers. Rather, I shall confine my remarks to clause 21 and explain in a little greater detail in the House, before it is made public through the medium of the press, precisely what aspects can be emphasized at the moment.
I think the minister who has just spoken made it very clear that the end result, the logical conclusion of this policy, would be a more viable, vigorous and competitive textile industry in Canada. This, in turn, will mean not only the survival of the industry but, if his predictions are accurate-and I believe they are-it will mean an expanded textile industry over the next decade, and particularly a competitive one that does not have to depend for its survival entirely on high tariffs. This is in the best interests of the workers as well, of course, as of the country and for the economic picture in Canada.
With these ends in mind, the minister has brought in what I think is a very forward-looking piece of legislation; this is the type of action we should be taking more and more in connection with other industries. We have not ignored the fact, however, that these beneficial changes could and might result in some disruptive effect, even of a temporary nature, on those people presently employed in the textile industry, which as I have mentioned in some parts of the country tends to be very labour-intensive.
Clause 21 provides that, in order to keep any adverse effects of unemployment to a minimum, there will be a special program of benefits to those assisted workers affected by the bill and who have to cope with the problems of adjustment. In coming to this decision the government has been very conscious of the fact that many workers employed in the textile and clothing industry are over 50 years of age and are located in many instances in small centres where employment opportunities are limited. These are workers who possess skills which are not readily adapted to other work because of their long association with the textile industry.
Textile and Clothing Board Act
I should like to outline very briefly some of the features of this program. Perhaps I should just read the clause of the bill in order to explain more fully what we intend to do. Clause 21 provides that any producer of textiles and clothing, or any trade union representing the workers of that industry, or any representative group of non-organized workers where unions do not exist, may apply to the Textile and Clothing Board for certification in respect of a lay-off of significant size and duration that can be directly attributed to one of several causes.
One cause, for instance, is the reduction of tariffs on any textiles or clothing goods imported into Canada which could cause temporary unemployment in a transitional period, or any condition set up by the government for special protection, or any case of serious injury or threat to the production of any textile or clothing goods as a result of import competition in circumstances where special measures of protection have not been recommended and not deemed practicable. This is the area which could only survive with particularly high tariffs.
Workers affected by lay-offs and certified by the board will be entitled to apply as individuals for specific benefits, the details of which will be covered by regulations now being prepared by the department. These regulations will be made under the authority of the provisions of Appropriation Act No. 4, which was approved by the House on December 15 and received Royal Assent on December 18, 1970. Provisions for the fund were made in the supplementary estimates of the Department for 1970-71.
The adjustment assistance program will provide for two types of benefits. The first is a supplementary benefit which will apply to all people who are associated with the textile industry regardless of age; that is for those workers regardless of age who are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits as a result of lay-offs. Where lay-offs may occur that have a clearly established attachment to the industry there will be supplementary benefits which, when added to the benefits available under the present unemployment insurance system, will provide for a total benefit to a maximum of $100 per week, or two-thirds of the previous income from employment in the industry. Subject to transitional arrangements, these benefits will be payable only until such time as the benefit provisions of the new unemployment insurance act comes into force. This simply means that if there are some applications approved which result in this type of dislocation before the new Unemployment Insurance Act comes into effect, then the provisions of the new act will apply immediately, as of tomorrow theoretically, through the payment of supplementary unemployment insurance benefits to bring the benefits up to the level we propose under the new plan. When the new plan comes into effect, these people will fall within the new plan and the supplementary unemployment benefits will be eliminated.
Perhaps the more important feature of the plan that we propose for those workers who are over 54 years of age at the date of lay-off is that there will be a pre-
23786-28*

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act retirement benefit amounting to 50 per cent of previous earnings, payable after the unemployment insurance benefits have been exhausted, and, if need be, until age 65 when entitlement to benefits under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Plan begins. In other words, we have taken into consideration the fact that people over age 54 in the textile industry who have been associated with this industry for perhaps 20 or 30 years, who have no other particular skills and live in small communities in which perhaps the textile industry has been dominant, in the event of the plant closing down or automation causing a reduction in the work force, have a particular problem in view of the limited application of their special skills. Providing, of course, that we are unable to find them suitable work, and providing that even with training through the Department of Manpower and Immigration they are unable to find employment in the community or within a reasonable distance, we feel it is only logical that these people over age 54 who have been displaced, through circumstances beyond their own personal control, should have some form of personal assistance.
For that reason we propose, subject specifically to exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefits and the assurance that work is not available with or without manpower training, these people will be entitled to preretirement benefits from the age of 54, from the date of exhaustion of unemployment insurance benefits until age 65. These benefits will, of course, be subject to a scale which will be related to their income over a reasonable period of time during which they were employed by the textile industry. I might say that until the regulations are completed, the initial maximum payment under the preretirement benefit plan will be $75 a week. The amount of benefits will be adjusted for cost of living increases in the same manner that benefits are adjusted under the Canada Pension Plan. So, there will be an escalating feature to the pre-retirement payment. It will work precisely as the Canada Pension Plan works and it is based on studies that have been made primarily in the United States.
We will try to encourage people of age 54, 55, 56 and so forth to supplement this income up to $75 a week by not penalizing them by eliminating, as it were, their pre-retirement benefits if they work elsewhere. In other words, what we intend to do is permit persons drawing these retirement benefits amounting to up to $75 a week to benefit by an amount equal to half of any monies they may earn from another job in the community. In other words, they will be entitled to increase this benefit of $75 a week by 50 per cent of any supplementary earnings they may have of a temporary nature.
To qualify for this particular pension benefit, or the pre-retirement benefit, as we prefer to call it, a worker will have to meet a certain number of reasonable conditions designed primarily to establish the fact that the worker has traditionally been attached to or associated with the textile industry. He will have to have worked for ten years in the industry during the last 15 years prior to lay-off. I think this is a very fair proposition in
that we are trying to design a specific program for a particular group of Canadians, those people associated with the textile industry who live in small communities where job opportunities are very limited.
If, for instance, in one community in Ontario of which I am aware, where the textile industry dominates the community, a worker has been attached to that textile industry for ten of the last 15 years, he will be eligible for the benefits, provided, of course, he meets the other conditions already mentioned and provided it is shown that his lay-off results from the conditions specified in Bill C-218. He will, of course, have to be certified by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as an individual for whom there is no present prospect of placement with or without training assistance. It is obvious that if there is a job available in the town for a man with this particular skill, perhaps in another textile concern, and the job is available, we expect him to accept it. If there is a requirement for retraining through the Department of Manpower and Immigration, that department will retrain the individual in order to equip him for that job, but these are the exceptions. If a job is not available, with or without retraining, and if a man has ten years in the industry in the last 15 years, he will be eligible.
The third condition is that the Manpower Department would periodically re-assess employment prospects in that particular community to make certain that a very small minority of people are not drawing the pension rather than taking advantage of work opportunities as industry expands once again. That is a brief explanation of the workers adjustment assistance plan. I introduce it with a considerable degree of satisfaction because I think it will create a unique and significant innovation in this country. At least we are recognizing the particular problem of people between the ages of 54 and 65 who are being displaced from an industry, certain segments of which the government thinks should be rationalized, in order to convert it to a more competitive position so that in the long run that industry will survive. I believe this will help the older workers to adjust to the problem of displacement with preservation of the individual's pride and dignity. I think the introduction of this program represents an important step forward in our effort to cushion the impact of unemployment through industrial change. This is a subject on which I have spoken on previous occasions, and on which I will have an opportunity to speak at length and in depth later on in this session.
In conclusion, may I say I would hope that all members of the House would accept the principle of the proposal that is outlined in clause 21 of the bill by which, if I might recapitulate, we would help all workers who are displaced, regardless of age, by supplementing their unemployment insurance benefits to the extent that they will draw two-thirds of their present income until the new Unemployment Insurance Act comes into effect. When those benefits have run out, those workers over

January 22, 1971

age 54 who can show that over the last 15 years they were associated with the textile industry for at least 10 of those years, and who can establish by certificate by the Department of Manpower and Immigration that they are individuals for whom there is no suitable work in the community, will be eligible for this pre-retirement plan until age 65. The benefits are geared to their average income while they worked in the industry up to a maximum of $75 a week with an escalation clause similar to that which exists under the Canada Pension Plan.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saini-Hyacinfhe):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-215 gives me the opportunity to comment on the conditions now prevailing in the textile industry.
I do not intend to speak at great length, because I know that certain members of my party also want to take part in this debate.
I think that without sharing the enthusiasm of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) on the effects of that legislation, we will give him our support just the same, since we do not want to be accused of practising obstruction and making things more difficult for the textile industry.
For a long time, Mr. Speaker, the problem of the textile industry has been drawn to the attention of the House and it is unfortunate that the government has put off for so long taking the steps necessary to its settlement.
I will mention later the representations which were made to the minister and to the government and left pending or considered futile.
If the textile industry is currently in an incredible slump, it is because the government did not assume its responsibilities and showed indifference toward the industry.
My long association with textile workers and the importance of this industry in my riding compel me to speak rather harshly to the government and to my hon. friend, the member for Drummond and minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I hope he will not construe my remarks as a personal reproach. I appeal to him in his capacity as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and representative of a constituency where, again, the textile industry plays so important a role.
I do not hesitate, Mr. Speaker, to say that the government has failed in its responsibility, in its duty to the manufacturers, employers and employees of the textile industry. This industry, Mr. Speaker, in the emergency periods we had to face in the past, played a prominent role and, were it not for the superhuman effort made by textile workers during the last war, history would certainly been entirely different with regard to our armed forces overseas.
This industry deserved better attention for its past performance and I now say regretfully to the minister that his government has failed lamentably in its duty.
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Mr. Speaker, what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mack-asey) said last Monday will surely generate a certain pessimism in the textile industry as well as among the workers engaged in this industry. For instance, let us read his own words as reported at page 2507 of Hansard:
It takes a degree of courage for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to say to the textile industry of Quebec: "If you want to survive you must rationalize your industry. You must accept automation and technical change..."
Mr. Speaker, I cannot but make this comment: the remarks of the Minister of Labour were thoughtless or he was talking about a situation he knows nothing about.
The textile industry has substantially improved its equipment since the last World War. Millions of dollars were spent to bring it up-to-date; it can now boast of the same technological facilities as any other industry.
It is regrettable that the Minister of Labour comes so close to insulting the workers in the textile industry and the manufacturers of textile products by telling them they are dragging their feet and are unable to keep up pace with progress.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour should have inquired before making such statements.
And as reported at page 2507 of Hansard for Monday, January 18, he went on to say:
"You must let us help you rationalize your industry, even if this puts 50 per cent of the workers in the textile industry out of work temporarily."
Thus, it would seem that at least 50 per cent of the labour force in the textile industry is to be dispensed with.
It is regrettable that such statements are made because they will spread panic among the workers as well as the employers in the textile industry.
I quote further:
It takes courage sometimes to create unemployment. We have created unemployment in the textile industry and we will probably create it temporarily in other industries as we automate and as we rationalize these industries.
So now, Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to wonder whether, after implementation of this legislation within the textile industry other industries will not have the same fate, whether the government will not be taking them over.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we have evidence that the present government wants to take over all industries, beginning with this one.
That is most unfortunate and I hope that before going further the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will reconsider his plans.
Mr. Speaker, the textile industry is not just any kind of industry, but one which provides thousands of jobs.
The first textile plant was established in Quebec in 1827. Today, this industry is a source of income for

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act 190,000 Canadians, that is 6 per cent of our national labour force.
In the province of Quebec, 55,000 people derive their livelihood from the textile industry.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Textile and clothing.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: And clothing, I stand corrected. I should
have been more explicit.
Three thousand six hundred manufacturers are engaged in the production of textile and clothing, worth more than $100,800,000. This industry is 80 per cent Canadian. Would it be for this reason alone, it matters that a particular effort be made, so as to preserve this industry, since it is owned, in a ratio of 80 per cent, by Canadians.
This industry spends every year more than $100 million in capital investment.
One sector of this industry, which emerged recently, has showed its ability to meet the requirements of the market, and here I refer to the production of rugs.
In 1959 this sector of industry provided only 1,700 jobs. In 1969 it employed over 5,000 workers.
Sixty per cent of textile manufacturing firms are in the province of Quebec. This means that this industry assumes a primary importance in the economy of the province.
Mr. Speaker, what is the origin of the present difficulties in the textile industry? They are caused almost solely by imports from countries where salaries are substantially lower than in Canada. We have known that for long; the hon. minister recognized it himself only a few months ago when he came before the House to ask us to extend the surtax on shirts. This is why I am convinced that the minister has already on hand all necessary statistics and data so that there is no point in setting up a board to study the difficulties of the textile industry, a move which would only delay further adequate action in this field. Meanwhile, other firms will have to close down and more Canadian workers will lose their jobs. In the end, who will be the losers? All of us Canadians!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member to permit me a remark to clarify somewhat this situation?
We do not propose to set up a board of inquiry into the textile industry. The inquiry has already been carried out. The hon. member is perfectly right in saying that we already know everything there is to know about the industry. This Board will study special matters, for instance, cotton yarns so as to recommend the degree of protection essential to the survival of a viable sector-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) has the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just made a remark concerning cotton yarns. It is also a well-known
fact that cotton yarns from Japan enter this country at least 10 cents a lb. cheaper than their eventual cost here, on account of lower salaries paid over there. Why then should an inquiry be conducted? Why should a board be instructed to proceed with such an inquiry when we already known that cotton yarns imported from Japan and other cheap labour countries enter the Canadian market at a price with which we cannot compete due to the higher salaries paid to our Canadian workers?
From 1954...


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is mistaken, for there is no labour in Japan; all processes are automated.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, the member for Mercier can make his speech later if he wants to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Would the hon. member allow a question for clarification?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: As for questions, Mr. Speaker, I will answer them when I have finished my remarks. I am aware of the tactics of the government members; they are trying to distract me and to make me lose the thread of my ideas.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the fact mentioned by the hon. member a moment ago when he referred to Japan. He spoke about labour. I would like to draw his attention to the fact-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat? I understand that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe would like to complete his remarks, and he has the floor.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively and respectfully to the two ministers' statements and I should like the same consideration to be extended to me.
From 1954 to 1967 Mr. Speaker, there was a 146 per cent increase in textile and clothing imports, most of which came from countries where labour is much cheaper than here, like Hong Kong, Japan, Korea and others.
From 1966 to 1968, the textile industry experienced a decrease of about 4,000 in its labour force. If we

January 22, 1971

endeavour to reduce imports from cheap-labour countries, the result will be 20,000 new jobs.
It seems capital to me, Mr. Speaker, that this government should take the necessary steps not only to preserve but also increase employment in this country.
Again in the imports field, Mr. Speaker, in 1954, Japan exported 2 million pounds of textile products to Canada while in 1967, those exports rose to 37 million pounds.
In 1954, we imported one million pounds of those products from Eastern Europe, while in 1967 those imports rose to 20 million pounds.
Again in 1954, other countries exported to Canada half a million pounds of textile products while in 1967 those imports reached 15 million pounds.
Let us not look further, Mr. Speaker, for the cause of the uneasiness in the textile industry. Excessive imports are detrimental to our workers.
Nylon yarn which sells in Japan at $2.20 a pound is sold here at 800 a pound. Is that not enough, Mr. Speaker, to convince the minister of the need to take the measures that would put an end as soon as possible to that situation? I repeat what I have already said, Mr. Speaker: I believe that the establishment of this Board responsible for studying yarns and imports is useless. We will not oppose it, however, in case the government should take this opportunity to blame us for delays that would be prejudicial to labour. We will co-operate as much as possible, and if we could be sure that when the proposal is referred to the committee we would be able to have some amendments accepted, we would most willingly give it our support. But, I believe that our amendments will be dealt with in the same way as amendments submitted by opposition members to other committees. They will simply be ignored.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not if they are of some value.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, this measure comes too late. The government is doing the little it can do now, but it is much too late. He should have done so a long time ago, since in July 1968, the authorities of the textile industry, namely the C.N.T.U., Montreal, the United Textile Workers of America, Montreal, the Textile Workers' Union of America, Don Mills, Ontario, and the Canadian Textile Institute, Montreal, submitted a brief to the government pointing out the causes of the trouble in the textile industry. Indeed, one can read on page 16 of the brief, and I quote:
The present situation leaves us a choice between two policies, one of which might lead to a constant drop in production, employment, investments and in the standard of living of the communities where industries must compete with low cost products.
On the contrary, the other can assure the viability and expansion of a Canadian textile industry capable of contributing to the economic growth of the country. Obviously, there is nothing comforting in the first of these possibilities, but it should be kept in mind that it could become a reality.
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Here are some of the recommendations that were made:
The policy should:
(a)	eliminate any further dislocation of the market as a result of widespread below-average prices, and of the rapid and massive influx of commodities in new sectors of the Canadian market;
(b)	prevent any unjustifiable concentration of disruptive imports;
(c)	avoid the continuing erosion that results from the fact that, one after the other, new perturbing export sources disrupt other sectors of the existing market;
(d)	determine a trend whereby Canada could absorb a fair and reasonable share of the exports of low cost producers,
(e)	and, above all, allow the textile and clothing industries more sustained possibilities for more numerous and better paid jobs.
Those, Mr. Speaker, were the recommendations made at that time to the government; they were completely ignored. Other representations were made.
Mr. Speaker, the textile industry has never asked for special treatment; it is not asking for subsides; it seeks merely to continue offering employment to Canadians and making its contribution to the development of the Canadian economy. Although that important sector of our economy has expressed this wish repeatedly, the government has always turned a deaf ear. Indeed, it has always ignored its requests.
In the shirt industry we have proof that the inquiry by a board is not necessary at this time. We have proof that everything is known. The appropriate measures are known also. All the government needs to do now is to apply them.
Textile workers who have lost their jobs, manufacturers of textile goods such as shirts or other clothing who have been forced to close down failed to understand the indifference shown to them by the government.
The government is to be severely condemned in that respect.


Louis-Roland Comeau: And how!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: On the occasion of a seminar held on June 14, 1969, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had this to say:
In December (1969), I shall have to make a statement in accordance with what I have just promised. I hope it will be favourable and, in any case, if it is not I shall confess publicly at that time that we failed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I made it in May, with a delay of five months. Is that a crime?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, for the Minister, a period of five months is not much, but for the head of a family-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh! no-


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: -who has been unemployed for five months, it is too long-


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is oversimplifying, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the hon. member was not a minister for very long.

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, this government cannot make us forget that they did not discharge their responsibilities.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the member was not in office as a minister very long. Had he acquired more experience, it would come in handy at this time.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but say that the hon. minister is showing his true colors. I prefer not to make any remarks akin to his.
It is tragic indeed to note from statistics that because of this ineffective, unimaginative and irresponsible government, 52 shirt factories had to shut down over recent years.


Louis-Roland Comeau: That is terrible!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Of this number, Mr. Speaker, 46 were located in the province of Quebec.
Are we not right in raising our voices in trying to somehow wake-up the government which is running the affairs of this country and in this period of unemployment which we are now going through to plead the cause of all the unemployed? If we dare do it we are exposed to the kind of ungracious remarks as were directed to me by the Minister a while ago.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member is touchy today!


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am doing my duty and that I honour my commitments towards my constituents and towards all those workers who are engaged in the textile industry. I ask the Minister and the government to assume their responsibilities, to see that all the victims of the carelessness and the ineffectiveness of our leaders are treated fairly and are provided with employment. Charity is not what they want. They want an opportunity to earn an honest living. But this is a right which the government denies its citizens. This is deplorable and those who are responsible for it can certainly not take pride in it.
Let the government take its responsibilities, let it discharge its duties as promised and give work to those who simply want to earn an honest living.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes a number of steps to deal with two industries, the textile industry and the clothing industry, both of which have been and are in considerable difficulty. These are both industries which are "labour intense", inasmuch as a large part of the cost of the product is represented by wages paid to the workers who produce the materials or the finished clothing products. These industries are under tremendous pressure from imports from other countries such as Japan, Taiwan and mainland China. Those are countries in which the wage rate is substantially lower than the wage rate for similar work in Canada. There has been, therefore, over a number of years a great dislocation in these industries. There have

been tremendous losses to employers. In addition, there has been a loss of jobs and workers in both industries have been paid low wages. We recognize the difficulties the industries face. We recognize the difficulties faced by the workers in those two industries. To the extent that the provisions of the bill, if implemented, will help the industry and the workers, we support this bill which has been proposed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin).
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the traditional methods of coping with the difficulties of the industries have failed and will fail. We do not believe, as was believed by those of former generations and by former governments, Liberal and Conservative, that the solution to the problems of the industry and the problems of the workers in these industries lies in increasing trade barriers, in increasing tariffs and in imposing quotas. Such actions, Mr. Speaker, would not bring solutions for the difficulties of these industries any more than they would bring solutions for the difficulties of any industries.
We recognize, Mr. Speaker, that, since we are selling more and more of our industrial products to countries like Japan, Taiwan and mainland China, we must be prepared to trade with those countries and to purchase goods produced in those countries. We must do that if we are to continue successfully the pursuit of our objective of selling increased quantities of Canadian products, whether they be iron ore, nickel, copper or coal. Already we have been selling increasing quantities of wheat to these countries. As I say, we must be prepared to purchase the goods produced in those countries. We, therefore, support the trading policies which the government has adopted. We support the views of concern which the government is expressing about the plight of the textile and clothing industries of this country, and the plight of the workers in those industries who are being adversely affected by the increased amounts of textiles and clothing products coming into this country. So, in a general way as well as on principle, we support the objectives of this biff.	m
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, we wish to point out to the minister and to the government that the kind of proposal being made by the government cannot operate in a vacuum. The rationalization of the textile industry will be difficult; indeed, I will say that it will be impossible in a period of major unemployment. May I remind the minister that in December, 1970, the last month for which there are figures, 538,000 people were unemployed in Canada. I am certain that when the figures for January are published they will indicate that at least 100,000 more people were unemployed than in December. Forty per cent of the unemployed in Canada are looking for work in the province of Quebec. More than 200,000 were unemployed in Quebec in December, last year. We are talking about two industries, the textile and clothing industries, which are very heavily concentrated in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.
January 22, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, when the House rose for lunch at one o'clock, I was stating that the minister is proposing to rationalize the textile and clothing industries at a very unfortunate time. In December, 538,000 persons were unemployed, of whom 200,000 are in the province of Quebec. When the figures are released for January, I am certain they will indicate that substantially more than 600,000 are unemployed. I am certain that the unemployment figures for February and March will be in the neighbourhood of 750,000.


David Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have no wish to interrupt the hon. member's interesting remarks. I am wondering whether we should continue without any representation by the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


David Anderson: I understand they are interested in this debate. However, they have yet to appear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. We have a quorum in the House. All members are equal.


David Orlikow: These two industries are very heavily concentrated in the province of Quebec. The latest figures which I have been able to obtain with regard to companies which employ 20 or more workers are for September 1970. In September 1970, 66,220 workers were employed in the textile industry of whom 37,253, or 56 per cent, were employed in the province of Quebec. In the clothing industry, 87,559 people were employed, of whom 56,516, or 64.5 per cent were employed in the province of Quebec. Any proposals to rationalize these industries which may lead to dislocation and unemployment, either temporarily or permanently, are extremely important, particularly with regard to the province of Quebec. In view of the heavy unemployment in the province of Quebec, it is not surprising that the government will do all that it can to make this change as orderly as possible.
As I said earlier, we do not think that tariffs, the traditional method of maintaining an industry or quotas which exclude imports, will succeed. We support the general policy of encouraging imports in all fields, as well as the principle of rationalization. We have always taken that view.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Aird Hogarth: There he is with all his friends.


David Orlikow: When there is a reduction in employment and a dislocation of industry caused by deliberate poli-
Textile and Clothing Board Act cies and plans, we feel that the workers directly and adversely affected should not be expected to carry the brunt of that dislocation. The minister, who was actively engaged in working out the auto pact between Canada and the United States, will recall that was precisely the view we took. While we welcomed the proposal for the pact, we were very critical of the weaknesses of the provisions in that agreement which resulted in workers being laid off, either temporarily or permanently. We took a dim view of the reduction in employment of rail workers. In many cases, these employees were forced out of work or found it necessary to move to another city or province. I was very critical of the government and Air Canada when the overhaul base was moved from Winnipeg to Dorval.
This being the case, I could not help but read with a good deal of satisfaction and approval the proposals made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), and particularly the proposals made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), to deal with workers who are laid off or adversely affected by the rationalization of the textile and clothing industries which is to take place. I must say I was a little surprised we should have been given a speech by the Minister of Labour. I do not know why the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Lang), who is much more closely involved with manpower programs, could not have made that speech, except that the Minister of Manpower comes from Saskatchewan and not from Quebec which will be much more seriously affected by what is proposed. If I am wrong, the minister will not hesitate to correct me.
I will put on record what the Minister of Labour said it was proposed to do for textile workers who will be adversely affected. I do so because I want to commend him for what he has done. I quote from the notes of the minister's speech as circularized-the words are not exactly as they will appear in Hansard, but I cannot help that. The statement reads:
First, for all workers, regardless of age, who are in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits and who have a clearly established attachment to the industries, there will be a supplementary benefit which, when added to the benefits available under the unemployment insurance system, will provide for a total benefit, to a maximum of $100 per week, of two-thirds of previous income from employment in the industries.
Second, for workers who are over 54 at the date of lay-off there will be a pre-retirement benefit amounting to 50 per cent of previous earnings payable after the unemployment benefits have been exhausted and, if need be, until age 65 when entitlement to benefit under Canada pension and old age security plans begins.
Initially, the maximum payment under the pre-retirement benefit will be $75 per week.
The minister went on to say that this would be adjusted on the basis of the cost of living.
I want to commend the government for this step. We have been asking for many years that workers or farmers whose income is adversely affected by government policies-policies which may be very worthwhile for the

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
country as a whole but which have adverse effects on certain people-should not carry the entire burden of the change. So, I commend the government for bringing forward this plan. But I ask the minister in all honesty: is this a special case for the textile industry. If it is, I cannot accept it. If this is a first step in a general policy of assisting workers or farmers who are required to make major changes in their lives as a result of government action, that is another matter.
In the last few years, and I am not thinking of 40 or 50 years ago, a number of changes have taken place. I have not seen in those cases the kind of generous, far-sighted treatment proposed by the government for the textile workers. For example, there is the situation in the boot and shoe industry, an industry which is not of much direct concern in my own constituency, but the boot and shoe industry, like the textile and clothing industry, has been put through the wringer in recent years as a result of heavy imports from abroad. Companies have closed down and workers have lost their jobs. Have boot and shoe workers benefitted from the kind of treatment now proposed for the textile workers? If they did, I have not heard about it.
As we know, the coal mines of Cape Breton Island and Nova Scotia are being phased out. I realize that for years the production of coal was subsidized very heavily, too heavily, probably, if the industry was to be brought into real shape. Then, the government decided that the industry had to be rationalized, and I agree that this was the proper course. As a result of rationalization a large number of coal miners have lost their jobs or will lose their jobs. I am not expert on this subject, as are hon. members from Cape Breton, but I have seen some of the cheques amounting to a dollar or two for a week, for a two-week period, which coal miners have received. The minister looks at me in disbelief, but one of the hon. members from Cape Breton has shown me a photostat of one of these cheques for 80 cents. This is the kind of treatment the coal miners of Cape Breton receive.
Consider the case of railway employees. Not a week goes by when one of the railway companies does not announce another closing of a line or the discontinuance of a passenger train or the removal of a dining-car service. All these changes have one result, a reduction in the staff of the railways. I think I have as many railway workers living in my constituency as any Member of Parliament in Canada, but I have not heard that the kind of proposals put forward today applied to railway workers also. I know there is a fund to compensate workers who are laid off by the railway companies as a result of technological change, but that fund has been built up by the workers' own contributions; they could have taken this money in wage increases had they not been so concerned about the effect of technological change on their opportunities to work. There has been no evidence of this kind of generous and far-sighted approach to the problems of unemployed railway workers.
Take the case of the workers who were affected by the decision of Air Canada to phase out the maintenance base in Winnipeg, which at one time employed
several thousand workers, and to transfer this operation to Dorval. It is true the employees, particularly those who had worked for Air Canada for years, were given an opportunity, based on their seniority, to transfer to Dorval. I think that is proper. But there were many employees working in Winnipeg who were over 54 years of age and who had lived in Winnipeg all their lives. They were required to move to Dorval or lose their jobs. I do not recall that the Government of Canada or Air Canada said to these workers: You only have five, six or seven years of employment left before you have to retire, so we shall offer you the opportunity of early retirement on a generous pension to which the Government of Canada or Air Canada will contribute to enable you to remain in Winnipeg where you have lived all your life, where you own your own home, where your friends and interests are, and where you are looking forward to retirement. We did not see this attitude towards the workers of Air Canada, those in the boot and shoe industry of Ontario or the coal miners of Nova Scotia. Neither did we see it extended to the railway workers, no matter in which part of Canada they worked.
So, while I support the principle of this bill and commend the government for its very humane approach to textile workers, mainly in the province of Quebec but also in Ontario, who will be laid off as the result of the government's policy of encouraging the rationalization of this industry, at the same time I think that what is good for these workers is just as good and correct for workers in other industries in Canada.
I hope I am wrong, and that this bill is not just a political ploy for the benefit of Quebec. I hope it is just the first step in a policy that will be expanded into industries in other parts of Canada, so that workers displaced by technological change or by changes in government trade and tariff policy will not have to bear the entire brunt by becoming unemployed and suffering loss of income but will be given the same kind of quite generous and far-sighted supplementary unemployment insurance benefits and early retirement plans of the type proposed in this bill.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-215, entitled Textile and Clothing Board Act, has great importance in the light of the situation prevailing in Canada.
I have another reason for taking a special interest in the bill, which is that over 1,000 voters in my district derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the textile industry.
I am therefore very happy that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) has introduced this legislation which will, I am convinced, be profitable not only to industry owners but also to workers.
On the other hand, experience has demonstrated that boards have never succeeded in solving all the problems put before them. In some cases, they have, it is true, been

January 22, 1971

successful in locating the problems. They have also rendered great services, and doubtless the Textile and Clothing Board will help to solve some of the problems of that industry.
But let us not believe all problems will be solved by setting up the Board. Otherwise, it would be too easy to solve problems overnight. Some problems are very complex and require not only technical knowledge but also the co-operation of all interested parties. I hope the minister will get the co-operation of all the parties concerned, the industry and the unions.
The people concerned as well as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are already aware of the problems with which the Textile and Clothing Board must first come to grips, because serious studies have been made these past few years by people interested in the textile industry, including unions, management associations ad various services of the Industry, Trade and Commerce Department.
As a result of these studies, briefs were submitted on a number of occasions to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in order to request various types of government intervention. The briefs contained full details on the performance of the Canadian textile industry, the problems it had to cope with and the future outlook.
Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of repeating all the statistics contained in these briefs in order to convince the minister how imperative it is that decisions be taken to help an industrial sector which is vital to Canada and particularly to Quebec. I think the minister knows all the details and that he is showing the textile industry his good intentions by introducing Bill C-215.
On the other hand, one should not triumph too fast. To my knowledge, for three years now, we have been making pressures on the government in the House and asking the minister to do something before it is too late.
As for myself, I think the government was slow in making decisions and there are others who feel the same way. The management-labour committee of the Canadian textile industry has already expressed its impatience at the slowness of the government to state its textile policy. The establishment of the Textile and Clothing Board is a step ahead, towards taking stands that I hope, will help to solve at least part of the problems.
In Canada, we have at the present time, some 200,00 workers in the textile industry, almost 60 per cent of them in Quebec. The decisions taken will therefore have a great importance for those workers directly dependent on the above-mentioned industry.
I would also like to point out that the textile industry buys considerable equipment and services from other industries, which means that a great number of workers in other industrial sectors are indirectly dependent on the Canadian textile industry.
This leads us to believe that the Board established under Bill C-215 will be permanent. In this connection, I urge to the minister to see to it that the Canadian textile
Textile and Clothing Board Act
policy is not developed solely by a Board. I can understand that the Board may make recommendations and appreciate the situation, but the reason for the existence of that Board is, in my opinion, to apply the policy that the government will develop for the textile industry.
Many times in the past the textile industry has experienced difficulties and if we were to eliminate all the industries that have had difficulties at one time or another I wonder how many would be left in Canada. For this reason, I can easily believe that the Board, through its advice, will be able to assist industrial concerns.
I also suppose that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will continue to help, through its Textiles Divison, so that the Board's decisions do not turn out to be administrative ones only, because further amendments to our textiles policy will be needed from time to time due to the changes that occur and that bring about or will bring about temporary or permanent difficulties for certain sectors of the textile industry.
One of the first tasks of the Board will be to make recommendations concerning the measures to be adopted in order to protect the producers of textile products and clothing against the competition of imports from countries where production costs are low or where export subsidies are provided for textile products.
In the past, we have tried to cut down imports by charging customs duties with a view to increasing the cost of imported goods. Later, exporting countries were asked to adopt quotas, in order to limit their own exports to Canada. All these measures proved inadequate and total imports increased steadily, so that not only Canada, but even the United States, were obliged to pass stringent measures to protect their own textile industries. This is to say that the textile problem is not particular to Canada, and that the measures we used to take are no longer effective. It is therefore necessary to provide for other measures relevant to the present situation. Owing to the constant increase of imports in the last decade, our textile industry's share of the domestic market has declined to 58 per cent during June, 1970. Such is, briefly, the situation.
Among the means available to the government to stem imports from low cost countries, there is the voluntary restrictions system negotiated by the two parties concerned. Now, the normal voluntary restrictions that Canada has always favoured in respect of normal imports have always turned out to be inadequate with regard to abnormal imports. As long as we were dealing with the old prewar commercial structures, traditional measures proved efficient enough. Customs duties being more or less normal, the customs administration having at its disposal basic means of action, it was generally possible to maintain within reasonable limits international competitiveness as far as textiles were concerned, without having to resort to exceptional measures. There were however, a few weak points where customs duties were shown to be inadequate requiring the intervention of

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
other measures, such as the application of fixed values on imports coming from some countries.
As we have seen, the situation has completely changed following the tremendous amount of imports coming from much more numerous sources at prices against which any normal trade policy is powerless.
It is obvious today that the survival of some industries, in Canada or elsewhere, requires more than normal protection. Some have disappeared already and others will follow if the necessary decisions are not taken with determination.
In 1957, when it was found that measures were required to counteract the disruption of markets through abnormal imports, the quota system was adopted. Afterwards, on occasion, we had to resort to temporary embargoes, since the Canadian market for various products had become chaotic.
The available remedies took a new dimension when the long-term agreement on cotton textiles was adopted in 1961. This was largely a novel policy in the international textile trade, since it provided the signatories with the framework inside which they could make use of their respective quotas. For the various countries, it meant agreeing to controlled marketing, as well as to corrective measures in cases of disruption of the markets, restraints in the quantity of textile products put on the world markets and the need to eliminate any excessive concentration of some particular goods.
This agreement provided for an agreed increase in exports from low-cost countries, as well as wider access to strongly protected import markets.
For Canada, the result of all this was effective confirmation of the already deep penetration of its market.
In this regard, however, the agreement gave Canada the right to set values and to refuse to accept automatic quota increases, a privilege which has been seldom used.
This is to say that when such agreements are made in the future, we must set up the appropriate control system so that we can immediately determine whether the countries signatories to the Agreement are not breaking that very agreement.
Among the other solutions which could be contemplated is the application of quotas on total imports. To enforce this measure we would have to deliver import permits so as to be able to set the amount of products that a dealer will be allowed to import into Canada.
Doubtless this measure is drastic but if it is the only way to improve the situation we shall have to use it. Moreover, I suggest that under the current circumstances we have no choice if we want to prevent an even more disastrous situation and complete dislocation of the Canadian textile industry. We must therefore use all means available so that the Canadian textile industry may be assured of a higher percentage, which could be approximately 70 per cent, of our domestic market so that this industry may plan its production and make it profitable.
I am confident that the Textile and Clothing Board, in co-operation with the workers and the management associations, will find other solutions advantageous to all sectors of the Canadian textile industry.
By improving matters for the textile industry we will meet two goals at the same time. We will keep many Canadians working and we will at the same time create many new jobs.
In an article which appeared in the 42nd annual report of the Canadian textile industry, Messrs. MacPherson and Amery, respectively economist and assistant economist with Du Pont of Canada, state that the textile industry could provide Quebec, directly or indirectly, with 20 per cent of the new jobs which are presently needed in that province.
Employment opportunities, however, will depend on the availability of markets. For the next five years, the most important task facing Canada will be to provide employment opportunities for the young people who will come up on the employment market.
We must also recognize the limited amount of capital available in Canada for investment. The fulfilment of our national objectives, namely full employment and a rising standard of living, requires that approximately $20 billion be invested by 1975.
Yet, in recent years, investments were running at a pace of $10 billion a year. Our national economic policy should thus be such as to assist industries whose production could replace those products which are presently imported.
The Canadian textile industry has everything it needs to take an important share in Canada's economic growth and political stability. Contrary to the general opinion, the textile product market is one of the Canadian industrial fields showing the most rapid development and the growth of its productivity has been far greater than the national average.
Moreover, the textile industry does not require such tremendous outlays as other industrial segments. It therefore needs limited capital, which is one of the rarest advantages in Canada.
The part that is to be played by the textile industry in Canada's political stability, especially in Quebec, can not be underestimated. In 1969, that industry provided employment to nearly 200,000 people, namely 11 per cent of the labour force in the manufacturing field.
Given the best conditions of economic growth and autonomy, the textile product industry could have 280,000 employees around 1975, namely an average yearly increase of 5.5 per cent or about 13,000 people.
However, should the present tendency continue, the industry will need only 225,000 people and under adverse conditions, its total labour force, which is now set at about 197,000 could decrease by 6,000 employees before 1975.

January 22, 1971

The province of Quebec has especially important interests here since 60 per cent of the jobs provided by the textile industry are found in that province. There thus exists, between the industry's maximum and minimum needs in Quebec, a margin of 53,000 jobs indirectly created by the textile industry. Those figures represent about 20 per cent of the new employment opportunities in the province during the next five years.
In 1969, the textile industry in Quebec came fourth as to the value of its shipments, which amounted to $650 million. Most of the plants are located in the Eastern Townships and in rural areas where it would be difficult to create new jobs immediately, or a relatively short time, should we have to deplore further lay-offs.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the bill before us will notably improve the conditions prevailing in the Canadian textile industry.
This bill, like all the others, is not perfect of course, because there is no such thing as perfection. We shall have to be careful and provide for the corrections required from time to time, because nothing is permanent. We must always strive to improve our living conditions and the laws of our country.
In the past, the government has been timid in its interventions and each delay in intervening caused the situation to become worse. So I hope that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will show more firmness in the future and I also take this opportunity to urge him to introduce a similar measure to deal with the situation which now prevails in the shoe industry in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau).


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, we have been looking forward to Bill C-215 for a very long time. Textile products manufacturers have long been expecting the government to pass legislation that would help them out.
I am personally interested in this bill because in my constituency there is a textile manufacture providing employment for approximately 600 people and apparently, it is the largest in the area.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) last night delivered a lecture rather than a speech on the textile industry. We had the impression that he was speaking before university students, but nevertheless he explained to us what has occurred in the textile industry. He mentioned that Canada took part in a fair in Germany in 1970 and that it helped open a market of some $10 million for our Canadian production.
Also, he referred to our exports to the United States, to our participation in Fashion Canada, but I simply cannot understand how a minister can come before the House and say that everything is rosy in this industry, when he knows-
Textile and Clothing Board Act


An hon. Member:: Everything is in the red!


Louis-Roland Comeau: -maybe, when he knows full well that this industry has and will have problems in the future.
I hope this bill, to which I do not object, will solve those problems and place the textile industry on a sound footing.
Last week, the Ministers of Labour and Finance (Messrs. Mackasey and Benson) also said that everything was rosy when they discussed unemployment. Cabinet members are wont to talk this way and take such a position.


Mr. Prud'homme:: They are optimistic.


Louis-Roland Comeau: This is all very well, but one must be realistic also. It is true that Canadian products are better than imports, and textile manufacturers must be commended.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce referred to the consultations he had with representatives of other countries, and he said that he did not want to take a stand unilaterally.

The minister boasted about the fact that Canada is the first country to provide protection from injury. Well, it should provide protection from injury in this particular industry because Canada is being gypped. The people in this whole industry should be protected because they are being gypped. This is the only country which has to protect its markets because it is the only country which is really being gypped. The minister warned members, and he was referring particularly to members of the opposition, not to feel that this bill was too protectionist. Who in this instance is opposed to protection for our own industry and its products? I suggest the minister was not warning the members of the opposition, but rather was warning some of his cabinet colleagues because he knows very well he had to fight with his colleagues on this measure. He knows that for two and a half years he tried to bring forward such legislation but was unable to do so because the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Lang), the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) and others opposed him. I am not afraid of protectionism but some of his colleagues are. I want this Canadian industry and its products to be protected. In the two and a half years I have been here, we have urged the minister to take action. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) mumbled something, but I did not hear his remark. The minister, a great university man, gave us a course on textiles.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A much needed one.


Louis-Roland Comeau: He has had previous occasions to refer to textiles.


An hon. Member:: What about the hon. member in the red shirt?

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act


Louis-Roland Comeau: The hon. member lor Calgary South is not concerned about textiles. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said that even if the government has to close plants, that is progress. What an attitude! The minister stated in the budget debate not too long ago, and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) referred to it, that great rationalization and progress must be made in the industry. He stated that even if there had to be lay-offs, that would be progress.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not speak in the budget debate.


Louis-Roland Comeau: They are very courageous. They talk about the best interests of the workers. This morning, the minister explained what Clause 21 was all about, and I am glad he did. Clause 21 deals with benefits accorded to the workers after they have lost their employment at the age of 54. The minister said that provision is made for the necessary funds for this type of program in the supplementary estimates of the Department of Labour for 1970-71. Therefore, the government expects immediate lay-offs in the textile industry.
I cannot understand the attitude of the government towards the textile industry. The minister knows quite well that lack of planning by the government will result in the textile workers being laid off at the age of 54 and which will necessitate them being compensated by receiving two thirds of their salary. I am not opposed to that. We have to provide them with some form of living allowance. It is the government that is responsible and has to make up for the effects of its policy. If the proper policies had been adopted in respect of the textile industry, the retirement of workers at the age of 54 would not have been necessary. What kind of an attitude is it to retire a man at the age of 54? The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) says that this is progress, and the Minister of Labour agrees.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Insensitive technocrats, both of them.


Louis-Roland Comeau: The minister explained how the clause would be applied and he elaborated on the whole project. He outlined some of the conditions that a textile worker had to meet to benefit from this provision. Hon. members can read what the Minister of Labour had to say about it. The following is what the minister said in the last but one paragraph of his statement:
In my view, the pre-retirement plan, in particular, is a unique and significant social innovation, tailored to the specific problems in the textile and clothing industries. It will help greatly to meet the problems faced by displaced older workers in a manner consistent with the preservation of individual pride and dignity.
Is retiring a man at the age of 54 consistent with the preservation of his pride and dignity? The government is very proud of the fact that they can retire a man at the age of 54. This plan seems similar to one often referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), namely, the Devco plan, under which miners were taken off the production line and paid compensation. I have seen a cheque amounting to eight cents which represented the amount of compensation the
Crown Corporation paid to a miner for one week. I hope the same thing will not occur under this program. If it does, the minister will hear from us again.
Under this program, the government admits its failure to deal with our economic problems and particularly with the textile industry in Canada. These pre-retirement benefits amount to two thirds of previous earnings. I do not believe the workers want to retire early, and if there had been proper planning for the textile industry we would not be faced with this situation today. Where are we going? These ministers are proud of the fact that they are retiring people early. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), in a speech he gave in Newfoundland not too long ago-and some hon. members from that province can correct me if I am wrong-asked "what is so great about people working?" The government has taken this attitude because they realize they cannot do a darn thing about unemployment. They are not interested in providing jobs.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce spoke about efficiency and modernization. The minister is not a naive man. He is bright and he smiles all the time. He is optimistic, but somehow he is not sufficiently persuasive to be able to convince the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues to do something. This is where he fails. They do not have a plan. He might have one, but he cannot convince them to adopt it. They say they are doing great things for the workers, but they do not care about unemployment. The minister spoke about efficiency and modernization, although he knows very well that the textile industry in Canada is very modern and efficient. In fact, he stated so himself. I can quote his words as reported in the Globe and Mail of October 16, 1970 as follows:
Said Mr. Pepin: "Contrary to opinions sometimes expressed, these industries are as efficient technologically as those of any other country, including the low cost producers."
Time and time again, the minister stressed that the Canadian textile industry is modern, efficient and rationalized. Yet, he is establishing a board to look into these matters. He referred to this aspect again last night. He pointed to an hon. member who was wearing a white shirt and indicated that all the others were wearing coloured shirts. He said these coloured shirts were a Canadian innovation. Canadian textile producers have been great innovators. It is my belief that other countries have copied what the Canadians have done and we are now importing these copied products into Canada. We should penalize these other countries for exporting these products which the Canadian industry has developed by limiting the importation of them. The government knows very well that the problem does not lie in lack of efficiency, but in allowing too great a quantity of imports.
The minister has given us statistics, but he knows very well that imports are now running at something like 65 per cent, which means that the Canadian textile industry is not supplying more than 35 per cent of the Canadian market. That is why we have this problem. I am not saying that we should ban all imports, but a reasonable

January 22, 1971

advantage must be given to Canadian industry. Canada imports three times as many textile products as do the Americans, and twice as many as the British. This was the case from 1954 to 1967 and the situation has worsened since then. From 1954 to 1967 there was a 146 per cent increase in the amount of textiles and clothing imported into Canada.
The United States, Mr. Speaker, has decided to set quotas on textiles imported from Japan, but we have not; we have allowed matters to drag along; we have been the nice guys, and even where we did set quotas we told exporting countries, "If you exceed your quota we will not hurt you." The consequences of this massive importation are dislocation of production programs, restriction in the development of certain lines, costly diversification of production, abandonment of a number of lines and dislocation of the labour force in the Canadian textile industry. From 1966 to 1968 the Canadian textile labour force decreased by 4,000, and the situation has become worse since then. What can be done, Mr. Speaker? There are a number of solutions. The most effective one would be to limit importations. Quotas should be set and adhered to. If we set quotas for a particular country, we should not allow it to exceed those quotas. On the other hand, we could favour the synthetic sector in respect of which demand and production are increasing.
Is enough research being carried out in this field? The science report, although not dealing specifically with the textile field, clearly indicates that Canada has a below average industrial research and development output. Perhaps we could specialize our trade to lines in which we can compete. It is felt that action has to be taken by the Canadian government since the U.S. example shows the difficulties involved in trying to find bilateral solutions. A target could be set stipulating that 70 per cent of the Canadian market must be supplied by Canadian manufacturers, with the other 30 per cent being supplied by imports.
The solutions proposed by the federal government were announced on May 14, 1970, in the minister's statement on motions, to which I replied. They include nationalization of textile tariffs, improved methods of investigating dumped or subsidized textile imports, amendments to the Customs Act and the Statistics Act, creation of a textile review board, financial support for industries wanting to improve, increased or diversified production, financial assistance for affected workers, technical and promotional support through development and productivity centres, and a fashion design assistance program.
Bill C-215 which we are discussing, which is to establish a textile and clothing board and to make certain amendments to other acts, deals with some of the solutions proposed on May 14. I hope it works; I hope it will be effective. The bill will create the board, it indicates how it will work; it will provide for assistance to workers; it will amend the Export and Import Permits Act to control imports, and it will amend the Customs Act. The proposed board will look into the importation of textiles and clothing goods to determine if importation is threatening production in Canada. The board will either receive complaints from Canadian producers or open an
Textile and Clothing Board Act inquiry on its own initiative. Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to the creation of the board, but I point out that it will simply make recommendations to the minister and then the governor in council will decide to restrain, and to what extent, the importation of one or a number of textile products.
The board may do other things. It may ask or receive from a producer of textiles a plan indicating how he intends to improve, change or modify his production in order to meet international competition. My comment is that the minister has stated many times that the problem is not efficiency; some of our plants are as modern as can be. If they are already modern, how can we improve them? We know where the problem lies. There is no need for the government to talk for the hundredth time to the textile industry in order to come up with recommendations. The minister and the government know where the problems are.
I have talked about what will happen once the lay-offs occur. The shame of it is that the government recognizes that lay-offs will occur, and so far as I am concerned the government wants them to occur. At present we do not know how the proposed program will work or what amount of money will be necessary to finance it. According to what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) said today, this will be worked out in regulations which have not yet been promulgated.
If we consider the way workers are protected under the automotive agreement, we can see it is far ahead of what is provided for textile workers. I have here a copy of the transitional assistance benefit regulations covering automotive workers, but we do not know what the regulations will be for textile workers. Before we know what regulations the Minister of Labour will adopt, it is difficult to say if the program will be of any use. We must also remember that textile manufacturers are located in low employment regions and we do not know what measures will be undertaken to create other jobs.
Evidently, all this is consistent with the policy of the government to recognize that lay-offs and unemployment must occur because of changes in the textile industry. This is due to lack of planning. No decisions with regard to the textile industry must be taken before the board has determined for what period of time, and in what groups, lay-offs will occur. Textile workers are a group of specialists and cannot easily adapt to a new occupation in another field. If the government is of the opinion that there is no future for our textile industry, let it say so; let us not pussy-foot around. Canada could well specialize its production in another field, such as synthetics, and completely abandon wool and cotton production. Maybe this is what we should be doing. If it is, the government should say so.
Some people argue that the board is not necessary. The Importers' Association of Canada is against it, and for obvious reasons. Others consider that it is not necessary because we already know what the situation is. We have all the necessary statistics from the DBS and other groups in order to make the right decision on the importation of textiles, without the establishment of this board. Before the board makes recommendations, the concerned

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act producers may have had to close their shops, although the bill provides for interim recommendations to the minister if the board feels the situation is at a critical stage.
My main point is that the bill establishing this board should have been introduced years ago. I am not opposed to it, but it should have been brought forward about five years ago. We are five years too late in bringing forward the bill. We now know the problems. I will follow the progress of the bill more actively in the committee. I urge the government finally to do something to help the textile industry. Let us not have this pussy-footing around, this business of going back to the textile industry and trying to find out exactly what they want. We know what they want so let us make specific recommendations. My criticism of this bill is that it has come five years too late and that a forward-looking government should have introduced it earlier.


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, in October last, at the opening of the third session, one of the 68 bills put on the order paper was entitled: "Bill respecting textiles". What the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) did recently, which is now taking form, is certainly going to help one of the most important industries in Canada, one which creates a great many jobs and assuredly deserves a better protection in many fields.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) charged the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce of having taken far too much time in bringing in such legislation. He even went so far as to say that nothing had been done since 1968.
Already back in 1968 or at the beginning of 1969, the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced the establishment of a special committee which was to study the textile problems. The members of this committee had to meet several persons interested, that is union and management representatives, in short, all those who are more or less concerned with textiles. Moreover, the manufacturers were complaining about the number of shirts entering the country and apparently according to statistics, quotas were being largely exceeded. I shall come back later on this matter.
As the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) gave us various figures, I shall take this opportunity to say that some 190,000 people are presently working in the textile industry. In Quebec, several factories-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the talk-fest to my right. It is very difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. member who has the floor.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The insensitive technocrats are doing it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are not usually here on Friday afternoon.


Arthur Portelance: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief.
Naturally, such concerns are efficiently administered by directors who have succeeded in making the adjustments required to face strong competition, and who have endeavoured to sell their products in all commercial centres of Canada and other countries.
As the minister stated last night, in the field of men's clothing, sales to the United States have increased, but the duties on such goods are less than on shirts exported to the same country.
Statistics for 1966 show that Canada was allowed to import goods up to a value of $19.32 per capita. In the United Kingdom, the figure was $10.89 and in the United States, $6.07. This proves that three times more textile products and clothing were imported from other countries than from the United States, and even that the United States rate of imports was much lower than ours. Last year, the Mills Bill was proposed in the United States. This bill aimed at restricting imports through the strict enforcement of a global system of quotas. The American importers associations have stated that the application of quotas, without proof of prejudice, is completely contrary to everything that the American trade policy stood for in the past.
I feel that this bill is not as stringent and that it will be more favourably received than the one proposed in the United States. Just as some Canadian associations, Canadian importers seemed to fear it and were opposed to the passing of such a law here. Last Thursday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) met with them in Montreal and was able to further inform them. In this respect, one newspaper reported the following:
As regards the textile and clothing industry, Mr. Pepin has made it clear that the legislation introduced in the House last week and aimed at establishing a Textile and Clothing Board is unique in the entire trade community of the free world. He added, as pointed out moreover by the Wall Street Journal, that this step could very well serve as an example to others, in order to improve the situation as a whole in the world textile trade.
Therefore, as far as the Canadian industry is concerned, something new has at least been created and the companies as well as those interested in the textile industry will certainly be asked to be also creative in their respective field.
Canadian primary textile plants employed 54,300 workers in Quebec, 37,300 in Ontario and 2,400 in the Western provinces-in 122 plants-and 1,100 workers in the Maritime provinces.
Approximately 102,000 persons were employed in the manufacture of clothing and related products and thus, since concentration is in Quebec and in Montreal, there were 62,000 persons there employed in 1,540 plants. In Ontario, there were 24,000 workers employed in this industry and in the Western provinces 11,000. In the Atlantic provinces, the figure was 500. As I believe other speakers have mentioned and technologically Canada's
[Mr. Comeau.)
January 22, 1971

textile industry is among the most advanced in the world, the minister is well aware of the fact. Over $500 million were invested within the past decade in this industry, and I truly feel that those interested in investing are not demanding a 100 per cent take-over of the Canadian market either. I think it is logical to let those people know what percentage of the market the industry can anticipate, of course, provided, it meets all the prevailing market conditions and is as competitive as possible.
There has been a serious drop in employment and revenue in the last few years, following the decline of business, for the benefit of imports from low-cost countries. Now and then, manufactures have closed for one or two weeks; the number of working days were reduced; work shifts disappeared; others have often worked fewer hours in several sectors of the industry. From 1966 to 1968, the total number of lost jobs reached 4,000.
According to the Canadian Textiles Institute, if textile products from low-cost countries had been manufactured in Canada in 1967, the industry would have employed 20,000 people and thousands of others in the clothing industry.
According to a report I received, the shirt industry in Quebec employed 6,008 workers in Quebec in 1965 and only 4,052 in 1969. The fewer number of jobs in the shirt industry is directly related to the drop in the Canadian production. Since 1965, 42 shirt companies had to close down in Quebec and seven in Ontario.
As to the reasons given for the stagnation of the shirt industry, they can be summed up by quoting the report of shirt companies:

The year 1965 was the peak year for domestic production, however between 1965 and 1969 domestic production declined 10%, feeling the impact of imports. In this same four year period imports went up 58%.
Imports from 1966-1969 totalled 4,484,100 dozen compared to 2,599,400 for the previous years (1962-1965). This is an increase of over 72.5%. By the same token domestic production for 19661969 totalled 8,030,200 dozen compared to 7,946,300 dozen from the period 1962-1965 for an increase of 95,900 dozen or 1.2%. In other words, in the most recent four year period for which we have complete statistics compared to the four year period preceding it, imports increased 72.5% and domestic production only increased 1.2%.
The increase in imports during this last four year period of 1,884,700 dozen shirts or an average of 471,175 dozen per year could have meant more than 1,300 direct labour jobs to the domestic industry per year, 60% of which would have been in the province of Quebec. In addition, many more indirect jobs would have been created in supply trades because of the multiplier effect of at least two to one.

With such figures, Mr. Speaker, I quite understand that the government should be seeking new jobs. We want to create new employment, in every field; indeed, in one province, attempts are being made to create 100,000 new jobs. The potential exists, since there are several jobs already. They need not be created, but they certainly need to be protected to enable us to compete in all fairness with the countries from which we import.
The question of the wages paid in the textile industry has cropped up repeatedly. It is interesting to consult the
Textile and Clothing Board Act
statistics on the hourly wages paid in the shirt industry in some countries. In Hong Kong, the going wage is 22 cents per hour, in Japan, 58 cents, in Singapore, 19 cents; in South Korea, 15 cents and in Taiwan, 20 cents.
Under the latest contracts signed by Quebec shirt manufacturers, there are zones 1 and 2. Zone No. 1 comprises greater Montreal and a territory which is 10 miles wide, and zone No. 2 includes the rest of the province. There is a salary differential of approximately 10 per cent only between the two zones, and we note that the average salary is at least $2 an hour. It is therefore very difficult for Canadian manufacturers to produce at such a low price what can be imported from countries where cost is much lower than here.
We know that import quotas are not as widespread in Canada as in some of our trading partners. Thus, Japan whose economy is the fastest growing and which is one of our partners, still enforces in 1970, 118 import quotas, despite low salaries.
The Canadian newspaper Financial Times of December 15, 1969 reported that Japan is slowly proceeding to remove its tremendous barriers against imports and foreign investments. But Canadian exports and investments are still facing various problems on the Japanese market. By liberalizing its trade, Japan is slowly opening new markets to foreign competitors.
In the next two years, the government intends to abolish 55 of the 118 import restrictions and quotas which are in force at present and can be considered as so many violations of the GATT regulations.
It would be very useful to obtain better statistics on imports.
In the shirt department, there are problems. Some countries have largely exceeded their established quotas and, in the past, this was always discovered too late. With this new legislation, the Board will be in a position to check the facts much more readily and get things going.
Mr. Speaker, clause 21 of Bill C-215 has been referred to. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe seemed most pessimistic when he suggested that 50 per cent of the workers might be fired or replaced. My own attitude is much more optimistic, because from now on all the companies which have managed to stay in this industry in spite of the difficulties that now prevail, will benefit from this piece of legislation. It should not be prejudicial to them. On the contrary, it should provide for the creation of many new jobs.
Of course, among those companies where skills and technology are firmly established, marketing will certainly solve the problems now confronting the Canadian textile industry.
Mr. Speaker, one has to be realistic and realize that these improvements alone will not enable the industry to cope with competition from textile imports from low-wage countries. The Canadian textile industry must do all it can to improve the present situation but it is not yet in a position to prevent this situation from getting worse on account of increased and unfair competition

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act from countries where people work in conditions and for salaries which would be illegal in Canada.
I take this opportunity to commend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) for introducing Bill C-215 and I sincerely believe that this unique initiative will remedy many existing problems.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I would not ordinarily have entered the debate, Mr. Speaker, but on January 20 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) spoke to the Canadian Importers' Association in Montreal, and speaking to that august body he said:
What is needed is knowledge, judgment, wise reconciliation of conflicting interests, proper balance of advantages, the play of competition, consideration for economic, social, political, even ethnic, national, regional, professional factors.
Having delivered himself of that mouthful, the minister will, I know, need a great deal of help. He will not get it from his side of the House, so perhaps some of us on this side should offer it to him. I shall be putting forward an argument for a great deal of flexibility in the program the minister has offered. While some of the points he has made appeal to me a great deal, others do not.
I am worried about the implications of technocracy and bureaucracy in this bill. I am also worried lest at a time when we are facing tremendous economic problems, we may not be setting up machinery responsive enough to meet the demand. So I shall be putting in a pitch for a little company which does not even belong to the riding of Halifax-East Hants; it exists in the riding of my hon. friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in Halifax. But it is a plant which is very close to my own home. It employs a few people and it could employ a few more. I refer to Maritime Canvas Converters and Upholstering Limited.
Ordinarily, I would take up a subject like this in committee when the bill goes there for consideration. However, the trouble with that approach is that you can be a statesman there, but nobody knows you have either raised the problem or that there is one to be raised, whereas I would hope that Hansard for yesterday and today would at least have some circulation and would be almost required reading for anyone who has an interest in the textile industry in Canada. Other speakers, including the minister, have mentioned the impact the textile industry has on our way of life. I shall not go over that ground again. I quote again from the speech which the minister gave in Montreal on January 20:
Canada imports about $700 worth of goods per capita per year while the United States and Japan imports goods worth about $180 and $150 per capita, respectively.
Those figures are worthy of attention, especially when it is considered that Canada properly takes its place with the two countries mentioned in that quotation when it comes to the standard of living of our citizens. So we are talking "big league" when we discuss the export and import situation in this country, and "big league" indeed

when we deal with the difficulties imports can create for our domestic industry.
I suppose the minister is one of those twentieth century technocrats who are not as well versed in history as they should be. But there was a time 100 years ago when another Liberal government was in power during a recession. That was the government of the good old stone mason, Alexander Mackenzie, and in opposition was Sir John A. Macdonald, possibly the greatest Canadian who ever lived. It was a time of recession. It was also a time of insensitivity on the part of Alexander Mackenzie, caught up in thoughts of free trade. Sir John A., with that wonderful feeling he had for the needs of Canadian people, soon taught Alexander Mackenzie what the name of the game was when it came to building up a nation. Unless the government does more about building up the prospects for Canadian employment at the present time, the same thing will happen to them.
In any event, having made those comments, which seem to amount to a plea for unlimited protection, or at least to a plea for sensible protection, the case I have in mind is one where a little less protection is needed and a little more common sense. I hope the minister will listen. He is an insensitive technocrat. He wants to talk to somebody. I will put it on the record and then I will draw it to his attention. This problem arises from the fact that Maritime Canvas Converters could make good use of something called flax cloth, 18 oz. per square yard. I believe that is the technical term used for it. This material serves in the manufacture of ventilator covers, lifeboat covers, hatch covers and so on.
The company loses business in Canada because the Department of Finance has imposed duty on this material, imported from Scotland. As a result, the masters of vessels, and others, who could have these covers made in Halifax, thus providing work for Canadians, choose to go to the United States to get it done. The captains say to Maritime Canvas Converters Limited that they get a 25 per cent subsidy when the work is done in the United States. I am not talking about large potatoes; I am talking about jobs for people-and over the next few months we shall hear a great deal in this Parliament about jobs for Canadians.
We need a few sensible measures in addition to a little more flexibility than we have at present. Perhaps the minister's legislation will provide this. I should complete the story by saying that no Canadian firm makes flax cloth, 18 oz. per square yard. At least, there is none that has been heard of in Halifax. If such a firm exists, its salesmen have not reached that great east coast port. This material is made in Scotland and as far as is known it is not made in Canada. It may be made in the United States. Thus, it is hardly a commodity on which a duty has to be placed in order to protect a Canadian manufacturer.
The people in Maritime Canvas Coverters and Upholstery Limited have engaged in correspondence on this subject with the Department of Finance; I refer to a letter written to Mr. J. W. Latimer in that department. What I am suggesting to the minister is this. Since the board has these powers and there are to be changes to
January 22, 1971

the Export and Import Permits Act and in our method of dealing with customs, we should not restrict these changes unnecessarily. I suggest there should be some means of throwing off customs duties rather than erecting them. In other words, there should be some means of removing barriers when the Canadian textile industry is not fulfilling a need that is very apparent, as proven by the example of the company to which I have referred. The minister nods: I thank him for listening to my argument.
I hope this point will be considered and that the law officers who will be briefing the committee when it deals with this legislation will be of the opinion that the powers are flexible enough to do what I suggest. We are not talking about many jobs, Mr. Speaker-perhaps 10, 15 or 20. However, we are talking about jobs, and since jobs are important, flexibility is a crying need.
My only other point is to warn the minister that he had better have a lady on this board. Three men are to be given the authority to decide what textiles Canada will manufacture. I do not know whether the minister reads the fashion pages or stumbles into the women's section of newspapers; I suppose the women's liberation news gets on the front page. But the ladies are in a fair amount of revolt, one of their main causes being fashions that they are asked to wear. Nowadays they decide for themselves; no man tells them what to wear. Therefore, it seems to me that if the minister does not have at least one woman as one of the powers-that-be on the board, he should at least have some female advisers in a pretty senior position; otherwise he might get himself into a great deal of trouble.


Louis-Roland Comeau: With his wife!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sure his wife tells him at home what he does wrong-but all wives do that. Perhaps the minister will agree that this move is imperative. With those thoughts I am delighted to have had the ear of the House for a few minutes.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to say a few words in the debate on Bill C-215, though in somewhat different vein from the remarks of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Ricard) and the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). Every time I hear them speak in this House it seems to me the outlook is one of doom and gloom.


Louis-Roland Comeau: You are never here.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am always here. On that point I would compare my record of attendance with that of either of the two hon. members. In fact, I would put my attendance against their joint attendance any day.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Look at the index to Hansard.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This industry holds a very important place in the Canadian economy. It is the sixth
Textile and Clothing Board Act
largest employer among Canadian manufacturing industries, employing 124,000 persons. It comprises 22,600 companies whose total sales, including knitted outerwear, amount to $1.3 billion, $70 million worth of which goes to export markets.
It may appear unusual to some hon. members that a member from a western province should be so interested in a bill which appears intended mainly for eastern manufacturers. I would like to stress, however, that western Canada has an important share of the Canadian clothing industry. There are about 200 companies in the four western provinces. They employ over 10,000 persons and have total shipments in excess of $132 million. My interest is all the more justified if one considers that 126 of the 200 companies mentioned are situated in the province of Manitoba, most of them in the greater Winnipeg area.
The shipments to date of these 126 companies amount to $79.1 million, and the companies employ 6,300 workers. Comparing this with Saskatchewan, there are four companies in that province with shipments of $4.8 million and only 300 people are employed by these companies. In Alberta, there are 22 companies with shipments of $24.6 million and employing 2,000 people. There are 48 companies in British Columbia, with shipments of $24.1 million and a labour force of 2,100. I think these figures prove the point I have endeavoured to make.
In light of these figures, it is fair to say that the Canadian clothing industry is one of demonstrated capability. It is in fact competitive with clothing industries of other developed countries from the point of view of style, quality and price. This is attested to publicly by an important array of knowledgeable and influential people. Let me give some examples. We often hear members of the opposition quoting articles in newspapers, and sometimes I think we on this side do not get our fair share of publicity. However, on this particular aspect I should like to say that the press did give us a fair shake, and they would not have done so had they not meant it.
There was an article in Maclean's magazine for June, 1970, praising the style and quality of Canadian-made garments, entitled "You mean all that stuff is Canadian!". This is an article all Canadians should read. It describes what articles Canadians are making, exporting and wearing. Also, an article appeared in Men's Wear magazine in October, 1969, and I should like to quote from it as follows:
Merchants say the reasons for more imports from Canada are rising prices of the European market, better deliveries, co-operative manufacturers and good quality and fashion...we like English fabrics, but the cost was getting too high. Now, we get the same fabrics from Canada ... at a much lower price-
Two stores in the Atlanta area carry Canadian merchandise: Rich's and Rogue Specialty Shop. Rich's clothing is store labelled and purchased through the AMC buying group. The Rogue carries a line of leather goods and suits from Canada. Gerry Underwood, Rogue owner, reports the suits are one of his most advanced lines and bring a premium price-
The merchandise manager for another major men's weai outlet spoke well of a Montreal clothing resource which supplied suits for his firm under a private label.
Another article appeared in the Ottawa Journal, written by Richard Jackson and headed "Trade Dept. '00-00*

January 22, 1971
Textile and Clothing Board Act
Style Wins World Fashion Sales". He is a Tory, but since the story is a good one I will quote it. It reads in part as follows:
Showing New York, London, Los Angeles, Paris, Frankfurt what's up in high fashion?
Believe it.
For that's what it says in Women's Wear Daily, the bible of the women's fashion industry.
The other day, out of Frankfurt, West Germany, WWD carried this dispatch from its European correspondent:
"Twelve Canadian textile mills (10 in Quebec, one each in Ontario and British Columbia) garnered immediate sales of $3.16 million and potential for $13 million more at their first combined exhibit at the German trade fair for clothing textiles here.
The article continues:
But isn't the Canadian textile industry supposed to be in deep trouble, and what's it doing competing successfully against world competition at a Frankfurt trade fair?
Very nicely, thank you, says Industry, Trade and Commerce Minister Jean-Luc Pepin.
And not just in Frankfurt.
Then the article continues:
But in New York, Philadelphia, Dallas, London and a lot of other places.
Not just with textiles, either, but with sportswear, knitwear, furs, costume jewellery, rainwear, coats, dresses, leathers, and suedes, gowns, hosiery, suits, slacks, hats, shoes. The whole head to toe works in the world of fashion and fabric, male and female, and children too.
The article goes on in the same fashion but I will bypass that for the moment. I quote from Le Devoir of January 21, 1971 as follows:

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce attempted yesterday, in a speech before the Canadian Association of Importers, to explain the solutions selected by the government in the field of Canadian trade policy, on the basis of the principle that a balance should exist between advantages and drawbacks.
With regard to the textile and clothing industry, Mr. Pepin explained that the bill tabled in the House last week and providing for the establishment of a Textile and Clothing Board is unique in the whole commercial community of the free world. He added, as was reported in the Wall Street Journal, that this action might well be taken as an example by others with a view to improving the global situation of the world textile trade.
This Board composed of three members was established early in December and a bill to sanction its legal existence is now before the House.
Moreover, the minister expects that by 1975, Canadian footwear exports will have more than doubled, from $30 million in 1970 to $70 million.
Let us point out that the Canadian footwear industry, like the textile and clothing industry, is facing a very strong competition from Asian countries-mainly Japan and Hong Kong- where production costs are lower.
As far as privileged financing is concerned, the government is ready to implement all the anticipated and authorized means under its international commitments in order to reduce imports financed by foreign governments when they seem to hurt the Canadian industry.
I should like-

[English}
The Canadian clothing industry is, therefore, one of which we can be justly proud. The industry is characterized generally by an important number of smaller firms, 60 to 70 employees on the average. This characteristic enables individual firms to be flexible and adaptable, two features which are extremely important in a business subject to the whims of style and fashion. At the same time, however, the smaller size constitutes a drawback for most firms because it bars them from having ready access to the capital market. Being in a highly competitive business, the companies do not usually generate sufficient funds to finance needed expansion.
This is especially true of the garment industry in western Canada, and in Winnipeg particularly. There the companies are in a state of transition. From manufacturers of basic items-the utility type of clothing-they have evolved into highly fashionable items produced for sale throughout Canada and the United States. These companies are in a difficult period of transition; their demands for capital are rising, profits are meagre and they find themselves in a very vulnerable situation.
In contrast to these difficulties, the long-term prospects of the industry are much brighter. Given the projections of continued growth in the Canadian standard of living, it is reasonable to expect that Canadians will allocate a larger share of their income to purchasing clothes. With regard to exports, where the main considerations appear to be price, style and quality, our exporters have already made quite a remarkable impression. Between 1964 and 1969, the last year for which complete statistics are available, Canadian clothing exports grew from $17,248,000 to $58,321,000, an increase of 238 per cent. This is, therefore, an industry not to be neglected and I believe it is important that it be given every opportunity to further improve and increase its competitiveness.
Since the development of its textile policy, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has greatly assisted Canadian clothing manufacturers through its trade fairs and missions program, productivity centres, the Fashion Canada promotional program and the modification of the general adjustment assistance program to make it more readily accessible to this industry.
As the minister mentioned yesterday and today, Bill C-215 is but another element of the government's textile policy. He should be highly complimented for this approach. Quite apart from specific aspects of the bill, the creation of a textile and clothing board, amendments to the Export and Import Permits Act and the Customs Act which give the government the necessary tools to implement its new policy, the bill has a special significance inasmuch as it confirms the government's confidence in and support for the textile and clothing industries of Canada. This, in turn, is most important to Canadian manufacturers and should encourage them to take the necessary steps to expand and take advantage of the market opportunities available in Canada and abroad.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.
January 22, 1971



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general disposition to proceed immediately to item No. 7 on the Order Paper under public bills, namely, second reading and reference of Bill C-25 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode), and that the preceding bills retain their position on the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that all the items on the Order Paper appearing prior to Bill C-25 shall stand and retain their positions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CANADIAN NATIONAL POLLUTION AWARENESS WEEK


Mr. Tom H. Goode (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: that Bill C-25, respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have the opportunity to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: -to cut off
your own colleague.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; I must have misunderstood the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney).


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is one that I think is very worthy of endorsement. The problems of pollution-a matter so much in the public interest today-should be approached with a great deal-


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought the measure before the House was No. 7 of public bills. I believe this item stands in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode), and I am wondering what the Parliamentary Secretary is doing on his feet at this time, apart from trying to talk-out his colleague's motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has recognized the Parliamentary Secretary.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet simply because Your Honour recognized me. I think the bill-
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering whether the hon. member intends to give us an explanation of his bill. This is what we are waiting for.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, in common with many of the other problems facing Canada and world society today, this is an area of concern. Nothing but the greatest benefits can come from a public awareness of the circumstances surrounding it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects the rights of all members of the House and in particular the rights of the hon. member sponsoring this bill. As I understand the procedure resulting from Your Honour's recognition of the Parliamentary Secretary, it is that the sponsor of the bill will not have an opportunity to speak on it unless he is permitted to close the debate; he does not have the opportunity to open the debate and explain his bill. In view of the limits placed on private members' hour, I believe this precedent, if allowed to become practice, would have serious consequences. I believe a great deal of thought should be given to this procedure before we accept it. I hate to put my question of privilege forward in this language, but what has happened in the last few minutes is disturbing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is unnecessary confusion in respect of this point of order. What happened was quite clear. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) moved the second reading of his bill and the motion was seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). Because some of us were shouting "Carried," I take it the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill thought he might get it through without speaking and he therefore sat down. All he did was tip his hat, as the book says, but that meant he had spoken. So it was then open to anyone to enter the debate, and Your Honour quite properly recognized someone. I do not blame the hon. member for trying to get his bill through, but he has lost his opportunity to speak at this stage. He can speak again to conclude the debate when we reach the end of second reading, but that could be a year from next March.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the business of the House might be facilitated if the Parliamentary Secretary were given an opportunity to table his speech as read, so that we could obtain the consent of the House to the motion.

January 22, 1971
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week


David Anderson: In rising on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the views of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) did indicate that he did not intend to speak to the bill, and Your Honour recognized another member who can speak for only 20 minutes. When the hon. member has concluded his remarks, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta can say a word or two.


An hon. Member:: He cannot.


David Anderson: Yes, he can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think hon. members would wish to proceed with the debate. If there is any confusion, there at least is none in the Chair's mind. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) moved the second reading of this bill, and my impression was that he did not wish to speak. Having moved second reading of the bill, he resumed his seat. The Parliamentary Secretary was recognized by the Chair, and he now has the floor. I do not think we should hold up the debate by speculation as to whom the Chair should have recognized.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker-


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I move that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) be now heard.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta may be recognized only if there is unanimous consent of the House that he be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to accede to such unanimous agreement if it permits me to have the floor on an appropriate, later occasion and if I am not deemed to have already spoken on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With unanimous consent, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Mr. Walker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There was a definite negative voice on the other side in respect of granting the Parliamentary Secretary the right to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it there is not unanimous consent. The Chair feels the debate should proceed.


An hon. Member:: It is unanimous.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair hesitates to prolong the time taken on the point of order. The question is whether there is unanimous consent that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta be now recognized and that the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) be recognized later in this debate. Is there such unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Corbin) refused to give his consent.


Mr. Corbin:: Mind your own business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair did not hear any negation of unanimous consent; therefore, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Henry Goode: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 have a long speech prepared, but I have a feeling that my colleagues not only on this side but on the other side of the House are prepared, after token objection, to let the bill go to the committee. If that is the case, I shall sit down and allow the Parliamentary Secretary to continue his speech.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Talk it out.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: -I am glad we gave the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech. It would be a poor world had we not done so. I do not think anyone recalls what I said prior to the procedural discussion on this matter, so perhaps I should start from scratch. The question of pollution is one in respect of which a benefit can redound to our country and society as a result of the fullest public knowledge of all aspects of the problem. In this respect I would place it in the same category as foreign investment. We are likely to achieve nothing if we attack pollution from an emotional base, because in this way the wrong answers could be obtained which would be very serious indeed both in the long and short run.
I think we can accept as a fact that our physical environment is not as good as it used to be. In addition, we can probably all agree that it is not as good as it should be. General acceptance of these facts has been a great triumph in terms of the environment and the necessary prerequisite to the successful fight against pollution. I would also put it to the House as a fact, one not generally accepted, that our environment is a unified system and that one of our greatest problems is our habit-indeed, not only a habit but almost a diligent pursuit-of compartmentalization and specialization. This is common to many areas of life: when we approach the environment we are prone to slice it into separate uses, special technologies and different administrative units. This fragmented approach neglects the intimate relationships among the fundamental elements of our environment, yet pollution of one of these frequently results from the mismanagement of one of the others and even from efforts to control the pollution of another.
(Mr. McGrath.)
January 22, 1971

The decision to avoid polluting a river, by burning waste, pollutes the air. If we decide to bury the waste, we may pollute the soil and/or the ground water. This fragmented approach leads to a multiplicity of institutions for the management of resources and waste disposal. Pollution control is an integral part of resource management. Our institutional structure for resource management, both federal and provincial, comprises a number of departments with responsibilities usually limited to particular aspects of individual resources or groups of resources. The forestry departments are examples. In addition, other departments and agencies, while not primarily resource oriented, have policies and programs which have an impact on resource use and ultimately on environmental quality-the health department, for example.
Generally, our governments are organized in relation to human activities-agriculture, fisheries, industry, transport, health and welfare, education and so on. The resource-directed departments-for example, mines and minerals provincially; energy, mines and resources federally-have been very specialized hot only in terms of the resources they are charged with managing but in areas of management responsibility. It is becoming increasingly obvious that if we are to succeed in controlling the quality of our environment, as much as possible we must manage our resources as an integrated whole. Comprehensive planning must be applied to the whole field of natural resource management if we are to succeed in balancing economic growth with environmental quality in order to achieve an optimum quality of life.
The emotional reaction to some of the conspicuous ecological problems that we have confronted in recent years has brought a consciousness of the pollution challenge, of the necessity of preserving our environment. But it has also brought us dangerously near to making some very serious errors through overreacting. The fact, of course, is that pollution control is not without cost.
I believe that control measures must inevitably be applied. The problem is how to apply them at a cost that our economy and society can bear. I suppose the costs that will confront this society, as it seeks to improve the ecology, will be reflected in two general ways. First, there will be a great deal of pressure on the public sector to provide services and facilities which will improve the disposition of waste and improve our methods of handling the materials that flow from human activity. On the other hand, we will impose great costs on industries, and these are properly chargeable to them. Many industries operate at a given cost because they are free to dispose of their waste products without any regard for the social cost or the cost to the environment; and, of course, Canadians will demand that they absorb these costs in their industrial processes. These costs will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. So we get right back to ourselves: we will pay for this improved standard of environment one way or another, be it through taxes or through higher prices of the commodities and services that we use and absorb.
The massive offshore oil-spill of January, 1969, in the Santa Barbara channel of California led to dire forecasts
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week that the channel would be a dead sea and a marine desert ever after. This is perhaps one of the great benefits that could flow from the bill which the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) has put before us. At the time this oil-spill was very much in the news, we were faced with new reports along the following lines:
Conservationists ... fear that Santa Barbara channel will become what they are calling a dead sea from oil pollution.
Marine biologists fear the worst for the balance of nature ... The full damage to sea life, they say, may never be measured.
Commercial fishermen in the area now claim that their business is going to be destroyed for years.
Life magazine rather outdid itself in a bit of biblical prose: "Now the churning of our passage was dark in a sea gone dead". It was beautiful!
The University of Southern California was endowed with a sum in the order of $250,000 by the petroleum industry, with absolutely no strings attached; the only condition was that the industry would exercise no control or influence over the project, its findings or its publications. The direction of the study was under an Australian marine biologist, Dr. Dale Straughan. The reports have finally come in. Dr. Straughan reported, at the recent international pollution conference held in Rome, no significant deviation from the expected kinds and abundance of fish eggs and larvae in the area. She reported that a survey of the sandy beaches over 12 months following the oil-spill failed to pinpoint any damage due to oil pollution. Researchers did detect an over-all decrease in intertidal zones, but the decrease occurred on shores far removed from the Santa Barbara spill, as well as on those fouled by oil. Dr. Straughan commented:
This decrease was not associated with oil pollution but generally with increased human activity on some beaches and increased amounts of chronic pollution other than oil.
In terms of fisheries' analysis, the California department of fish and game announced as follows:
all fish appeared healthy and (it was) . . . unable to find any indications of impairment in the food chains or damage to the fish populations.
Commercial catches by Santa Barbara-based fishermen were small when oil was on the water and the fishermen were remaining in port. However, boats from other ports continued to fish the channel. The department stated as follows:
Comparison of the total commercial fish catch from the Santa Barbara channel and channel islands for these six months in 1969 . . . with the same six months in 1968 . . . shows no decrease in catch for the area. At the time of this spill, living birds in the channel numbered 12,000. By May the population rose to 85,000 because of seasonal migration.
Mortality from all causes, including oil, is estimated to have been between 4,500 and 5,000 birds-
So we see that in a highly emotional, highly publicized, highly charged situation-certainly dramatic and spectacular in terms of pollution of the environment-in fact the after-effects were not as predicted by those who cried so emotionally at the time. Perhaps nature does have a

January 22, 1971
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week somewhat greater capacity than we give her credit for to cope with natural disasters.
While we are on the subject of the bill, Mr. Speaker, another area of education which could certainly be undertaken covers some of the positive advantages. For the last 23 years or so, oil drilling has taken place in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of the United States. In that time, over 11,000 wells have been drilled and of these only 30 have gone out of control. During the same period in the same area, commercial fishing has soared while in other waters it has declined. During the past decade the commercial fish catch in U.S. waters off New England, the middle-Atlantic, the south Atlantic and off the west coast declined by as much as 750 million pounds. In the Gulf it increased by 600 million pounds. Commercial fishing in the Gulf landed only 250 million pounds in 1940, 800 million pounds in 1955, and in 1969 this increased to 1.6 billion pounds.
The safe production of petroleum products in offshore areas is crucial. No one is suggesting that anyone should proceed with this activity if there is danger to the ecology or to nature, but the fact is that it is of great value to humanity to develop safe ways of getting petroleum from under the sea. Estimated reserves of offshore areas total about 20 per cent of the world's reserves.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. Very respectfully, I bring to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary that the bill the House is considering is a very short and simple one. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would assist me by relating to the bill his remarks on petroleum exploration.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it was my impression that the intention of the bill was to designate a Canadian national pollution awareness week. Therefore, I would have thought that awareness of some of the more dramatic and spectacular causes of pollution would be related to the subject matter of the bill. This question has been to the forefront in Canada, certainly during the life of the current Parliament.
I do not regard the form letter as a particularly effective method of political pressure, but a year ago in Calgary there was an effective form letter, prepared by school children, urging action with respect to pollution. One of the recommendations in the letter was that we be limited to one automobile per family. It is interesting that in the letters sent to me by the students themselves, this recommendation was retained-but in four out of five of the letters they had induced their parents to sign, the parents had scratched out that particular recommendation. This only confirms my impression that while almost every intelligent person is concerned about pollution, very few are prepared to admit that they, as individuals, are contributing to it. Consistent with that attitude, they do not see why they should be expected to change their habits, much less make any sacrifice in comfort, convenience or efficiency in the interest of reducing or eliminating a source of pollution.
There are very few, if any, sources of pollution that do not have people, human activity, at their root. Only those involving human activity can be successfully legislated
against. Workable regulations to limit and to reserve pollution will in every case demand that some people change their ways. Of course, we are all for that until we find that we are expected to make the sacrifice because we believe-sincerely, I am sure-that the benefit of our particular activity far outweighs its cost to the environment. The attitude is: Let us by all means render the pulp and paper industry uneconomic by shutting down all the old mills until effective antipollution devices are invented and installed, but do not ask me to stop idling my car on a winter's morning or burning autumn leaves.
That is why I say the purpose of this bill, the desire to pinpoint the significance of pollution in all ways, the significance of the cost of pollution to our environment and to our society, the benefits of controlling and reversing it, and the cost that we must pay in achieving that benefit, must all be made known to the public before emotional steps are taken. That is why I heartily endorse the purpose of the bill and hope it goes to committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I had a speech prepared, to deliver on this most interesting bill, but since it seems to be the disposition of the House to get on with this important measure I shall only say that I take great pleasure in supporting the bill. I listened with amazement to the irrelevant remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary, who literally polluted the air with his verbal barrage. I can only say that he is not genuinely concerned for this bill, moved by his colleague in all good faith. But I assure the hon. member that we on this side of the House support him. We support his intention, we commend him for it and we hope the bill passes.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in the discussion on the bill proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) I say at once that I and my colleagues have no objection to passing it. I do not think it will do any particular good, but on the other hand, unlike some of the other proposals put forward from the government side, I do not think it will do any particular harm.
The hon. member and I come from the lower mainland of British Columbia. That part of Canada needs no pollution awareness week to make its people aware of pollution. The people in the lower mainland of B.C. are aware of it 52 weeks of every year: they are aware of pollution by land, sea, air and sound. In that area, one half of one per cent of the land area of the province, live half the population of the province; and as somebody said earlier, where there is a concentration of people, you have potential pollution. We have real pollution in our area. For one thing, we have the Fraser River winding like a sewer through the lower mainland, polluted for years with the discharge of residential and industrial waste. Just recently a survey was made of it by a voluntary organization called SPEC. Some 51 students did an excellent job studying pollution of the Fraser. They presented a report incorporating detailed anti-pollution measures. That report is very appropriate to our discussions today.
As I say, the proposal put forward by the hon. member will do no harm, but I do not think it will do any good. It

January 22, 1971

seems to me that we should allow this bill to pass so that more Canadians may become aware of our pollution difficulties. I think, also, that what is needed is not a week devoted to pollution awareness, or more studies on pollution, but action under the law. We should act, even under the criminal law, to curb existing pollution, including pollution on the lower mainland of British Columbia. Having said that, I resume my seat with the hope that this measure will pass.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few brief comments on this bill. First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Goode) for bringing the bill before the House. I think it makes a great deal of sense for Canadians to be made aware of our pollution problems. I suggest that when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works it be re-named the Canadian National Environment Week Act. I suggest this because I believe that when we talk about pollution we talk in negative terms, whereas when we talk about the environment we talk positively.
I support the provision of the bill. I should like to see it go to committee. I hope that when the committee has a chance to examine the bill, it will also examine thoroughly the effect on our environment of those matters which already have been touched upon by this House. I commend the hon. member and support the provisions of this bill.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly, perhaps for not more than two minutes, to talk about the bill. May I, too, congratulate the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) on his iniative, his concern and his thoughtfulness in bringing forward this kind of bill. I have only one reservation: I do not know if the bill will do any good, but I agree with the hon. member from the NDP who said that it cannot do any harm. That is my only reservation. If the hon. member is to speak before the debate closes, he might touch on this point.
I wonder if a week is long enough. I am sure the hon. member would not find it difficult to persuade members on this side of the House to extend the period to one month, or to take in the whole of 1971.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to speak briefly on Bill C-25 now before the House. Our group does not intend to talk-out the bill. However, I wish to make a few remarks in connection with it. The bill is entitled "An act respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week". I have not yet made up my mind whether the title of "National Environment Week" suggested by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) is better than the present title. Personally, I believe there is a need to make the public of Canada aware, by any means available, of the pollution problems facing us. I think the House generally ought to endorse such an objective.
As I say, we endorse the principle of the bill. I for one feel it is an excellent idea that one week be set aside
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week
as national pollution awareness week. If the legislation were passed, I am certain we should find a number of schools, organizations and individuals concentrating upon the major environmental problems which face us. Perhaps that would give school students and individuals in various organizations throughout Canada a chance to learn a little more about the serious difficulties that mankind and the Canadian environment face. I therefore feel that either a national environment week or a Canadian national pollution awareness week would be of benefit in educating our people about our pollution difficulties.
One or two small matters worry me about bills of this kind. I want to make it crystal clear that bills such as this can do some good. But it is amazing that amendments moved by members on this side of the House, which could have done as much good as this bill or even better, have not been accepted. What has happened, Mr. Speaker? We on this side have not heard one word of support from members on the government side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: Time and time again we have made suggestions which if accepted would have tightened legislation dealing with pollution. It is time for backbenchers on the Liberal side of the House to realize that all groups can assist in bringing forward good legislation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: I see that I have ample time for speaking, Mr. Speaker. May I point out two or three things which have happened in the control of pollution in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Don't kill the bill.


Randolph Harding: This bill deals with pollution. Little more than six months ago we passed the Canada Water Act. At that time members of the opposition fought for national standards. We lost the fight in the committee and on the floor of the House.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is all mixed up.


Randolph Harding: No, I am not mixed up.


An hon. Member:: You are.


Randolph Harding: What is happening now, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is going from one end of Canada to the other demanding national standards, the same standards that the Conservative party, the New Democratic Party and the Credi-tiste party fought for only six or seven months ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: At that time our Liberal friends without exception voted against the principle of national standards.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
2692

January 22, 1971
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week


Louis-Roland Comeau: That includes the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange).


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, this is just one more example of the need for full co-operation among all groups in this field. Without doubt, before this session of Parliament ends we shall have national standards or we shall see them introduced. The minister tells us they are being drafted. Who was right? We were right and the government was wrong. The government should have been with us in the fight for national standards six or seven months ago.


An hon. Member:: Don't kill the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair asked
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) to observe and come within the terms of relevancy. I suggest to the hon. member who now has the floor that his remarks are somewhat outside the scope of the bill that the House is considering.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The point I have been trying to make is this: We should be aware at all times of the need for pollution control. I think hon. members in the government party were not very much aware of it when the proposition was before the House. There is one more point I wish to make. We need to be aware of pollution problems. Any suggestion that we can allow factories to pollute our waterways if they pay effluent fees is utter nonsense. Again, we fought about this matter six or seven months ago. Hon. members of the House must be aware of problems of this type.
Although one or two more members wish to speak, I should very much like to hear the sponsor of the bill winding up the debate. We should allow him a few minutes to explain his reasons for introducing the bill. Let him make the speech he prepared in connection with his bill. I shall say no more. Although I have been somewhat critical of past actions, Mr. Speaker, I make it crystal clear that I endorse the principle of the bill. I shall vote for the bill and try to push it through the committee when it is referred to it.
e (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algcma):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to join in the debate on this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: I am glad to have such wonderful applause, especially from the hon. member for St. John s East (Mr. McGrath). He is a very close friend and 1 am glad he is supporting the bill. Sometimes we do not receive the kind of support we should receive from the opposition when dealing with good legislation such as is placed before the House by the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-Delta (Mr. Goode). This bill would proclaim a Canadian national pollution awareness week. The idea is to make Canadians more aware of the problem of pollution in order that future generations shall join in undertaking special projects during that week. They would then, throughout the year, practice the objectives and ideals established during that week.

The hon. member who preceded me talked about national water standards. I spent many weeks on the resources committee which drafted the Canada Water Act. I thought it was best to have the highest standard that could be achieved in any water basin or river system, rather than establish from the centre levels of water quality throughout the country. Although "national standards" is a nice catch-phrase, it is really a facade. National standards would be very difficult to work out in practice. People would contravene the regulations because it would be impossible to have one standard throughout the country.
Last week the joint constitutional committee of the Senate and House of Commons travelled across Canada. Briefs were presented throughout British Columbia and the lower part of Alberta. These briefs dealt more with pollution control than any other topic. Many people felt this should be a constitutional responsibility of the government and not in the area of divided jurisdiction, which is the case at present. As we listened to the briefs presented, I became painfully aware that the people of western Canada are unaware of the Canada Water Act. They are not aware of the very ingenious way in which it could be used in our present situation. The federal and provincial governments can delegate control of pollution of our environment, waters and river basins to water management agencies. One of the first duties of Parliament and agencies charged with pollution should be to make people aware that there is a Canada Water Act. This should be done during national pollution awareness week. Canadians can demand that the federal and provincial governments establish water management agencies for each river system, and in this way pollution could be controlled.
It is important that we have local participation. This is the value of local, water management agencies. People who live near a river basin can take an active part in this committee. They are the ones concerned with pollution in the area. I would like to see four water management agencies established in the province of Ontario, one for the Ottawa river, one for the two lower lakes-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. The Chair suggested to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), and he agreed, that the bill under debate is very narrow in scope. We are not considering the Canada Water Act which was passed by Parliament some months ago. I ask hon. members to confine their remarks to the bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to round out what a national pollution awareness week could do. It could make people in the province of Ontario aware of the need to establish water management agencies though-out the province. I suggest that there should be one agency for the Ottawa River which would involve the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and the federal government. There should be one for the two lower lakes, sometimes called the dirty lakes-Lake Erie and Lake Ontario. There should also be an agency for Lake Superior and Lake Huron, which are less polluted and one for the rivers flowing into James Bay and Hudson Bay.
January 22, 1971

I realize that many hon. members wish to speak on this bill, and I do not want to be accused of speaking too long. I support the bill; it has value and if passed could do a great deal to publicize this problem.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, in the remaining ten minutes there is plenty of time to pass the bill. I am irritated by the fact that members who pretend to be great saviours with regard to pollution are opposed to everything that is presented in committee. The government is not aware of pollution; they are not aware that Canadians cannot swim in clean water and breathe clean air. The government has not put its money where its mouth is. If this bill makes the government aware of pollution, I think all hon. members should support it.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my comments it would be advisable to read the bill now under consideration since the sponsor has refused to reveal to the House the reasons which led him to introduce that bill.
Bill C-25 which reads as follows:
An Act respecting Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	This Act may he cited as the Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week.
2.	Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the second week in March shall be kept and observed under the name of Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week.
I wonder if members have taken the trouble of reading this bill. It is enlightening in certain respects and this is the question, Mr. Speaker, that I want to deal with this afternoon.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the Parliamentary Secretary permit a question? If a private member presented a bill to set up little league baseball, would the government allow that bill to pass? Surely the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to allow this bill, setting up a national pollution awareness week, to pass.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's-East has not quite understood the reason for my rising. I must indicate now that I fully support this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: I feel however that it could undergo certain changes for the better. If one considers the text a little more, one sees that the bill aims at the promulgation, by the federal government, of a Canadian National Pollution Awareness Week.
The English version is somewhat different, Mr. Speaker, for it reads:
23786-29^
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week
In French the term used is "lutte" and in English "awareness". In my opinion, those are two different things. From the beginning, there is-although the purpose of the bill might be good and noble and the bill desirable and commendable-a contradiction in the drafting of the texts. Any committee to which the bill would be referred should first take the time to clarify the matter.
The object of the bill is obviously to draw the attention of the public to an important problem. That is the aim of any proclamation that seeks to reserve a day, a week or a month of the year to publicize a product or commemorate the day a man was born or passed away.
Mr. Speaker, these interruptions rising from all sides of the House disturb me somewhat.
As I was saying, the government has decided from time to time to set aside certain days, weeks or months during the year to emphasize something, to draw public attention to a problem and call on the public to commemorate something. However, I believe the government's objective is also to call the publics' attention to its concern with such matters, which is very important.
I think we cannot say now that the government is not interested in anything regarding environmental pollution and conservation. In fact, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry repeatedly demonstrated his concern in this field. This problem has been brought to our attention and we all recognize its urgency.


An hon. Member:: Wrong!


Eymard G. Corbin: I dare say it is the chief concern of all nations today as evidenced by the many conferences being held on this matter. Every year, or every other year, these conferences grow in universality and in importance and even the United Nations are much concerned with the problems of environmental pollution and conservation.
Pollution affects water, air, the earth and forests and I believe the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) has tried to deal with the over-all pollution of our various environments.
With more time at my disposal, I could make a list of the efforts made at all levels of governments, provincial or municipal, and in other countries to fight pollution.
As I said, along with other members from all parties, this is a good bill. Some of us suggested that it would not make a great difference if we did not pass it. Of course, this is a matter of opinion.
The measure is desirable but I must say that in people's minds it would not add much, I think, to the seriousness of the problem affecting us all.


An hon. Member:: Two minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raise this point before five

January 22, 1971
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week o'clock to ask whether the House would give unanimous consent for us to sit beyond five o'clock for half an hour or so in order that the Parliamentary Secretary may complete his speech, and that the hon. member from Burnaby-Richmond-Belta (Mr. Goode) may make his comments and thus conclude the debate. I am sure that we on this side would give our consent to such a proposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, before going on with my remarks, I should like sincerely to thank my colleagues for this opportunity to analyze thoroughly certain ideas related to the bill before us. I was afraid I would not have enough time to keep on with my remarks.
I was just saying that the bill would not change much in people's minds as to the seriousness of the pollution problem.
On the other hand, it could be that some people who have remained indifferent up to now will react as the result of a vigorous advertising campaign, that would put right under their noses the fact that the second week in March will be National Pollution Awareness Week.
They may hear such a proclamation over the radio, upon getting up in the morning. They may make a special effort in their personal life to contribute in their own way, to the fight against pollution.
That is possible but such a proclamation would not make things very different, I think. It is, nevertheless interesting to recall the general unconcern shown by the public as to the quality of the environment until the press took hold of the problem, first as sensational news and then gradually to deal with it as a permanent problem in our society.
As for the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, he objects to the second week in March being chosen. Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we had no occasion to hear the hon. member explain why.
I for one see no objection to it. For the hon. member, the second week in March heralds the end of the winter and the coming of spring. However, because of the piling up of waste, decay and debris almost everywhere, especially along the roads, this would have been a fine opportunity to call the public's attention to pollution.
On the other hand, the first or second week in September might have been the appropriate time of the year to make people aware of pollution. During the first or second week in September, students usually go back to school, and God knows how much waste holiday-makers leave behind them.
Finally, this is a matter of personal opinion, and if the government decides to proclaim such a week, it may, at its discretion, set aside the week it deems appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I note that this bill should normally be referred to the National Resources and Public Works Committee. This committee is probably a remain of the previous committee system, when no special committee on pollution existed. However, Mr. Speaker, a special committee is today responsible for studying the various effects of pollution on our environment, and it is ably chaired by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson), now in the house.
In my opinion, the bill should be sent to that committee and not to the Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Special Committee on Pollution are already experts and take a real and personal interest in all questions relating to pollution.
It is interesting to note the great number of members who have taken the floor briefly this afternoon to support this bill. This indicates the major concern of all Canadians with regard to this problem which is getting worse everyday. We have yet to grasp the seriousness and implications of this evil. The NDP members have stated that this measure entailed no special harm nor good. They are sitting on the fence. You must be either for or against a measure and I would have liked them to state more precisely their position on this subject.
The opposition members have also expressed some interest in this bill. However, their speeches have been quite brief. It would have been interesting to hear them elaborate on this program.
However, hon. members should not forget that such a bill, if it is passed, will forcibly entail advertising expenses if we want its proclamation to have any effect. Sustained publicity in newspapers, weeklies and dailies, in magazines, on radio and on television, will be necessary. Much literature will have to be distributed throughout the country and particularly in the schools. It should be aimed mainly at the young generation.
I referred to schoolboys and schoolgirls, Mr. Speaker, but I could also talk about junior college and university students, young men and young women who make up a generation which more than any other in the history of the world is aware of the very serious threat of pollution.

In conclusion, I would say that if the people are not now aware of the stench, filth and noise lying around them, then God help them: they need new eyes, noses and ears. I do not think that a particular week set aside to make the public more aware of this problem will make very much difference in the long run. However, as I have said, I do not oppose the bill. For one thing, it will provide another good occasion for all members of the House to let the country know their personal feelings in regard to our efforts to abate pollution.
What the bill is probably trying to promote-at least, this was suggested by one hon. member-is the need for greater consciousness of improvement of our environment. I lay the emphasis on the word "improvement"-
January 22, 1971

improvement of the environment, not so much awareness of pollution.
We have plenty of pollution as it is; we should concentrate our efforts in the field of cleaning up the pollution. In this sense I think we should develop more publicity so that each individual man, woman and child will put a personal effort into cleaning up first of all, the immediate municipalities in which they live and then the whole world.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that in suggesting we extend our time for half an hour my colleague was concerned about the fact that many members of this House wish to refer to pollution problems in their areas. It seems that the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Goode) believes that in one week we can do something about pollution because of an awareness of it.
I should like to say in about two minutes that it is clear every municipal council in Canada is aware of the pollution problems in their areas. They are aware of pollution in streams and lakes. This is manifested by the fact that they have asked the federal government for assistance to construct sewage disposal plants. Most of these requests have been rejected. We are aware that these municipalities have had little or no co-operation from the federal government in their plans to clean up rivers and lakes. We are also aware that our young people have been encouraged to participate in various anti-pollution programs. I suggest they could work more efficiently on a program to clean up the banks of the rivers in our country. We are aware that the many anti-pollution programs underway in our country require assistance.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta suggests that in one week we can make everyone aware of the fact that we should do something about pollution. I suggest that in the last year we tried to persuade the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to agree to setting aside one day to be known as survival day. In a very flippant way he suggested this might mean another holiday for the entire nation. Does the hon. member think that because he has brought in a bill we can in one week do
Canadian Pollution Awareness Week much in respect of anti-pollution across Canada and that this will mean something specific to the nation? If he thinks this bill will make people more aware of what can be done in respect of pollution, I wish him well.
I am sure people throughout this nation will find it ironic that it was left to a Liberal backbencher to bring in such a bill, that member being a supporter of a government which should do something to rectify the problems we face. There is an awareness to the problems of pollution. I am sure that what is required is a little initiative and concern on the part of the government. Perhaps in this way we could rectify the situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise hon. members that if the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta speaks now, he will close the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Make it good.


Thomas Henry Goode: This being Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, I know that hon. members would like to get back to their families, so I will not speak at length. I thank hon. members opposite and those of my own party for cooperating with me in respect of this measure. I am sure the House is unanimous in its concern for the environment of Canada. As a final comment I would say that I have no objection to the title of the bill being changed to read "National Environment Week". When it is referred to the committee, gi will enjoy working with my friends on this matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the order made earlier by unanimous consent, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At 5.13 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, January 25, 1971