1971-02-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Usually, when one presents such a request under Standing Order 43, it is assumed that one is asking for the entire House to agree to the substance of the proposition. In this case I know that the substance of what I am asking for has not yet been agreed to; therefore I am simply asking for what is provided in Standing Order 43, namely, that consent be given to the making of the motion so the House can decide whether it agrees with the substance of the proposition.
Therefore, in view of the $75 million welfare budget in the city of Toronto and similar high costs in other cities and in other parts of the country I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
That this House urges the government to give immediate consideration to the raising of the federal share of costs under the Canada Assistance Plan from 50 per cent to 65 per cent during any fiscal year in which unemployment in Canada exceeds 3 per cent of the labour force.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has explained, he requires the unanimous consent of the House in order that the motion can be put. I have to inquire whether there is such unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity so the motion cannot be put.



AIR CANADA


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2) I wish
to table in the two official languages the report of the board of inquiry into the accident at Toronto International Airport, Malton, Ontario, to Air Canada DC-8-CF-TIW aircraft on July 5, 1970, held before the Hon. Mr. Justice Hugh F. Gibson, Commissioner.



CLEAN AIR ACT


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution.


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

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the imminent takeover and foreign control of Home Oil Company of Calgary by Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky, and the vital necessity for Parliament to consider ways and means of preventing the last major Canadian-owned and controlled oil company from being sold to non-residents, this subject being of equal importance to the Prime Minister's interruption of an emergency debate on March 2, 1971, to announce that the government would prevent the sale of control in Denison Mines Limited to non-residents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has given the notice required under Standing Order 26, and I have considered the matter most attentively. The matter raised by the hon. member

February 9, 1971
The Canadian Economy
is one which is of national interest and concern to all members of the House. This has been indicated by the number of questions which have been asked on a number of days during the last week or so. Indeed, it seems to me that this is the very kind of situation which appears to be contemplated by Standing Order 26. In ordinary circumstances, the motion could very well have been put to the House.
The spirit of the Standing Order is that hon. members should be given an opportunity to discuss an urgent matter of national importance within a reasonable time. However, it has already been indicated to the House that tomorrow and Thursday would be set aside for the consideration of the budget debate. These will be the last two days spent on that debate. These two days will provide an opportunity to consider the problem raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
I had some reservations about this possibility at first, thinking that a number of hon. members had already taken part in the budget debate. But since only two hon. members spoke on the main motion-the others spoke on the amendment and subamendment-just about every hon. member except two will have an opportunity, if they want to and provided the necessary time is available, to participate in the debate. If I may make a suggestion, which may be beyond my competence and jurisdiction, an arrangement might be made among the House Leaders regarding the setting of a time limitation of the speeches which can be made during the next two days. In other words, I suggest to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands that it would be very difficult for the Chair on the eve of a general debate to say that we should have a special debate under the terms of Standing Order 26.
Again I insist that I recognize that this is the kind of matter which might very well be the subject of a debate under the provisions of Standing Order 26, but because there has already been an indication that tomorrow and the day after will be provided for the study of problems such as this one I do not think I could allow the hon. member's motion at this time.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before you call oral questions I would like to file what I might call an oral caveat with regard to Bill C-219, dealing with the Canada Development Corporation. Before the bill is presented for second reading we intend to argue that it is a hybrid bill and as such it is subject to certain consequences, if this is so declared by Your Honour. It may well be that because of precedents the argument must be made before second reading is called. I am giving the government due notice of our intention so that before the bill is called we may have the opportunity to argue the point.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister arising out of the apparent tightening of the monetary supply by the Bank of Canada in recent times. Does this indicate a difference of opinion between the government of Canada and the Bank of Canada with regard to appropriate economic policies of the day, and that the primary concern of the Bank of Canada relates to inflation whereas the government has been indicating that its primary concern at the moment is expansion?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that I know of no difference in view between the bank and the government on economic policy. I might add one comment, that it is the purpose of the government, and I believe of the bank, to promote steady and sustainable expansion.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: "Wrong-way Corrigan" again.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the Acting Prime Minister has indicated that there is no difference of opinion, is the government of Canada concerned that the economy of Canada is currently expanding too rapidly or that interest rates are falling too rapidly?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to get into a discussion on monetary policy on this occasion but, as I said in answer to the first question, if we are going to ensure high levels of employment in the future it is important that we are embarked on a sustainable increase in our gross national product and in our general activity. The worst possible thing would be sudden inflation and a subsequent recession.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Acting Prime Minister would agree with the importance of removing all possible uncertainties that may stand in the way of expansion. Would he have the government take into consideration a presentation to the House as to just what the policy of the government and the Bank of Canada is so that the whole country will know where they fit and uncertainties of this sort, creating doubts and some confusion, may be avoided, particularly in view of the very difficult outlook facing the country regarding unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the Acting Prime Minister replies I should suggest that the question as asked invites a rather general statement, and I wonder if the Acting Prime Minister should be allowed to make that kind of statement at this time. It should normally be made on motions.
February 9, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: As Your Honour has said, we are resuming the budget debate tomorrow and this would be an excellent topic for discussion at that time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the Acting Prime Minister for a lengthy statement. I simply asked him whether the government would take this into consideration.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who seems to have difficulty being in his place on those days when he is on the roster, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister with reference to the negotiations which have been going on between the Home Oil Company and Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky regarding a takeover of the former by the latter. Can he give the House any information on whether or not an agreement has been reached and what is the nature of that agreement?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member repeat the question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am
asking the Acting Prime Minister if the discussions which have been going on for some time between the Home Oil Company and Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky have been completed and if any agreement has been reached?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the discussions are continuing and that no decision has yet been reached.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on February 2, as recorded on page 2976 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources "whether the government is prepared to exercise the same powers with respect to Home Oil Company remaining in Canadian hands as were exercised by the government with respect to Denison Mines." The minister replied at that time:
I cannot speak for the government in that regard at this time. That would be a matter for the government to decide.
Since that was some days ago I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if the government has looked into this matter and if he can now assure the House that the government is prepared to exercise all the necessary powers, including asking Parliament for the necessary legislation, to prevent the takeover of Home Oil Company of Calgary by Ashland Oil Incorporated of Kentucky?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that undertaking. As the minister has said, discussions are going on
Inquiries of the Ministry
now among the various parties, including the minister, to do everything possible to see that this company remains in Canadian hands. As the hon. member knows, in the case of Denison the federal authority had declared that uranium was a work for the general advantage of Canada. In that case there was no problem with respect to constitutional authority. I do not think the situation is quite as clear with respect to oil.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister if I am to take from his remarks that the government considers that the retention in Canadian hands of a share in the oil industry, which in the foreseeable future will probably be the largest industry in Canada, is not just as important as keeping control of part of the uranium industry in Canadian hands?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I think there might be some resistance on the part of the provinces if the federal Parliament were to take complete jurisdiction over oil. That, it seems to me, is the difference between the uranium case, in which many years ago a declaration was made that uranium is a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the kind of situation that now exists in the oil industry.



PROJECTED TAKEOVER OF HOME OIL BY UNITED STATES


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the position of the government of Canada that under existing Canadian tax laws it would be possible for another Canadian company to compete with a United States company in acquisition of the control of Home Oil Company or any similar company? Is the government pretending that the Canadian company would be on any grounds of equality in connection with such negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour may recall that the same question was directed to my colleague, the Minister of Finance, last week. I have nothing to add to what he said then.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why does the minister not want to answer the question?


Mr. Woolliams:: I thought the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said the opposite.



POSSIBLE STOPPAGE OF OFFSHORE SUPPLY-CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR EASTERN CANADA- FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING PIPELINE

['Order, please. We are running short of time.']
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but since he is not in attendance, I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.

February 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Because of the threatened embargo by the oil-producing nations and bearing in mind the limited oil reserves which according to some experts would barely provide for our domestic consumption for a period of 16 days, would the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government is considering a speedier delivery of oil from Western Canada to our Eastern areas by sponsoring the building of a pipeline or by providing some other means of transportation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to correct a story that has appeared in the newspapers that may have caused some alarm. There are very much larger reserves of oil in Canada than those mentioned in the newspaper report referred to by the hon. member.


Mr. Harkness:: Where?


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether the government intends to ask impartial and independent experts to make an investigation or a study of the economic value of a Trans-Canadian pipeline?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. The question of constructing a pipeline is, as the House knows, an active one and has been for some time, but so far there has been no application for the building of a pipeline, which would be the normal course of events.
May I add to the answer I gave to the previous question, in order to give some reassurance in the present circumstances. There should be somewhat over 60 days supply of product available for the eastern Canadian market at the present time.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, has the minister, on behalf of the Canadian government, had any discussions with the United States government with respect to any contingency arrangements to supply United States oil to eastern Canada if there should be an embargo?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a hypothetical question. We had some discussions when the ministers and secretaries were gathered in Ottawa on the general situation. At the moment we see no reason for any emergency meetings to deal with this hypothetical situation. It is still our hope that there will be no emergency whatever.



Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in connection with his answer with regard to a pipeline. In view of
the petroleum situation and the economic situation, particularly in this country, will the government initiate and promote a feasibility study to ascertain the economics of building a pipeline from western Canada to supply central and other parts of Canada with petroleum?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. It is not the intention of the government to initiate any such study. If the economics of the situation justify building a pipeline to Montreal, for example, there are many companies in this country with sufficient information which can make the necessary application for the building of such a pipeline.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Does the Acting Prime Minister intend to leave this serious economic matter to foreign controlled companies to decide for the good of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows the Trans-Canada Pipe Line is almost wholly Canadian owned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and then go on to another subject.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I remind the Acting Prime Minister that he is talking about the trans-Canada gas pipeline, not the interprovincial oil pipeline which is owned by a subsidiary of Standard Oil.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
minister stated that there are 60 days oil supply in reserve in eastern Canada. What is this statement based on in view of the fact that the storage capacity is 15 million barrels of crude oil and 54 million barrels of crude oil products, which represents approximately three weeks supply? What is the source of the minister's optimistic estimate of 60 days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we are now entering the field of debate between the hon. member and the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What is the source upon which the minister bases his 60-day estimate?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in anticipation of these questions being asked I asked the National Energy Board to advise me with regard to the position because they were rather concerned about the reports which appeared in the papers. Perhaps I could give the answer to the hon. member's question. The 16-day figure given for Canada is for crude oil refinery throughout. There are, however, some 50 days product supply on hand. Available crude oil would provide another 14 to 15 days product supply. Therefore there is somewhat over 60 days product supply available for the eastern Canadian market.

February 9, 1971


WELFARE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Since welfare costs in Metropolitan Toronto have risen 50 per cent above what they were a year ago because of excessive unemployment, a pattern which has developed in municipalities right across the country, is the government now giving consideration to taking steps to help these municipalities to meet these very high costs which have been brought about by excessive unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression the question asked by the hon. member, important though it may be, has been asked at least a few times during the past few days. Possibly the hon. member might like to rephrase the question. He is really asking a question which has been asked in those precise terms in the past few days.


George Harris Hees: I will make my question a little more specific. Is the government giving consideration to assisting Metropolitan Toronto which is faced with very high costs because of excessive unemployment? This question has not been asked, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have received requests from many cities and provinces for an increase in the proportion of welfare costs. As has been stated on a number of occasions when the same question has been asked day after day, the matter is under consideration.


George Harris Hees: Can the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the real reason the government is refusing to assist these municipalities is the fact that the Prime Minister's just society is running out of cash as well as steam?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to the request of the mayor of the city of Toronto to assist in compiling a list of public works to give employment in Toronto?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally seen these requests but I am sure they will receive every consideration.


PROVISION OF MAKE-WORK PROJECTS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Public Works.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Is it the policy of his department, in line with the policy of the government, to expedite the decision-making process in relation to public works projects and to proceed with projects as a make-work effort? I ask him in all seriousness, if this is the case would he accept the recommendations of Members of Parliament?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered a like question in the affirmative about ten days ago.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State and the Minister without Portfolio who reports for Information Canada I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation decided to get rid of non-Canadian accents, and can we expect to see much less of Ron Collister, Gordon Donaldson and all the rest?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I hope that the applause from the government side of the House was in approval of these persons. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether or not the government agrees with the view expressed by Knowlton Nash, the CBC's director of information, that "all things being equal, we would prefer Canadian voices"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether this is a question or a representation, but I will take it into account.


John George Diefenbaker: Then may I ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister have a statement made, and at the same time advise that the CBC should give consideration to purging filth, pornography and that kind of programs that are all too general these days?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom has gone into receivership, and in view of the announcement yesterday that Lock-

February 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
heed Aircraft Corporation of Canada is attempting to arrange to have the RB-211 engine built by a Canadian based company, what action is the government prepared to take to encourage this possible opportunity for additional work in the Canadian aircraft industry?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that it is too early for me to comment on this matter. The subject is still extremely hot and the companies involved are still looking for a way through this situation. I might observe, though, that if the project is too big for Rolls-Royce of England, with the full support of the British government, in co-operation with one of the biggest U.S. companies, to handle, it might be a bit too big for Canada too. Nevertheless, we will be looking at all avenues, Mr. Speaker.


HOLLS-ROYCE FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES-CONTRACTS HELD BY CANADIAN FIRMS RESPECTING JET ENGINES FOR LOCKHEED
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate to the House the value of the contracts held by Canadian companies under the Rolls-Royce project to supply these RB-211 jet engines to Lockheed?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I do not have that figure. I might try to find it, but I will acknowledge the fact that these contracts were very important, especially to some Canadian companies who counted on them very much.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister, having looked into the matter, make a statement to the House indicating the amount of the contracts, the number of people employed and what measures, if any, the government is going to take to help the companies and the men concerned to meet the problems that may arise as the result of the cancellation of these contracts?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will try to include as much
as I can in my answer to the question.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce concerning the questions and answers about the Rolls-Royce company and related companies. Is the minister discussing with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, the question whether or not the Canadian dollar should be pegged at the present time in view of the present rate of exchange, which has had a near disastrous effect on many secondary industries, particularly the aircraft and auto parts industries?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance is aware of whatever is true in all that. I do not think he would learn more by reading the question.


MIGRATORY BIRDS CONVENTION ACT
Mr. Thomas S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which may be of some concern to two or three ministers, but since it involves Canada's relationship with another state I will address it to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are negotiations under way with the United States concerning the amendment of the Migratory Birds Convention Act in order to give recognition to the aboriginal rights of our native people with regard to fishing and hunting? If so, can the minister say when there is likely to be some conclusion of this matter with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On March 13, 1970, a question was asked whether Air Canada's order for air buses would be switched from Lockheed to another manufacturer to ensure delivery. In view of the projected one-year delay in delivery of the Lockheed Tri-Star, what steps is the government going to take to keep Air Canada competitive in obtaining equipment and to rectify their error in giving the order to Lockheed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can merely repeat what I said on Friday, which is essentially what has just been said by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that at this moment it is not clear what the future plans are of Rolls-Royce vis-a-vis the Lockheed 1011. I can only say that Air Canada has the matter under constant review and will move just as soon as the situation has been clarified.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On Friday last the minister indicated that his department would not be proceeding as indicated

February 9, 1971

earlier with the construction of a causeway or bridge to Lennox Island Indian reservation but hoped that he would shortly be able to make an announcement with respect to the project. Is the minister able to make such an announcement today? If not, when might he be able to do so? Has the minister had any communication with the government of Prince Edward Island which was under the very firm impression that the project would go ahead this spring?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, that was our intention, but as the cost was found to be too great, we are reconsidering the proposal. As soon as we are able to submit a report to the House, I shall be happy to so inform the hon. member.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-ALLEGED BIGOTRY OF SUPERVISORS IN NOT ENSURING JOBS FOR NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Are the minister or his officials investigating the charge contained in a resolution passed by the Northwest Territories Council that his department is hiring as supervisors thinly disguised bigots who are doing little, if anything, to ensure that native people are hired for anything but unskilled positions?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, most of the civil servants in the Northwest Territories are hired locally by the government; it is answerable to the Council which adopted that resolution, copy of which I have yet to receive.
However, I want to point out to the hon. member that we have conferred much authority upon the government of the Northwest Territories, as the hon. member has requested so often.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the minister investigate the claim that a very high percentage of those employed on drilling crews, for which not much skill is required, are being recruited in southern Canada instead of from the native people in the territory?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is true that many of those who are hired come from the south, but I point out to the hon. member that two years ago we established a school in Edmonton to train Indians and Eskimos of the north as competent members of those crews. I think that last summer about 20 of them worked in those crews, and we hope that industry will be able to hire many more next season.
Inquiries of the Ministry


POLICY OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT RESPECTING HIRING OF NATIVE PEOPLE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is it the normal policy of the Department of Transport not to hire native people? I refer to the same report mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. If not, is the government going to investigate the allegations of discrimination and, if so, will the findings be made public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating substantially the same question that has already been asked. There may be new aspects to it and it might be easier for the minister to answer the hon. member's question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there certainly is no policy of not hiring native people-quite the contrary. As for the allegations in the item to which the hon. member has referred, I will undertake an investigation and I see no reason that the outcome should not be made public.


AGRICULTURE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the very serious problems which have been created as a result of provincial regulations interfering with the free flow of agricultural products, is the present federal-provincial conference dealing with this situation and is there any intention to suggest a solution?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not
sure, Mr. Speaker. My colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is at the conference today so perhaps it has got around to this item. Certainly it is our purpose to have a Canada with as few restrictions on interprovincial trade as possible.


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Does the minister intend, as suggested by some of his party's supporters during the week end, to introduce an amendment to the Criminal Code concerning condemna-

February 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
tions for contempt of court in order to allow a judge other than the presiding judge to make an objective decision as to whether or not a statement made by a witness or an accused is in contempt of court? Does not the minister believe that this formula would prevent some accused who intentionally insult the court from claiming that the judge is biased against them?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the minister who wants to reply to the hon. member for Charlevoix.

I understood that the hon. member for Athabasca was rising on a question of privilege. He should be given priority. Before he is recognized I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we are running short of time. We had a mini-debate on oil policy which took up quite a bit of time and we should move along as quickly as possible.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the proceedings but the translation was interrupted. There is no translation coming through at all.


Mr. Speaker:: The Solicitor General has the floor.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am so far not aware that delegates to a political conference have made any decision on this matter one way or another. But it is certainly not up to adepts of urban guerilla to dictate priorities to the government. The government has stated what its priorities were concerning the Criminal Code and I believe they are well known.


Martial Asselin: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not feel that would be one way to preserve the dignity of our courts and upgrade the role of our judges which is deteriorating disturbingly in Montreal now?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the dispute between Canada and the United States over sovereignty claims on Georges Bank, which lies midway between Yarmouth and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, has any progress been made or agreement reached that the median line, as set out in the 1958 Geneva Convention, is the accepted international boundary? I ask this question in view of the environmental hazards of offshore oil investigation and the need for establishing pollution control regulations in the area.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the discussions are still continuing but that no agreement has been reached.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it was 13 years ago as a result of the Geneva Conference that these discussions began, when can we expect the jurisdictional dispute regarding Georges Bank to be brought to a satisfactory conclusion?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just as soon as the United States agrees with our point of view we can settle it immediately. There is a problem between us and we are trying hard to reach an amicable settlement.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would stop giving us this kind of nonsense and begin exercising a little bit of initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In his absence I will direct it to the minister responsible. Following the program "Weekend" of last Sunday evening concerning the drug problem in Canada, would the minister inform the House whether his department was consulted regarding the showing of an illegal act on national television, namely, two young girls self-injecting drugs in their veins, and were these performers paid for their participation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this question is brought to the minister's attention.


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: Will the minister make inquiries and advise if the staging of an illegal act on national television contravenes the law of this country or-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence perhaps you would allow

February 9, 1971

someone to take it as notice. Is the minister aware of the declared intention of the British Columbia Telephone Company to seek a major increase in telephone rates? In view of the possible inflationary effect, would the minister's department look into the matter or perhaps have the Prices and Incomes Commission do so?



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises from an indication that he might have something further to say about the lease by the National Harbours Board of property at the entrance to Stanley Park in Vancouver, about which his assistant was questioned on January 28. Does the minister or the government intend to take any action with regard to the development of this land in the interest of the people in the area? Does the minister intend to act or let nature take its course?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I can answer on behalf of the National Harbours Board that as of Tuesday or Wednesday of last week a decision was made to seek a resolution of the initial question having to do with an appropriate and proper valuation for the land. It is my information that the National Harbours Board has now taken steps to have an independent assessment made of the land value.
As to the larger question of the future of the project, it is, of course, really one in the last analysis for settlement by the municipal government of the city of Vancouver, except for the fact that National Harbours Board leases always include the requirement that the lessee abide by the bylaws of the community in which the land is located. Whether it would be appropriate for the federal government to intervene at that level I suggest is open to question. I think the first job, which we have now undertaken, is to get an independent assessment of the land value.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I take it from the minister's reply that at the present time neither the National Harbours Board nor the minister intends to halt the sale or lease or to do anything other than to proceed with the sale or lease after satisfying themselves as to valuation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. At the moment the position is, as I said, that we are seeking to obtain a fair market value. No decision beyond that point has been taken. I emphasize the basic question of whether in fact we have any authority to determine the use to which the land is put once it is sold.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Could the minister give us the assurance, in view of participatory democracy, whatever that means, that before a firm decision is made in this regard interested bodies in Vancouver will
Inquiries of the Ministry
be able to make representations to the city council or that the department will bring pressure to bear so that the views of the public on this project can be expressed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Whatever regard I may have, and it is great, for what the hon. member calls participatory democracy, I certainly do not have the hon. member's high regard for what he regards as government arrogance, and it would certainly be arrogance on my part to instruct the city council on who they are going to hear. That is entirely up to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as representations to the government, to the National Harbours Board or to myself are concerned, these of course will be received, as many have been, and will be given full consideration.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the minister's answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway first and return to the hon. member in a moment.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I should like to ask the minister whether he can give us some idea of when the survey having to do with land valuation will be completed?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I fear I cannot do so at the moment but I will try to determine how long it will take and let the hon. member know.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the minister not agree with me that part of the problem in the whole project has been the arrogance of certain government officials, let alone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point the hon. member is arguing with the minister. I do not think that is a legitimate supplementary question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. In view of some of the past proceedings with regard to this project and the different forms of arrogance that may have arisen, it would be healthy for democracy to have public participation in any final result. Certainly the minister, without being arrogant or dictatorial, could use his good offices with the city council of Vancouver to arrange for that type of public participation at meetings on what should be done in a matter of such importance to Vancouver.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have a question for the minister in charge of housing. Since housing starts declined on a seasonally adjusted basis in the month of January to 182,900 from 254,700 in December, would the

February 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
minister make a statement on motions outlining ways and means of increasing housing starts to meet the necessary levels and also to provide employment?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: We think the downage is due to weather conditions. Within the next few days I will be making a statement to the House with regard to the CMHC capital budget, at which time I will try to deal with the matter the hon. member has inquired about.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the unanimous decision by the British Columbia legislature on February 4, 1971, calling on the federal government to stop oil tanker shipments from Alaska to Washington state, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has made direct representations to the United States government in an endeavour to halt oil shipments over the route from Valdez, Alaska, to Cherry Point, Washington?


Mitchell William Sharp: So far as I know, no definite arrangements have yet been made for any such shipments. We have the situation under very close examination and at the appropriate time we will make representations. We do not think this is the time.
*	4!	*



AIRPORTS


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a question.
Does he agree with some officials of his department who now admit that the site of the St. Scholastique airport, if recommendable from a technical point of view, is not an ideal one with regard to the industrial future of Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: As asked, this question is not admissible, tEnglish]



TORONTO-PROGRESS ON SELECTING SITE FOR NEW FACILITY

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is also for the Minister of Transport. Now that the four-site option plan for the Metropolitan Toronto airport has been discarded as impractical, is the minister working feverishly or fervently with the other levels of government to arrive soon at a single site for this airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, feverishly, earnestly and at the moment
courteously, I hope, by letting some of my associates at the provincial level of government get past a certain event of some importance which is taking place this week.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will a decision be taken about the site this year or before the government goes to the country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I suppose it could very well depend on whether the hon. gentleman is going to that event and on how he votes. But the point of the matter is that I am waiting to see what kind of new team will be fielded at Queen's Park.
* * %



AIR CANADA


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley Wesl):: My question is for the Minister of Transport and it relates to his earlier reply in which he indicated that there is no discrimination in the employment policies of the Department of Transport. As I travel constantly on Air Canada across the country and have yet to see-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I should not interrupt the hon. member's travelogue, but he should ask a question.


An hon. Member:: Now we know where you were.


Mark Willson Rose: I was in full flight when I was interrupted.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, out of control.


Mark Willson Rose: I was going to observe that in all my travels with the Committee on Agriculture in the last two weeks I did not see a native Indian employee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question. I am not sure whether his remarks up to now were just introductory, but we have already reached the end of the question period. He should ask his question as quickly as possible.


Mark Willson Rose: I was about to ask my question, Mr. Speaker. I was about to ask the minister if he would lend his great weight to persuade Air Canada to employ some native Indian girls as air hostesses?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's representation has been noted. I have just pointed out that the question period expired a few moments ago, but the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand has been trying to ask a question and perhaps he should be recognized.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Thank you for allowing me the privilege of ending the question

February 9, 1971

period, Mr. Speaker. This question is addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Since war veterans now receiving the veterans allowance are being directed to apply for old age security pensions plus the supplement, which means a loss of certain fringe benefits now available under war veterans allowances, will the minister look into all aspects of this question and make a statement on motions in the near future to clear up the confusion now existing in the minds of our older veterans?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: We are at present preparing legislation on these increases which will greatly benefit many veterans in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, February 4, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Honey in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Thursday, February 4, clause 5 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 5 carry?
On clause 5-Duties of minister.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with clause 5 of Part I of Bill C-207. I do not think we spent too much time discussing this clause last Thursday, and there are several points which I would like to make today. I would point out to hon. members that the clause as presently constituted gives the new minister a rather limited function so far as the total environmental picture is concerned. During second reading, a number of members of the parties on this side of the House expressed a desire that the minister's duties be expanded to cover all problems relating to pollution and pollution prevention. I again want to stress the need for an overall authority so far as pollution is concerned.
Surely, Canadians have learned from past experience that the division of jurisdiction for pollution among a number of departments has just not worked. It is the reason we are faced with major pollution problems from one end of the country to the other. We must have some minister in a position to oversee all pollution problems, in a position to set national standards and to see that they are enforced. One minister must be responsible for co-ordination and co-operation between the various departments with regard to environmental problems.
Government Organization Act, 1970 Until we get that type of organization, we will not effectively reach the root of the problems.
I notice that several major areas which have pollution problems are excluded from the provisions of clause 5, and omitted from the jurisdiction of the new department. Again, I point to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, which comprise 40 per cent of Canada's total area. The ecology of that area is extremely fragile. It is an area which should be directly under the control of the new department of the environment, yet it is being excluded. This does not make sense in any way, shape or form. The department must have authority to move into the north and do a proper job of pollution prevention.
At present we have no land use regulations for the Northwest Territories. They are in the process of being drafted, but over a period of years exploration has been taking place on an increasing scale in the north. Ecologists, and others who have done research, have told us that if we get a major oil spill or major pollution problem in some of the big Arctic rivers, Canada will be in real trouble. This immense, newly developing area should come under the control of the minister of the environment with regard to pollution matters.
A number of other areas are also omitted from the new department's control. Again, I stress it is absolutely essential to have one department act as a kind of umbrella over all other departments when dealing with the pollution problems of the nation. I have spoken on this matter previously, and I hope to ask questions of the minister once more. At the moment I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West:
That clause 5 of Bill C-207 be amended by striking out the first seven lines of the section and substituting the following:
The duties, powers and functions of the Minister of the Environment extend to and include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to pollution prevention and control and to


Russell Clayton Honey: If the hon. member has concluded his remarks, I will put the amendment.


Randolph Harding: Before I sit down may I just say a word or two about the amendment. If adopted, it would do the job that I have suggested should be done. It would give the new department control over all pollution problems. It is a good amendment. It is what we have been fighting for over a number of years, and I think the committee should accept it.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the Committee ready for the question? Shall the said amendment carry?


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, on the face of it this amendment purports to be both a simplification and expansion of the phraseology contained in the bill The difference between the wording of the amendment and the wording of the bill is the removal of the clarifying phrase, "not by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the Government of Canada." I think this clarifying phrase is important. This is in the nature of a residual clause, that all the jurisdiction related to pollution problems is vested in the minister except where Parliament,

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 in relation to a particular matter, has expressly decreed otherwise.
To accept the amendment would, in effect, be acting in a manner contrary to the expressed intention of Parliament in either past instances or in future cases, and I do not think the House would really want to do this. I think hon. members feel the House should be free to assign specific duties to particular departments in the legislation covering their particular jurisdictions, even though to some degree they relate to pollution, or pollution prevention and control, rather than vest the supreme, the overriding authority in this particular minister.
The intention, obviously, of the current bill is this: where pollution is the primary concern of Parliament, unless it is decreed that that particular matter shall be under the jurisdiction of some other department, it shall be under the jurisdiction of the new minister of the environment. I think that this is the type of provision which allows the House full freedom to make specific exemptions from the general control where, in its view, it is necessary. For that reason, the government would not wish to support this amendment.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board. I speak in support of the amendment, because it seems to me that one of the problems we face as Canadians is fighting this sinister force known as pollution that can, if left unchecked, destroy us all. I was interested in the minister's remarks about Parliaments of the future. Many of us are concerned in case our future is rather limited. It will be unless we actively, positively and ruthlessly do something to solve this particular problem. The battle against pollution has not been conducted in a comprehensive way because responsibility for pollution control is split among many levels of government, federal, provincial and, of course, municipal. Also, the responsibility is split among so many ministries at the federal and provincial level that the prosecution of offences and the correction of excesses is exceedingly difficult.
Some of us who are interested in this matter had hoped that the government intended designating the minister of the new department as the person with supreme responsibility in our country for the fight against pollution. We hoped that he was to be the veritable czar in matters of pollution. The public, I think, is concerned about pollution control. If we are to heed the public's justifiable concern over pollution, it seems to me that we ought to invest the minister with the power he needs to combat pollution at every level. Is the idea of a czar in the field of pollution control mere window dressing? If it is not window dressing, why cannot he be given the power he needs to combat pollution at all levels?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I will speak briefly. I support the amendment wholeheartedly. In the past, the government has displayed a wishy-washy attitude towards pollution. Pollution has taken the place of motherhood; everybody is for it, so long as no one has to do
too much about it. That has been the attitude of the government, as illustrated by the Canada water bill.
I think the problem we face has been set out precisely by the hon. member who moved the amendment. Jurisdiction in the field is divided. I know the President of the Treasury Board has said that Parliament has decreed otherwise. I think Parliament has decreed otherwise wrongly. This amendment is an attempt to rectify the situation, and would also make sure that pollution could be dealt with as a single issue by a single minister. As a matter of fact, I think that pollution ought to be a matter of discussion today, at the federal-provincial conference.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Gerald William Baldwin: Someone says that it is. How do we know that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I had expected to be asked to explain why the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is not present today. The fact of the matter is that, right now, he is at the federal-provincial conference to discuss pollution.


Gerald William Baldwin: Of course, he is over there to discuss pollution. But is he urging the provincial governments to agree with the federal government that the direction of the battle against pollution which threatens all humanity and all citizens of our country should be placed under a single administration? The pollution problems that we shall have to face in this country for a long time are the problems that peoples of all countries will have to face. Nevertheless, we have seen the government adopting a very wishy-washy approach to the matter. It is fine for the minister to talk about pollution; everyone loves to hear talk of pollution control. But what is the government doing to control pollution? There is before the committee a sensible amendment. I support it wholeheartedly. I hope the mild words I have spoken will induce some government members to support it as well.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board a question? Why has he specifically omitted the Northwest Territories and the Yukon area from the jurisdiction of the new minister?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the answer is that we have not expressly omitted the Northwest Territories and the Yukon from the jurisdiction of the minister in pollution matters.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, although it seems to me that the government is determined to defeat the amendment, may I say this. It seems to me that the government will ignore the economic developments in the north and bypass the environmental problems of that area. I do not think there is any doubt about it, and the people of the area know this. For years, many environmental problems of that area have been ignored, and that is why there are no land use regulations today to control the current economic developments. It is true that those regulations may be introduced later. I submit that the failure to include one of the most vulnerable parts of our nation under this bill is a disaster.

February 9, 1971

On the other hand, if it is intended to include the area, let us make absolutely sure about it and do so specifically. If the government does not like my amendment, let it bring in some other appropriate amendment to cover the point I have been trying to make. Will the government bring in an amendment to cover the point I have been trying to make?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, if the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that jurisdiction in matters of pollution in respect of the Yukon and Northwest Territories is covered by this wording, the answer is, yes it is. If one says explicitly that this must include the Yukon and Northwest Territories, one would also have to say yes to a plea on the part of the representatives of Newfoundland for that province to be mentioned. And, if you are to include Newfoundland explicitly, what about Ontario?


Mr. MacEachen:: Why not include Cape Breton?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have received a representation about Cape Breton. Unless the hon. member feels that the Yukon and Northwest Territories are excluded, he perhaps will accept my assurance that they are included. They are not excluded, and the fact that they are not excluded does not seem to me to be a good reason to mention them explicitly.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, may I ask another question? If the minister does not want to mention the Northwest Territories and the Yukon area by name, will he include the land use regulations in the schedule which assigns environmental problems to the jurisdiction of the department?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I did not get the exact significance of the question. Unquestionably, under this statute the co-ordinator, the man who has responsibility for pollution control, will have authority vested in him except in those areas where it is expressly vested in another minister.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that point, which is of concern to all of us. Responsibility for fighting pollution in various areas of Canada is vested in different ministers. The government gained much ground in dealing with Arctic sovereignty on the ground that the environment of that part of our country was particularly sensitive to the threat of pollution. Yet I see that responsibility for this particular area, according to the schedule, is not to be under the minister designated but will remain under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is the kind of splitting up of jurisdictional responsibilities that worries us. We are concerned because it may mean buck-passing and people never really being certain who has responsibility for control in this very vital area. If the ecology of the area of the Arctic over which Canada has declared sovereignty is particularly sensitive, it follows that the ecology of the lands immediately south of that where a great amount of development will take place, often in the absence of any control, is equally sensitive. This area should also be covered by this bill. This is the whole point of the exercise.
Government Organization Act, 1970


Russell Clayton Honey: Is the committee ready for the question? The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Harding) negatived: Yeas, 17; nays, 39.


Russell Clayton Honey: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. McCuicheon:: I wish to ask the minister one question. Why is meteorology included in subclause (d) of clause 5?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is as well aware as I am that meteorology, in the present state of the art, is principally concerned with the measurement of air movement and, to a lesser degree, air quality, as well as an attempt to forecast the weather. In this sense, it is merely a measuring rather than a control device. The apparatus we now have is not for the purpose of regulating, but merely measuring and forecasting. One of the agencies which will be largely concerned with these measurements and forecasts is the department of the environment. I hope it will be able to undertake measures designed to improve the quality of the air. In order to do this, there must, of course, be some great familiarity with the operation of the medium in which the department is interested.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment to clause 5. I move:
That clause 5 of Bill C-207 be amended by adding thereo next after line 37 on page 2 a new sub-section (h)
(h) pollution prevention and control
This is a new subclause, pollution prevention and control. The President of the Treasury Board objected to knocking out some of the phraseology in the bill presently before us. One way of partially getting around this problem would be to add this new subclause. The legislation would then directly state that pollution prevention and control would be under this department.
Perhaps this amendment will be more acceptable to the government. There is certainly nothing wrong with it. This is the reason for the establishment of the new department. The amendment will cover a lot of the sins omitted in the present legislation. I urge members of all parties to seriously consider this amendment. We need this provision in the legislation. We have enough trouble now with pollution. There is absolutely no reason why a simple amendment like this should not be accepted by the government.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, it will be seen from examining the bill that the words "pollution" and "pollution control" are not used. In Canada and elsewhere we are faced with the problem of precisely understanding what is meant by the term "pollution". It means different things to different people. In order to avoid this difficulty and still give effect to the purpose to which this amendment is allegedly directed, clause 5 (e) expresses this purpose, but in perhaps more precise terms. Clause 5 (e) reads:
the protection and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality;

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
I suggest to the hon. member that the responsibility vested in the minister covers a wider spectrum than words which are liable to a variety of interpretations, namely pollution and pollution control. I think that the object being sought by the hon. member is more than adequately covered in clause 5 (e).


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the remarks of the minister. He stated how difficult it is to precisely define pollution and pollution control because it means different things to different people. I agree. If these terms are difficult to define in clause 5, why is the same phrase used at the end of clause 6 (a)? I invite the minister to tell the committee exactly what it means there. If the minister's argument is based on the difficulty of definition in one clause, he might have some further difficulties with the next clause. A definition within a bill is a definition. The minister is not very convincing.
The reason my colleague and I are interested in having this particular clause added to the bill is the same as we argued on the previous amendment. We would like to underline and emphasize the need to give the minister power under this bill to take the necessary steps. The minister is a reasonable man. I am sure he can prevail upon his colleagues to accept this reasonable amendment, especially after the explanation he has given and the one I have given in return.


Gerald William Baldwin: Pretty optimistic.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, the last speaker stole part of my message out of my mouth. Not only is it true that the phrase "control pollution" is used in clause 6(a), which is the next clause with which we shall be dealing, but the expression also appears at the end of clause 5(g). So obviously somebody thought when drafting this measure that it had some meaning that could be expressed in a statute. Therefore, I think the minister's argument falls by the wayside. No doubt upon reflection the minister will conclude that we should vote to accept the reasoned amendment to clause 5, as I intend to do.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I was caught in ignorance as to the term "pollution". I can only suggest that fortunately in clause 6(a), to which reference was first made, it appears as an alternative or literation of the previous phrase "standards relating to environmental quality, or to control pollution", the suggestion being that these are essentially the same things.
I would have some hesitancy about accepting amendments of this character that are designed to emphasize powers which already appear in the act. As the hon. gentleman is well aware, drafting statutes is a rather esoteric art with which I am not too familiar. Grave mistakes can be made through light-hearted attempts to improve the language of the draftsman, and unless the powers outlined in the bill are sought to be changed, we should not really try to improve the drafting. I suggest to both hon. gentlemen who have spoken that clause 5(e) covers the point they are seeking to make, though in slightly different words.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I know the minister did not mean to suggest that because we were not shouting and pounding our desks our approach to this matter was light-hearted. On the contrary, some of us are very heavy-hearted when we look at this piece of legislation. It seems to me the minister suggested that this was an "either/or" proposition relating to environmental quality or to pollution control and they may be one and the same thing. On the contrary, those two phrases may mean something entirely different. If "pollution control" is difficult to define, it occurs to me that the minister would have difficulty in defining "environmental quality". If that had not been the case, I suggest there would not have been such an astonishing reluctance to assert the concept of national standards for water quality when we were debating the Canada Water Act.
I was also impressed with the minister's line of thinking that the members of this House should be reluctant to alter or to amend particular sections of a piece of legislation which had been drawn by, as I think he described them, esoteric experts in bill drafting. If that is the case, then why are we engaged in a clause by clause study? Perhaps we are just here to shout at one another.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I was not suggesting that we are engaging in a fruitless exercise; I think I said unless it were desired to change in a material way the powers or authority granted by the bill, we should think twice about amending it. If an amendment seeks merely to emphasize a certain phrase or to make it clear, then I would have some hesitancy about accepting it. I suggested that clause 5(e) does confer the responsibilities and powers on the minister that the hon. gentleman has suggested in his amendment. We should hesitate before trying to make these powers clearer and look hard at the drafting problem. That is all I said.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make two points. I find the minister's argument against this amendment very weak. I would like to express to him some sympathy since I feel he has been placed in a most difficult position this afternoon, inasmuch as the minister who will be responsible for the implementation of the various aspects of this part of the bill is not in the Chamber. This is unfortunate for the quality of the debate and for our attempt to determine the best legislation possible.
The minister has made a number of arguments, some of which have been dealt with. A moment ago he suggested that if this matter is important it should be referred to someone outside the House. It seems to me that that approach is contrary to the way this institution operates. On the other hand, if the minister is arguing that the proposition is already covered by the bill, then I cannot see what his argument is all about. He seemed to indicate in another argument that perhaps it was taken care of under clause 5(e). I feel there is something fundamental involved here, and it is to that that I direct the attention of the committee for a moment.
Five, 10 or 15 years ago, a debate on the establishment of this kind of department would have seemed irrelevant
[Mr. Drury.)
February 9, 1971

to the point of ridiculousness. It was not the thing then to be concerned about the future, or the possible non-future, of the environment. But in the last decade we have heard increasingly of the danger of pollution, so much so that now a great body of material has been written indicating that the natural resources of this earth are not inexhaustible, and certainly not those within our own jurisdiction.
There seems to be one attitude-perhaps this is the attitude reflected by what the government is about to do-that we should merely take some kind of band-aid approach to what is really a most basic problem. This approach to pollution is:	"We will simply try and
muddle through as best we can and dampen down the most glaring evidences of pollution that affect some aspect of our land, our water or our air". If the minister's attitude is being correctly reflected here this afternoon, there seems to be a willingness to adopt a kind of fire engine approach in which you rush in, put some water on the fire, and hope that everything will be taken care of, instead of having a positive desire to, in some instances, effect a very major restructuring of industries or undertakings that are continually contributing to pollution.
The minister indicated a few moments ago that it was very difficult to define what is meant by "controlling pollution". However, that is the phrase used in the bill. It may be that we are faced with some kind of good-guy approach and there will be an attempt to deal with the problems of pollution without causing too much sweat or getting too many people upset. That approach may satisfy some people but it certainly does not satisfy me, and I do not think it satisfies the hon. member who introduced this amendment.
I suggest that if we are serious about dealing with pollution, we must concern ourselves with preventive measures. We must, in many cases, get at the root cause of pollution, which in itself is a continuing problem. In the final analysis, if we are to make a major change in our attitude in this country, the emphasis will not be placed on controlling pollution, because that could mean anything. Certainly, it does not indicate the department is going to adopt the attitude of trying to eliminate pollution; it simply means that the department is going to involve itself in some way with pollution, which might amount merely to making some kind of report on a regular basis, or taking some other superficial or limited approach to the problem. If the commitment of this new department is, in effect, the eradication of pollution, then the word "prevention" must be in this bill. It is not just a question of semantics; it is a question of basic attitude.
If the minister feels, as he mentioned a moment ago, that there is an important question of interpretation and that there is a sophistication beyond this House in terms of drafting this legislation, then I suggest we should allow the clause to stand. I think this whole matter will have to be debated quite seriously at some stage, but in this instance at least if he feels there is a question which
Government Organization Act, 1970 should be resolved by the law officers of the Crown, or whoever drafted this bill in its final form, surely we should allow the clause to stand. I do not want to put words into the hon. member's mouth, but I am sure the mover of this amendment would be quite willing to allow it to stand so that there could be sufficient consultation to clear up any difficulties and make sure it will not jeopardize any other legal aspect of the bill.
I suggest it will not be enough for this government to say: "Sure, this is what we mean. We are concerned with the eradication of pollution, or, we are concerned primarily with preventing pollution and that is the reason we are setting up this new department". Words from the minister or any other members of this House, if I may say so without disrespect to their own worth or sincerity, mean nothing. They mean nothing in so far as the legal interpretation of this bill is concerned. If we are serious, and if the government is serious, in eliminating, removing and preventing pollution, then clear-cut language has to be used in the establishment of this new department. I do not really think it is possible for the minister to pass the matter off by saying it is a question of definition or the problem is already covered in some sort of general way.
The essence of the commitment of this government and this department is, in fact, to eradicate pollution from this country. This is about as basic as anything can be in respect of the establishment of this department and in respect of dealing effectively with the growing problems of pollution in this country.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I endorse the words of the last two members who spoke from this side of the House. Let me point out to the minister and the government that we are not here to harass them with amendments. We have done a lot of thinking about this problem. We have delved into this matter and we are convinced this amendment will tighten up the legislation. That is why we brought it forward. There is absolutely no doubt about the fact that the people of Canada want a good bill which will give the department the power to get at the pollution problems facing the nation. We are not certain about the wording of this bill and we have put a great deal of time and study on it. We are not convinced that it covers everything.
I am quite willing to let this amendment stand if the government wants to have a little more time to check it to find out how it will affect the other clauses of the bill. This debate may continue for a day or two and the government will have ample time to take up this matter with the appropriate staff. I have no objection at all to allowing this amendment to stand if that is the wish of the minister or the members of the committee. That would suit me just fine. Let me point out that last year we fought the Canada Water Act in the House. We were fighting for national standards and for the need for industry to recycle the effluent within the factory fences. What do we find now? Within six months after the bill passed the man who will be the new minister of this department travelled throughout Canada saying the very things we enunciated six, seven or eight months before.

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 The amendments we proposed in this regard were defeated by that group across from us.
We suggest that the government should not get into the same box it got into last year by turning down amendments that would help tighten the legislation. I again urge hon. members of the House to accept this amendment. If they will not accept it, at least they should take time to consider if for a day or two.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in support of what the hon. member has said. We find ourselves in the position today of having the President of the Treasury Board reject out of hand amendments that could very well meet with the approval of the minister who is responsible for the administration of this department. The President of the Treasury Board has indicated the reason for the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, and it is a good and logical reason. His presence is required at the federal-provincial conference taking place in this city today. Notwithstanding that, this amendment could very well be held over until tomorrow. I make this suggestion seriously and honestly because in my view this is a very important amendment. I have an amendment which I hope will be accorded the same treatment.
I suggest to the President of the Treasury Board, and hon. members of the House, that we are very serious about this matter, particularly in the light of the experience we had with the Canada Water Act, as pointed out by my hon. friend. As suggested, sometime after the passage of that Act we found the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry going around the country enunciating the same positions we had taken. In fairness to the members of the committee who are serious about this matter, I suggest that the minister hold this amendment until the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry has had an opportunity to listen to arguments in connection with it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question is whether the present wording confers or does not confer certain powers on the minister. I feel as strongly as he does about the importance of the task in which he is about to engage. Whether he shares my satisfaction with the present wording, and believes it embraces all those responsibilities and powers, I do not know. Perhaps he should be here himself to express his opinion.
On the advice of the legal advisors, I continue to suggest that the authority being sought by the amendment is already included in the bill. In the interests of amity I would agree that we stand this amendment until the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry comes back to the House. I hope he will say the same thing.


Russell Clayton Honey: Is it agreed that clause 5 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 5 stands.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Since clause 6 relates to the same question, there might be some consequential amendments. I wonder whether we could not stand that clause as well, rather than get into a long debate we will have to repeat
for the benefit of the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry when he returns.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If hon. members propose amendments, we might as well know what they are.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which is not to clause 5 or to clause 6. It involves a new clause and I should like to refer to it at this stage because this is where it belongs.
The amendment I intend to move deals with the need for setting up an environmental council of Canada which would be an advisory body to assist federal and provincial governments on problems of pollution. I might add that this is the recommendation of the Science Council of Canada, and it seems to me that reference should be made to it in the bill. Again, I want to point out that if the government wishes to introduce an amendment of this type it would be fine with me. I do not care who brings it in as long as it gets into the legislation, because I think it is a very essential part of our fight against pollution problems throughout the nation.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West:
That Bill C-207 be amended by adding a new section 6 and renumbering the following sections:
6. The minister of environment shall create an environmental council of Canada whose task would be to:
(a)	conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada
(b)	make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are of public interest
(c)	advise the federal and provincial governments in the area of pollution prevention and cleanup
(d)	advise particular ministries of the interrelationship between resource development and environmental protection
(e)	advise as to the need for specific environmentally-oriented research.


Russell Clayton Honey: The Chair has listened to the amendment and I have some concern about its procedural acceptability. It would seem at first blush-and I may not be accurate in my initial assessment-that the amendment contains financial implications. The recommendation attached to the bill under consideration does not seem to anticipate covering the sort of charge that might follow the adoption of this amendment. But if hon. members, including the hon. member who moved the amendment, have advice for the Chair, I would be glad to hear it.


Randolph Harding: May I say just a word on this amendment. Possibly one way of overcoming the difficulty may be found by using the words "the minister of the environment shall consider creating". This is not the way I would like the wording to appear in the legislation, but I think it might get around the difficulty which you have indicated, Mr. Chairman. This wording would make the amendment eligible for discussion before the committee. We might even put in the word "may" so that the amendment would read "the minister of the environment may create an environmental council of Canada". This

February 9, 1971

might get around the technicality lacing us. I would ask leave of the committee to make that change so that we can discuss the proposal because I think a very important principle is involved which should not be omitted from the legislation before us.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should try to find sin where it is not easily perceptible. There is nothing in the amendment that would in any way suggest the environmental council shall cause a charge to be levied on the Crown. It may well be that if the amendment were passed, the government would be faced with the responsibility of finding dedicated people, either within the public service or outside it, who would serve on this council. I think the Chair must find, as a condition precedent to saying that the amendment is not in order, that it actually contains a provision which would logically lead the Chair to believe that a charge will be made against the Crown. Putting it in reverse, without authority being granted in a statute, no funds can be provided in the estimates. This amendment does not purport to enable the government to pay anybody. As I said, the amendment may create some problems for the government in finding people who will serve on the council, but there is nothing in the amendment to suggest that money would have to be expended.
It is a dicey problem, comme ci comme ga. I suggest, however, that under these circumstances the Chair would be justified in accepting the amendment. There is a rule which provides that the Chair should be vigilant in trying to find an amendment is in order. However, unless an examination of the amendment reveals a clear direction which will result in a charge upon the Crown,- while we may be faced with some doubt as to what will be the result of the amendment-the amendment cannot be ruled out of order. It is not for the Chair to decide what the result of the amendment will be. The Chair must decide whether this amendment specifically provides for a charge. If it does not, I submit with great deference that it should be considered to be in order.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am filled with admiration for the deviousness of the Conservative House Leader. He is eloquent and articulate but unfortunately thoroughly unconvincing. I am sure he has had no more luck in convincing you, Mr. Chairman, than he has had in convincing me. Let me follow through with his inverted logic. If it is accepted that this amendment is in order and as a consequence does not impose a charge upon the Crown, this will then be a clear instruction to the minister to operate this particular section without there being any charge, otherwise he would be contravening the law.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps I will serve without charge.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To suggest that he will be able to have an effective council to advise not only him but also the general public and provincial governments at no cost to the Crown does not seem to me to be a reasonable proposition. We, as a House, could be well charged with endeavouring to legislate unrealistically, and we would not want to get into that position, I am sure, nor would the House Leader. While one should not seek reasons for
Government Organization Act, 1970 finding an amendment not to be in order, I suggest this is one of the clear cases when, to be practicable, there would have to be a charge upon the Crown. If there were no charge upon the Crown, then the modus operandi would be unrealistic.


Gerald William Baldwin: With regard to the substance of what the President of the Treasury Board said, may I point out that the government is receiving a lot of bad advice for which it is paying a lot of money. It would be interesting to see what it would do with advice for which it did not have to pay. It might be good advice for a change.


Mr. Jerome:: I would just like to add briefly to the discussion the reference in May's 17th edition at page 551, subparagraph (13), which reads as follows:
Amendments on new clauses creating public charges cannot be proposed, if no money resolution or ways and means resolution has been passed, or if the amendment or clause is not covered by the terms of the resolution.
The principle is clear that if an amendment changes the terms of the recommendation that is before the House-and certainly that would be the case in the present instance-it cannot be made. The citation continues:
This rule, which is of fundamental importance, is fully explained in Chapter XXV and on page 803.
Accordingly, I would invite you, Mr. Chairman, to find that the proposed amendment clearly seeks to amend the terms of the recommendation, and therefore must be faulty.
9 (4:00p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, as usual the government spokesmen are several years behind the times. The precedent cited applies to the situation before the rules were changed when a bill of this kind had to be based on a resolution. As I say, that has been changed. Now, there is a recommendation from His Excellency. If this amendment were couched in such terms as compelled us to derive from it the clear impression that money must be paid, then obviously the recommendation must be amended. However, what the parliamentary secretary has said has absolutely no application to this situation. The citation applied prior to 1968 when the rules of the House were changed in this respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the case has been argued so well and so effectively by others, especially by the hon. member for Peace River, that there is really nothing much I need to add. However, there have been two nonsensical statements from the other side of the House which I hope the Chair will ignore. The President of the Treasury Board suggests that if this amendment were passed it would be a clear instruction to the government to appoint counsel without paying them any money. It does no such thing. It calls for the appointment of the counsel, and makes no provision for any expenses, but that would not stop the government from putting an item in the estimates if it wished to do so.
The second nonsensical statement from the other side has, of course, just now been deflated by the hon.
3204

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 member for Peace River. The requirement that an amendment must not go beyond the terms of the recommendation that we receive from the Governor General is only to the effect that it must not go beyond the money provisions of that recommendation. If the amendment now before the House does not in itself, involve the expenditure of money it is in no sense going beyond the terms of the recommendation that the Governor General attached to this bill. Indeed, all that appears in that recommendation, so far as this whole part of the bill is concerned, is these words, "to establish a department of the environment." I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that just as there have been other amendments seeking to enlarge upon or alter the terms under which the department of the environment would be operated, so, too, this one is in order.
I agree that the wording might be better if, instead of saying "shall create" it said "may appoint," but even if that change were not made, I still submit that the proposal itself does not directly involve the expenditure of money and should not be ruled out on that score. Rather it seems to me that this is an attempt to improve upon the conditions of the department of the environment, and therefore the amendment should be put so that the committee can vote on it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, may I add very briefly to the comments that have been made in rebuttal to what the parliamentary secretary has raised as a point of order. When one looks at the recommendation it is very brief in this respect. All it says is, "to establish a department of the environment." I suggest the parliamentary secretary is trying to say that the government should be allowed to give its interpretation of what those words mean, but that nobody on this side of the chamber is to be allowed to give an intepretation, or to move any amendments, motions, or what have you, with regard to the setting up of an important government department.
If one accepts his argument and takes it to its logical conclusion, then it would have very disastrous consequences for the operations of this committee and for the operations of the House of Commons. Therefore, I think Your Honour has no choice but to refuse such an argument coming from one in a junior ministerial position, and to assert that the practices and privileges of Parliament are quite something else indeed.


James Alexander Jerome: With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that all three members who have spoken from the other side on this point of order have missed the basic point of the argument altogether. The point is that the wording of the recommendation, if one will refer to it just briefly, starts out with these very important words, "His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure-." These words surely make it abundantly clear that the recommendation of the Governor General is directly related to the provisions contained in the measure. He has examined the measure and he recommends "the present measure" to the consideration of the House.


Mr. Peters:: Then, what is the point in having committee of the whole if you cannot move any amendments?


James Alexander Jerome: Accordingly, it is clear that the Governor General's recommendation is related to the measure he is recommending to the House, and that the change which is proposed at the present time is, in fact, something that is added on, something that is not contained in the present measure by anyone's interpretation of that phrase. I cannot see how any member could argue the opposite position, that there could be any other meaning than that the Governor General has examined the measure and recommended it. I am sure hon. members would agree it would be sufficient for the Governor General to indicate, "His Excellency has recommended to the House the present measure," and that would be a sufficient and satisfactory recommendation for the purpose of our rules because it is related to the measure that is put before the House. Those words, "the present measure", circumscribe the recommendation that has been given by His Excellency. Accordingly, anything that is added-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Alexander Jerome: By all means.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he realize that what he is saying is that no amendments at all can be made?


James Alexander Jerome: No, that is not so. Changes may be made to legislation put before the House that do not impose an additional charge on the treasury.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are begging the question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into details on the argument of whether or not this amendment would qualify under the old rules, but I think this discussion raises some very serious questions. We have made substantial changes in the rules of the House, and we have been very conscious of some of them in terms of dealing with money resolutions. But I think the attitude of the parliamentary secretary with respect to the interpretation of this particular amendment is obsolete and reactionary.
To adopt such an obsolete attitude with respect to amendments of this kind would prevent this chamber from making a proper contribution. I would agree that if this resolution is considered by the Chair to involve the expenditure of money, it would be out of order in terms of the old rules of the House. I think there is some debate as to whether it actually does involve that, but even if that is the case we must consider the importance of the decisions made in this chamber. The kind of precedent established here must not negate the principle that this House can make the kind of decision that is involved in the amendment put forward by the hon. member. In arguing against that principle the parliamentary secretary is adopting a most reactionary and obsolete approach, and is really arguing against this House being a viable chamber, able to make decisions of this kind. I really cannot understand his argument.
February 9, 1971


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am shocked at the position put forth by the parliamentary secretary. What he is really saying is that no change can be made to the original proposal put to the Governor General and endorsed by him. I see the government house leader nodding his head. If that is so, Mr. Chairman, then you have a very serious decision to make. If that is really what is involved, Mr. Chairman, then you are now deciding whether or not there should be a Parliament at all. If that argument is sound all you need is the Governor General and the cabinet. No amendment whatsoever, money or otherwise, could alter the proposal put forward by them. In that case, all we could do would be to get down on bended knee and ask the minister if he would be prepared to take a recommended change to cabinet, and have cabinet ask the Governor General to endorse it. If that is the position, Sir, your responsibility is going to be very grave because you are really deciding whether or not this is a democratic institution which can make amendments if the majority of members agree.
Really, the decision that the parliamentary secretary is leaving up to you, Mr. Chairman, is whether the Parliament of Canada has the power to move an amendment after the Governor General has examined a bill. If you decide affirmatively, and support the parliamentary secretary, your decision, I submit, will mean that there is no Parliament at all. I suggest that that would be a very grave decision for you to make, Mr. Chairman.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, apparently the discussion has come full circle. The first speaker on the other side conceded, and certainly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre conceded, that if the amendment imposed a further charge on the treasury, it would be out of order. It would contravene the rules.


William Arnold Peters: But he did not say that any change would be out of order.


James Alexander Jerome: I am addressing myself to a narrow point. The hon. member for Timiskaming has attempted to say that, according to my argument, no amendments are possible. That is ridiculous.


William Arnold Peters: The parliamentary secretary is saying that.


James Alexander Jerome: That is absurd. We are addressing ourselves to a question that I think is fundamental. Obviously, to judge from the remarks of the hon. member for Timiskaming, he does not know that it is fundamental. Two speakers from the opposition side have conceded that if the amendment proposes an extra charge on the treasury, then it is out of order. If we can start with that point and stick with it, then surely it would be sensible to attempt to understand the terms of the recommendation.
The argument brought forward was that since the recommendation, the fourth line of the paragraph, reads "to establish a department of the environment", hon. members opposite may establish the department in accordance with their taste. That power to do so is cir-
23786-6U
Government Organization Act, 1970 cumscribed by the ability to draw on the treasury, and that cannot be done without the recommendation of His Excellency. Also, there is a specific recommendation to be considered which is the subject matter of the discussion before the House. The limiting factor is His Excellency's recommendation. Since His Excellency has taken the trouble to say that he has examined the bill, his recommendation is obviously a fundamental part of the legislation and we are bound by it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, many of us are becoming confused. There is confusion arising from the changed rules. We are using precedents that predate the new rules. That is one thing. The parliamentary secretary has again said that since His Excellency the Governor General has looked at the bill, the recommendation of His Excellency cannot be changed. We cannot dot one "i" or cross one "t" because, if we did, the Governor General would not have looked at the changed bill, and he may not have approved it if it had been changed in that way.
I make no argument about the financial resolution. I am merely arguing that if the parliamentary secretary's position remains that we cannot bring in amendments just because the Governor General has seen the bill, then there really is no Parliament.


James Alexander Jerome: I was speaking of changes which pertain to charges on the treasury, period.


William Arnold Peters: But the parliamentary secretary did not say that.


James Alexander Jerome: Of course, I did.


William Arnold Peters: If he did, it was not clear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, this debate will make interesting reading. I hope the parliamentary secretary will read it and see what he said on at least two occasions. Earlier this afternoon he read the first line or two of the recommendation. This is what he read, "His Excellency the Governor General has recommended to the House of Commons the present measure. ..". Then he said, and he should have stopped there, that he has recommended this measure in this form; and, by having seen this measure and having recommended it to the House, that the House is circumscribed. We cannot do anything but accept what is in there.
My friend for Timiskaming was perfectly right. If that is the interpretation to be placed on the rule, we may as well quit the committee stage because no amendments are possible. You must take the bill the way it is introduced. That, however, is not the position. The position, so far as the Governor General's recommendation is concerned, is that we cannot exceed the financial aspect of that recommendation.


James Alexander Jerome: That was exactly my point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is the hon. member's point, I wish that he would state it and not go back to his other point, namely, that we cannot do anything because the Governor General has recommended

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 to us this measure. May I quote from Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, at page 216, citation 250. After discussing the limitations Beauchesne says:
This principle,-
This principle being that there cannot be additional expenditures.
-however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the Crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
The resolution stage has gone, but we still have the recommandation. The Governor General's recommendation with respect to this bill is simply that we have authority to establish the department of the environment. That bit of the recommendation, Mr. Chairman, contains no reference about amounts of money. I say it is clear that we have the right to move amendments, and it is open for us to say in more detail what that department of the environment shall do. I still say that, in the over-all sense, a private member must avoid a motion which directly enlarges the expenditure of money. My friend for Kootenay West has avoided that. In his motion there is no proposal for the spending of money, and I submit that he is completely within the authority which says that a private member may propose amendments to a bill which add to its specifications and qualifications so long as they do not directly involve the expenditure of money. That is all that is involved in this procedure.
If you listen to the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary, that because the Governor General has recommended this present measure we are therefore bound by the limits of the measure, then of course you will get us into trouble. I submit that when this debate has been thoroughly digested, it will be seen that the weight of the argument comes down on the side of the hon. member for Kootenay West, and that he may move an amendment.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, may I clarify my position, hopefully, for the last time. The only importance of His Excellency's recommendation for the purposes of this debate is that it is the limiting power. That is all it is. The recommendation limits us with respect to the financial provisions contained therein. I ought to have said this afternoon that we are limited by the recommendation in respect of the financial provisions contained therein. If I did not say the last words it was only because I thought it was totally unnecessary. Certainly, the recommendation limits the financial provisions; we are clear about that. We are arguing whether this amendment proposes an extra charge on the treasury and, if so, whether it is limited by the provisions of the recommendation and, therefore, out of order. The provisions of the recommendations, I say, clearly relate not just to the establishment of the department of the environment, but to the establishment of the department of the environment as set out in the measure to which His Excellency has given his attention. I am talking only in terms of the charge on the treasury and His Excellency's recommendation thereto. I say that the legislation is
clearly circumscribed by the terms of his recommendation.
If we see that the amendment involves an extra charge on the treasury, it will be clear that the amendment is out of order. The establishment of some kind of council, staffed by human beings who must be paid, constitutes a charge on the treasury. It is as ridiculous for us to say that that new council would not be a charge on the treasury as to say that we could appoint a new cabinet minister to look after certain departments without remunerating him.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, since I raised this particular point, perhaps I might be permitted to say a few words. I note that we have been joined by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. I presume he now shares the piloting of this part of the bill with the President of the Treasury Board. While we have engaged in a pleasant exercise with the parliamentary secretary, that knowing old fox, the President of the Privy Council, has been sitting quietly in his seat. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, who will be the minister of environment, may want some help. Will he tell his colleagues to cease persisting in niggling and haggling so that we can get on with the bill?


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, in the same vein as the previous speaker, I should like to ask the future minister of the environment whether he would like to have a national advisory council on the environment. I note that in today's Order Paper there is a recommendation by the Governor in Council with regard to a clean air act for Canada. It recommends an advisory committee and other committees in connection with air pollution abatement. As it has been the practice of many departments to establish national advisory councils for certain problems, I wish to ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to establish a national advisory council on environmental quality.


Russell Clayton Honey: Before the minister answers the question of the hon. member for Parkdale, the Chair will deal with the amendment of the hon. member for Kootenay West and dispose of it at this time. Initially, I agree with and accept the advice of the hon. member for Peace River. He stated that we should not look for sin in these amendments. The Chair certainly agrees. I think it is a general philosophy that we expedite the work of the committee if we are not too technical when looking at amendments. Hon. members will agree the Chair has the responsibility, in so far as it is able, to apply the practices and precedents of the committee when questions such as this arise. I thank all members for their very helpful contributions.
With respect to the matter initially raised by the Chair, as to whether an additional or extra change will be imposed on the Crown if the amendment is passed, I think we must be realistic. The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has some appeal. He stated that we cannot accept the suggestion that the enactment of an amendment such as

February 9, 1971

this, which would then become part of the statute, would not result in some charge being imposed on the Crown. I refer hon. members to the specific wording of the amendment. It would require the environmental council of Canada to conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada, make analytical reviews and advise the federal and provincial governments as well as particular ministries. If the council is charged with these types of responsibilities, an expenditure would be involved.
I agree with the argument made by several hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that this sort of amendment might be in order. I am sure that hon. members are ingenious enough to draft an amendment along these lines that could very well be in order. As indicated by hon. members, the recommendation provides the authority to establish a department of the environment. Clause 3 reads:
There shall be a department of the Government of Canada called the department of the environment-
The Chair has to draw a distinction. It may be a fairly fine distinction. If it seems that the particular amendment fits within clause 3, which establishes the department, it would be in order. Having said that, the Chair must draw a distinction. This particular amendment moves too far away from the recommendation. It is in fact a substantive motion, not an amending motion, within the terms of the recommendation. It extends or enlarges the recommendation too much. I regret that I must rule the amendment out of order.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the thought which Your Honour gave to your ruling on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West. Your Honour invited the ingenuity of various members to substitute some other motion along similar lines which would be more acceptable to the Chair. I should like to do that now. I move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by adding a new Section 6 and renumbering the following sections:
6. The Minister of the Environment may appoint an Environmental Council of Canada whose task would be to:
(a)	Conduct and publish studies and forecasts of environmental problems in Canada
(b)	Make analytical reviews of environmental questions which are of public interest
(c)	Advise the federal and provincial governments in the area of pollution prevention and cleanup
(d)	Advise particular Ministries of the inter-relationship between resource development and environmental protection
(e)	Advise as to the need for specific environmentally-oriented research.


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. As the members of the committee will have noted, the amendment is in the same terms as that proposed by the hon. member for Kootenay West with the exception of replacing the words "shall create" with the words "may appoint". I suggest the effect is to make the amendment permissive. It may be closer to being procedurally acceptable. Without having made any decision, I would like to hear arguments on the point.
Government Organization Act, 1970
I invite hon. members to argue the procedural point. I ask hon. members to assist the Chair as to whether the amendment now before the committee which would permit the minister to appoint a committee would, if enacted, establish a financial obligation. Again, this seems to be a substantive motion which moves beyond the recommendation. I invite hon. members to assist the Chair on that point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I seemed to detect in your remarks that you might well be compelled, unless very significant and remarkable arguments were addressed to you that persuaded you to change your mind, to declare this amendment out of order. I do not think that was your intention, but on the assumption that it was I would suggest this to Your Honour and to the hon. member who moved the amendment.
We are here driven back to clause 3. In your remarks on the disposition of the last amendment, Your Honour referred to this clause and said that the recommendation provided for the establishment of a department of the environment. That is a pretty wide expression and lots of things can be included within such department. I draw to Your Honour's attention subsequent parts of the bill, such as Parts IV and V which deal with ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries. Those parts might well be called provisions for the relief of members of the Liberal party in the House of Commons. There is a looseness and flexibility there as to the numbers, just as there is in the expression "department of the environment".
Arguing from this, if the hon. member who moved the amendment were willing to consider a further amendment, he could substitute a new clause 6 to provide that the department of the environment may include an environmental council of Canada whose task would be, and then would follow subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f). This might meet the case. I am using here the precise words of clause 3, which provides for the creation of a department of the environment. I am being fairly specific and saying that this department of the environment may include an environmental council.
I put this suggestion forward only in the event that Your Honour does rule this amendment now before the committee out of order. If the hon. member who moved the amendment were willing to accept such further amendment, then I submit it would be squarely within the very specific principles that Your Honour laid down in your previous remarks.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me appropriate only to comment on the new words that give the minister the option to bring this environmental council into being. As Your Honour has suggested, there may be the ingenuity on the other side of the House to bring this amendment before the committee in terms that you would find acceptable. The question therefore becomes: Is this an expression of that ingenuity, or has the hon. member for Peace River more accurately expressed what is in mind?
Your Honour having found the amendment out of order in its previous form, we have to address ourselves

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 only to the question whether it is out of order for the same reasons when it gives the minister the option to create this department. Giving the minister the option does not make that much difference, it seems to me. Once the minister did exercise his option we would run into the same problem. Therefore, the device of giving the minister an option is no better than making the creation of this department mandatory; you have the same evil.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that it is necessary to force upon you the necessity of making a ruling as to whether providing an option constitutes a charge on the crown or does not. I think it is well known that under a variety of general statutes the minister, subject to approval under the Appropriations Act, has the power to appoint advisers to himself. The basic purpose of this amendment is to provide for the setting up of a body to provide the minister with advice. The minister now has authority under other statutes to do this, as I say, subject to approval under the Appropriations Act. Therefore, it may be we are not giving him any authority he does not now enjoy, or will enjoy once the bill is passed. In any event, in either case, approval must he had under the Appropriations Act. I say that this general authority does exist and has been exercised in a number of cases.
I would ask-and perhaps the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry might reinforce this-whether it is wise at this point to specify in such detail the kind of body that should be set up to provide him with advice. I think it is probably more appropriate not to limit his freedom of action in this way, but rather to give him an opportunity, under the general authority that he has, to find from time to time the advisers he needs as he proceeds and as circumstances change. I am sure that he will have heard and accepted the representations being made here without it being necessary to include them in a statute which is not as easily amended or as flexible as the general authorities he presently exercises.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, first of all, on the question of providing an option for the minister to set up an environmental council of Canada and whether or not such action involves additional expense, may I point out that the amendment as proposed does not impose any additional cost on the crown other than the cost that the crown itself may decide to impose and has the power to impose. If the crown were to decide not to set up an environmental council, then that would be the crown's decision, of course. If it decides it will set up an environmental council and provides funds for so doing, then again that is a decision that the crown is making; it is not being made by this House. Consequently, it seems to me that no additional cost would be imposed upon the Crown if this amendment were accepted.
With reference to the point raised by the President of the Treasury Board, I might agree with him as to the specific terms of reference. It might be wiser either not to include them or to couch them in more general terms, but I do not think it is sufficient merely to leave to the discretion of the minister whether to have advisers. It is
taken for granted that any minister will secure the advice of experts in his particular field. There should be set up an environmental council which would bring in not only experts but involve representatives of provincial governments, municipal bodies and the general public in one form or another in order to secure the participation of groups particularly concerned about pollution in Canada. It seems to me that this is a desirable step. All that this amendment is proposing is that the minister shall have the power to set up such a council if and when he deems it advisable to do so, and then only when he can persuade his colleagues to authorize the expenditure of money for that purpose.
If the President of the Treasury Board were prepared to accept an amendment that gives the minister the option of setting up an environmental council, if and when he is ready to do so and when his colleagues agree, then it might be possible to put the terms of reference in much more general form, or alternatively to omit any specifics except that the environmental council would embrace experts in the field and also encompass those organizations that have manifested their concern with regard to pollution of the environment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Parkdale and myself almost brought the minister to his feet a few moments ago to answer this question. He may be able to prove to us that this is exactly what he wants, and therefore the whole argument would become excessive and academic. He may indicate that he plans to go ahead with the establishment of such a council as soon as the department is properly founded and he has had a chance to anchor himself in his ministry. I really think we should hear from the minister before Your Honour makes a pronouncement on this point of order.


Russell Clayton Honey: I should very much like to hear from the minister if he wishes to address himself to the procedural point. I should also like to hear from other hon. members who wish to do the same. I suggest, with respect, that the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants may be leading the minister slightly away from the procedural point.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is pretty smart; he will not be led astray.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On the procedural question, if Your Honour had any doubt as to the acceptability of this proposal it must have been completely dispelled by the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board. I thank him on behalf of all members of the House for removing what concern there might have been.
The parliamentary secretary suggested that various means were being attempted to circumvent the problem regarding the expenditure of money. I do not want to get off on this discussion now, but I think at some point we will have to look at this very seriously. We do not have a resolution stage anymore and recommendations are always of such a general nature that if we are going to continue to limit and live by what I think are the abso-

February 9, 1971

lute rules, we will greatly hamper the effectiveness of this place.
For one thing, we can no longer hold up supply in what was the traditional manner up to a year or two ago. We have substantially altered the rules in respect of the control of expenditure of money by this government. If we are to avoid downgrading the workings of Parliament even more, we must look at this whole question thoroughly and objectively. Perhaps, in the first instance, it should be referred to the Committee on Procedure, although at some point I think it must involve a debate in the whole House because it is a basic matter.
I felt the President of the Treasury Board had overcome all the problems your Honour must face this afternoon when he indicated that under the Appropriations Act there is provision for ministers to establish the kind of body envisaged by this amendment. In effect, we would not be asking for the expenditure of any money which is not otherwise provided for by statute.
If that is the case, and I take the President of Treasury Board at his word, there is no problem. The President of the Treasury Board has said consciously that there is no real procedural question here. We just have a question of substance and it might be quite useful, if your Honour rules in favour of this amendment coming before the House, to have the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry indicate his intentions in this regard.


Russell Clayton Honey: If hon. members have completed their arguments on the procedural aspect, I might deal with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West. In my earlier remarks I suggested that the hon. member could no doubt draft an amendment which would be procedurally acceptable to the Chair and might very well fulfil the purpose of the amendment then before the committee. With great respect I think that, from the procedural standpoint, the hon. member really has not changed anything by changing the two words. The question seems to the Chair to be one of relevancy, and in turn the question of a financial provision.
The purpose of part I of Bill C-207 is to establish a minister and a department of environment. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to establish an environmental council of Canada, and it sets out the tasks to be assigned to this council. The question is whether the proposal contained in the amendment fits within the recommendation and part I of the bill. If they do fit, it would be acceptable because the authority is there.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when speaking to the first proposed amendment referred to citation 250(3) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. It would seem to me that if the proposed amendment is relevant and within the terms of the recommendation and of the bill, it would be acceptable. Because there is no limiting Provision in the recommendation in respect of the expending of public money, the amendment would be relevant if it fell within the terms of the recommendation and of the bill, and in that sense it should not be ruled out.
Government Organization Act, 1970
In this particular case, I regretfully have to rule out the amendment on the ground that it does not fall within the provisions of the recommendation or of the bill.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pose a question to Your Honour with regard to your ruling. In view of the remarks of the President of the Treasury Board, who suggested that such expenditure is already provided for under statute, why would an amendment of this nature be out of order on the basis of the provision relating to the expenditure of money already allocated, if only potentially, for a department and a minister of the government? It seems to me that Your Honour perhaps inadvertently failed to deal with that part. The President of the Treasury Board tried to help hon. members in this House deal with this amendment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I think we should hear from the minister about what he plans to do. There was an indication on several occasions that he wanted to speak when questions were directed by the hon. member for Parkdale and myself. There is some indication that hon. members feel this environmental council is a pretty good thing. I placed a resolution directed at such a council on the record the other day, and I do not want to reiterate my remarks. Life would certainly be a lot easier if we had an indication that the minister was listening to some pretty responsible suggestions from this side of the House.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I gather we are off the procedural point now and it might be appropriate for me to say a few words.
First of all, we need an advisory council and it is my intention to appoint one in the next few weeks. This will be an advisory council to the minister of environment, and it will be appointed shortly after the department is properly instituted under the law. It will be an advisory council to the minister similar in character to the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council which we established last year. We will also have an advisory council on fisheries.
I want to repeat that these are councils to provide advice to one minister, not to the Prime Minister or several ministers, and certainly not to the provinces. These were referred to in the motion that has just been ruled out of order. Many members have raised the bigger question as to whether we should have a national advisory council in the sense of a national environmental council much as we have an Economic Council of Canada. Such a council would certainly report to the Prime Minister and would be independent in many ways. It would have its own staff and so on. It would certainly cost more money. This may very well be desirable but I do not think we should deal with it in a bill of this kind, certainly not in a bill that deals specifically with one minister.
So, in brief, my answer again is that I will certainly be setting up an advisory council in the new department of the environment and doing so right away. However, I

February 9, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 think the bigger, longer term question of whether we should have a council akin to the Economic Council of Canada reporting at the highest level and reporting to the people of Canada, is another matter which should be dealt with under other legislation at another time.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister whether he has cleared this with the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council?


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the minister. There is no doubt that we desparately need a national environmental council, something that is outside the department, somebody that can do the research and can criticize government policies and programs, as well as give to the Canadians public information upon which they will be able to base value judgments so far as all environmental problems are concerned.
Most hon. members realize the absolute necessity of getting a group of experts to do the very job which I have just outlined. This is what we require. Since the amendment is out of order, I will suggest to the minister in all sincerity that he, himself, bring in an amendment to indicate to the Canadian people that we have an all-out attack going on pollution and that we are going to use every facet of information of which we can get hold. We are going to get top resource people in Canada to give us information and advice on how to tackle the problem. This will do a lot of good and will give people confidence that this government will, at long last, take action. I suggest that the minister give serious consideration to bringing in an amendment if he will not accept one from this side of the House.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I ask the minister a question which arises from the vagueness of clause 6. I have to relate back to clause 5 in order to preface my question properly. Clause 5 provides that the minister has certain duties and powers, but does not have any powers or jurisdiction by law assigned to any other department, branch or agency of the government of Canada. May I ask the minister, who will make the ultimate decision about pollution control in areas over which the minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development now has authority, in areas covered by the Canada Shipping Act over which the Minister of Transport has authority and in areas over which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has authority? Under clause 6, can we assume that this minister will have ultimate jurisdiction and control to undertake programs relating to those areas?


John (Jack) Davis: The common practice under the English parliamentary system, and certainly in the cabinets with which I am familiar, is that each minister is responsible for his own department and for the administration of statutes which fall within the ambit of that department. Where a subject is all-embracing, such as finance, for example, or in this case environment, and several departments, ministers and powers are involved, the reconciliation of any differences has to be made by the government as a whole in the cabinet and under the direction of the Prime Minister. The final decision rests with the Prime
Minister, not with any one minister. This applies to finance and to any broad subject of great concern to more than one department.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I, therefore, conclude that the minister of the environment will not be the czar of environmental control in Canada? I want to be completely correct in my interpretation of what the minister said. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is looking with great envy across the aisle at the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who now aspires to be minister of the environment, decided to set certain water standards, for example, in the Fraser Valley and the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry disagreed with him, would this matter have to go back to cabinet and be resolved there? Does the minister mean that he does not have an overriding responsibility for pollution control?


John (Jack) Davis: Not at all, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of the Environment will have authority in so far as pollution standards are concerned, as well as their enforcement. There may be matters which may overlap. For example, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may consider an application to drill for oil on the Grand Banks. In that case a mechanism exists already to ensure, for example, that the new department of environment will not only be fully consulted but will have a veto in instances where it decided that this will have an unfavourable effect on the environment. I think that consultation between departments is not only desirable but inevitable. I am sure the hon. member is not suggesting that the minister of the environment will always be able to overrule the Minister of Finance, for example. There has to be consultation and reconciliation.


Mark Willson Rose: I see we have about two minutes left and I will make my question to the minister very brief and to the point.
I listened with interest to the minister's support for an advisory committee on the environment. He suggested that this advisory committee would be a private body reporting to his department alone. He appeared to be pointing out that this was one of the benefits or advantages of this kind of arrangement. May I point out that it certainly defeats the amendment proposed by my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay West. People on this side of the House are concerned with the kind of structural set-ups that report privately to the government. We have an example of this in consumer affairs. If I had more than a few minutes time, I could go on to list others. I think that if you look down the various points in these amendments, the first being to conduct public studies, you would find that we cannot get information on pulp mill pollution in B.C. because that kind of information goes directly to the minister. It is not available to the public.
May I ask whether the minister is turning down the formation of an environmental council of Canada which would report publicly?


Russell Clayton Honey: Order, please. It being five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day?

February 9, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-External Affairs-suggestion by Somalia respecting elimination of trade with South Africa; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)-Airports- Regina-Meetings with city regarding sale of city-owned property; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-External Affairs-Proposed oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez, Alaska-consultation with United States authorities.
It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the conduct of business during this hour, I wonder if I might point out that on the order paper there are several bills in the names of private members having to do with changes in the names of their respective constituencies. The most recent of those was introduced yesterday. It was thought that since all of these fall due to be considered in this hour today, the best possible arrangement would be to gather all such bills together to be processed in this house and, unless anyone has any objection, to seek the unanimous consent of the House that those bills receive second reading, committee of the whole procedure, and be passed, so that they could be disposed of during this hour. I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to proceed in that manner.
The bills proposed to be dealt with in this way are Bill C-21 in the name of the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson); Bill C-83 in the name of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard); Bill C-88 in the name of the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather); Bill C-178 in the name of the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel), and Bill C-223 in the name of the hon. member for Bourassa (Mr. Trudel).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House give unanimous consent to the suggestion made by the parliamentary secretary?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is not my purpose to withhold unanimous consent, but I do want to make one comment. Speaking as one private member and one backbencher, it seems to me we have
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion done very little to regularize a way in which we might deal effectively with private members' public bills during private members' hour.
The argument put forth by the parliamentary secretary is that because these are not substantial measures, as I understand it merely involving the changing of names of constituencies, they are measures, that can be disposed of easily. I would say it is becoming increasingly important that the bills put forward by private members on both sides of the House be effectively dealt with in some fashion so that there is a resolution of them, whether they come to a vote or be referred to a committee. But at the present time, as one member who had a bill debated here recently, one on which all hon. members agreed to the principle, only to see it talked out, I find this practice increasingly offensive to the effectiveness and the utility of private members' hour.
While I will not stand in the way of giving unanimous consent today, I serve notice on the government that if this practice of talking out private members' bills continues, and a better way of dealing with them is not found, I for one will prevent unanimous consent being given in the future.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment just briefly on that. Perhaps the hon. member would be well advised to co-ordinate his efforts with those of his House Leader who is doing quite an adequate job on that matter. In fact, only as recently as this morning, he discussed that matter with the other House Leaders to see if a referral could be made of this subject to the Committee on Procedure.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I resent the inference by the parliamentary secretary that in some way I have been advised, or other members of the House have been advised, of the meetings of a committee which I understand is still meeting. Until that committee makes its recommendations and this House takes a decision on them, I take the view that we have evolved no regular procedure for dealing with private members' bills. In fact, I think we have adopted a very sloppy procedure. I have agreed to it today, but only on the understanding that I will not do so in future unless definite action is taken with respect to private members' bills.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I just make the simple comment that I do not think we will improve the situation by a discussion at this time. I speak as one who would like to see the return of the arrangement whereby there was a whole day devoted to private members' business.


James Aloysius McGrath: Those were the days, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Is it agreed that Bills C-21, C-83, C-88, C-178 and C-223 be read a second time and referred to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 9, 1971
Public Bills



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill C-21, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-83, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Bechard.
Bill C-88, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Mather.
Bill C-178, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Laniel.
Bill C-223, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Trudel.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-21, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Robinson- Mr. Richard in the Chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall the title carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if at least in each case we could have the sponsor of the bill tell us what the new name of the riding is to be. Some people read Hansard, and might like to know what we are doing in this expeditious way.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of the hon. member for Lakeshore, at his request, to deal with this bill this afternoon. The purpose of the bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Lakeshore to that of Toronto-Lakeshore.


James Aloysius McGrath: Where is Toronto?


Grant Deachman: As the member for Vancouver-Quadra, I can only give you the vaguest kind of general idea where the city of Toronto is situated.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall I report the bill?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a procedural question, Mr. Chairman, are we taking these bills seriatim, or are we taking them altogether?


James Alexander Jerome: No, one by one.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Inasmuch as this and the succeeding bills provide for a change in constituency names, and considering the likelihood that we are not that far away from another general election, I wonder if somebody on the government side of the House could indicate if there will be sufficient time for the Chief Electoral Officer to incorporate these amendments into all the various constituency materials that must be provided by him in the effective discharge of his duties? I think
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
we will be creating some very serious problems if we agree to something if there is not enough time to fully implement the change by the time of the next election.
I assume somebody on the government side has cleared this up with the Chief Electoral Officer, and that the changes can be fully implemented before the time of the next election. If that is not the case, we may be creating more problems than we are solving.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, it is never possible to predict with accuracy when the next election will take place, but we do have the assurance of the Chief Electoral Officer that it will probably be possible to do all that is necessary before the next election.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: How much time is required?


Grant Deachman: We have until the spring of 1973 according to the constitution.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT-CHANGE IN NAME OF CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-83, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Bechard- Mr. Richard in the Chair.
On clause 1-Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine.
Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of Bill C-83 is to change the name of the electoral^ district of "Bonaven-ture" to that of "Bonaventure-!les-de-la-Madeleine". Doubtless, I will be allowed to make remarks somewhat more elaborate than those of the members who spoke before me because of the importance of this change to my electors of the Magdalen Islands.
It will be remembered, Mr. Chairman, that after the government of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson set up an independent commission to revise electoral boundaries, an act of parliament did away, on the electoral map, with the riding of the Magdalen Islands as a separate entity. At the same time, said act bound the territory formerly and until then occupied by the Islands to the riding of Bonaventure.
That decision of the Canadian parliament, Mr. Chairman, was very much resented by the Madelinots at the time, and I am not ready to say that the wound has healed yet. I understood, and I still do today, the normal attitude and reaction of the people of Magdalen Islands.
Indeed, I think the Magdalen Islands should get special treatment, considering their various distinguishing traits.
Firstly, they are isolated, being located and lost in the middle of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 175 miles from Gaspe and Bonaventure and 100 miles from Prince Edward Island. Secondly, fishing is their only source of revenue. Thirdly, it is quite difficult to get to Magdalen Islands in all seasons, more so in winter when, for
February 9, 1971

instance, the hon. member for Bonaventure who lives in the western part of Bonaventure cannot easily get there on account of the precarious air and maritime transportation between Bonaventure and Magdalen Islands. Besides, air services between Gaspe or between Prince Edward Island and Magdalen Islands are extremely hazardous in winter because of frequent and severe storms. Fourthly, the insular mentality of the people of Magdalen Islands is necessarily and inevitably different.
It is easy to realize that the Iles-de-la-Madeleine must be dealt with in a special way, and we understand thus the vigourous reaction of its citizens regarding the disappearance of the riding which had been established since 1947, under the Electoral Boundaries Act.
The Iles-de-la-Madeleine have had most distinguished representatives. The first one was the father-in-law of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Gervais), the hon. Charles Cannon, Justice of the Quebec Superior Court; the second one was the ex-member for Gaspe, Mr. Russell Keays; the third one, no less distinguished, was the hon. Maurice Sauve, and since the Iles-de-la-Madeleine are linked up with Bonaventure, I have the great honour of representing the Madelinots, whom I esteem deeply.
It was specially in recognition of these characteristic features of the Madelinots and of their almost unique needs that Parliament has established, in 1947, an independent riding called "Les Iles-de-la-Madeleine".
From this time on, the Madelinots have felt more secure, having their own representative, their own member of the House of Commons, to look after them only and to deal with their problems, without having to deal with situations foreign to the Iles-de-la-Madeleine, as had been the concern of the member for Gaspe, and as it is for the member for Bonaventure.
Mr. Chairman, one must understand those feelings which are not only those of the citizens of the Iles-de-la-Madeleine but of all Canadian citizens, from Vancouver to Saint Johns, Newfoundland. So, from that time, the Madelirots were sure of having their own representative whose feelings were not divided.
That is why they reacted strongly when the riding disappeared, as they were losing, or so they thought, their real representative, their personal representative with the federal authorities. As the reason given for this change was that the population of the Islands was not large enough, it has appeared impossible, at least until now, to modify the situation and to give back a representative to the Iles-de-la-Madeleine Islands. So, this problem will be dealt with at the next census. The least that can be done for the Islands now, is to grant them some identity by adding the former name of their riding to that of Bonaventure.
The new name I am proposing is more in keeping with the geographic reality of my riding, and will enable to avoid much confusion while at the same time reflecting the pride of my Island electors who have joined my electors from Bonaventure since 1968.
Public Bills
So, I ask the House and the Committee to support this amendment, for which the citizens from the Islands and their representative will be forever grateful.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I shall speak for a moment only because I realize that two or three other bills are to follow. I think it is ironic that the hon. member whose bill is before the House is the very individual who, two or three weeks ago, talked out my private members' bill. That only shows how inadequate is our method of dealing with bills arising in private members hour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Albert Béchard: I wish to inform the hon. member that I have never spoken until 6 o'clock on a bill designed to change the name of his constituency.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, it is not my fault if the hon. member has a bad memory. If he looks at the record he will discover that he was the last speaker on that occasion.


Albert Béchard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member did not understand what I said. I said that I have never talked out a bill sponsored by the hon. member to change the name of his riding.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, my bill was not for changing the name of my riding. It dealt with the abolition of corporal punishment. I will not deal with that now. Obviously, that is not the purpose of this bill. The purpose of this bill is to change the name of the hon. member's constituency.
He has pointed out the most difficult problems encountered in this area, the greatest being the effect of redistribution on an area which originally was represented by its own Member of Parliament. Its status was altered and, in the redistribution of ridings which came into effect in the 1968 election, Iles-de-la-Madeleine was joined with a constituency on the mainland of Quebec.
I realize that the parliamentary secretary has been suggesting that he has presented a simple matter for the consideration of the House. However, as the hon. member conceded in speaking to his own bill, substantial problems must be considered. Iles-de-la-Madeleine has such a small population, when compared with the average size of constituencies, that it was not possible in the view of the boundaries readjustment commission which met, I think, in 1965 and 1966, to establish the area as a separate constituency. Yet it is quite obvious that the interests and concerns of the people of Iles-de-la-Madeleine are different from the interests and concerns of those who live in the mainland of Quebec. I say this because I come from Prince Edward Island. We have a number of close ties.
The hon. member spoke of a lack of airline communication between Iles-de-la-Madeleine and the rest of his riding. There is direct communication from Prince
3214

February 9, 1971
Public Bills
Edward Island to lles-de-la-Madeleine and, as well, there is communication by boat. I think, when the boundaries commission meets again, that it will need to take into consideration the distinctly different case of a settlement of people that is far removed physically and, perhaps, culturally, linguistically and economically from the rest of the riding.
I am not in any way trying to take away from the abilities of the hon. member to adequately represent those two areas. I am merely saying that it must be very difficult, if not impossible, for him to give effective representation to the entire Iles-de-la-Madeleine area under the present distribution of constituencies. Perhaps when the commission meets again, and quite likely this will be after the census returns have come in this year, they will have to take into account the problems and remarks of the hon. member. He has here, this afternoon, indicated the difficulties that the people of lles-de-la-Madeleine have experienced since 1968 in being effectively or adequately represented in the House. Their difficulties stem from the fact that they live in a part of the country which, generally, does not share with them a number of common interests. This is a very grave problem and I do not think it will be solved simply by changing the constituency's name. That will save face, I suppose, but I do not think that such action will really deal with the essential problem.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member who has just resumed his seat a question. Since the sponsor of the bill is disturbed, does the hon. member not think it might be worth while considering moving Iles-de-la-Madeleine from the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec to the jurisdiction of the province of Prince Edward Island?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, certainly there is a high degree of economic relationship between Iles-de-la-Madeleine and Iles-de-Prince-Edouard. Both communities, too, contain French speaking populations which are not in the main stream of the French speaking population of Quebec. For a number of years there have been close transportation links. There was a good deal of personal contact between these two places. While we do not want to get into questions involving the constitution, in view of the mutual affinity that seems to exist between Iles-des-Madeleines and lles-du-Prince-Edouard, it might be well if these two areas could come together in a much more realistic way politically and economically, as well as from the transportation point of view.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-88, Respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment act-Mr. Mather- Mr. Richard in the chair.
On clause 1-Surrey-White Rock
Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, I rise to say a few words in support of Bill C-88 to change the name of the constituency of Surrey to Surrey-White Rock.
My constituency is in the deep southwest of this nation. It comprises the municipality of Surrey, the largest municipality in British Columbia, and includes the very beautiful small city of White Rock. The city of White Rock is singular in climate and, in some degree, of location to the south coast of France or the Costa del Sol in Spain. It is an admirable section of the constituency of Surrey.
The intent of the bill is to give a better geographical expression to parts of the riding of Surrey by changing the name of the constituency of Surrey to that of Surrey-White Rock. This will in no way reduce the recognition of the very important municipality of Surrey. It will give better recognition of the importance of the city of White Rock.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Bill reported.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT-CHANGE IN NAME OF CONSTITUENCY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-178-Mr. Boulanger (for Mr. LanieD-Mr. Richard in the Chair.
On Clause 1.
Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Laniel).
I should like to take this opportunity to wish a quick recovery to the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole House, the hon. member for Beauharnois, who had an accident.
The purpose of the bill under discussion is to change the name of the electoral district of "Beauharnois" to that of Beauharnois-Salaberry. On the request of the hon. member for Beauharnois, the motion for concurrence in this bill is seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith).
The name "Salaberry" is a historic name in that region, and this is where the famous battle of Chateau-guay took place.
The use of the name "Beauharnois" raises a problem, because people seem to believe that the boundaries of the riding do not extend as far as Huntingdon, Chateauguay, while the electoral district of Beauharnois includes both sectors.
By saying only "the hon. member for Beauharnois", one never knows whether the federal member or the provincial member is involved.
February 9, 1971

Therefore, I am pleased to ask the hon. members, on behalf of the hon. member for Beauharnois, to pass Bill C-178.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, we are very happy to give our approval to this change. We have listened to the very appropriate words of the sponsor of this bill and the amiable manner in which he brings matters forward. We have already indicated that we will pass this bill without too much debate. I would like to have the assurance of the sponsor of this bill that when opposition members have private bills they will be passed without too much discussion, and certainly not talked out. Will the hon. member promise that he will give the same co-operation and try to have his colleagues do the same?


Prosper Boulanger: I am glad to answer the opposition whip. To show that I am bilingual, I will answer in English. It will be a pleasure to assist in passing bills to change the name of a constituency. The hon. member can count on my support.

Clause I agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill C-223.-Mr. Richard in the chair.
On clause 1.
Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to change the name of the constituency of "Bourassa" to "Montreal-Bourassa".
For quite some time now, the provincial county and the federal constituency have borne the same name of "Bourassa", which creates a lot of confusion among people.
Furthermore, since Quebec's current premier is called Bourassa, people wonder whether it is the electoral constituency of that name, or that which is represented by the premier of Quebec and which is called Mercier. Therefore, we are always wondering what exactly we are talking about. That is why a request was filed to change the name of this constituency to "Montreal-Bourassa".
Furthermore, to do justice to that part of the population of Montreal residing in the constituency of Bourassa, we felt like the other members from the Montreal area that we should add the word "Montreal" to the name of the constituency of Bourassa since that part which is in the city of Montreal accounts for approximately 40 per cent of the entire constituency.
Public Bills
Therefore, I ask the committee members to be so kind as to approve this change in name to eliminate any future misunderstanding.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall clause 1 carry?


Mr. Skoberg:: Does the hon. member agree that it may be easier to change the present premier of Quebec rather than change the name of the constituency?


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Chairman, I believe this item was not on the agenda of the Prime Ministers' conference. I wonder whether, by unanimous agreement of the committee of the whole, we could not ask the premier of Quebec to withdraw. I shall however pass on to him the representations of the hon. member for Moose Jaw and shall personally inform him of the reply.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, seeing that the House has been so co-operative and amiable this afternoon I wonder whether it would give unanimous consent to changing the name Temiscamingue to Quebec Nord-Ouest, since this is also causing difficulty.


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Chairman, I have a problem similar to that of my colleague. My riding is Mercier, which is also the provincial riding of Mr. Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec. I sometimes receive personal letters addressed to "The member for Mercier", and I know from the way they are written that they are not addressed to me, but rather, to Mr. Bourassa. I should like the same thing to be done in my case.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would be agreeable, if the rest of the House is, to changing the name of Temiscamingue riding to Quebec Nord-Ouest.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Chairman, it is only with the deepest regret that no such bill is before the House; otherwise, we would be only too happy to give the matter consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of all these suggestions about name changes, may I say that I am quite happy with "Winnipeg North Centre".


James Alexander Jerome: But are they happy with you?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, since we had such a productive afternoon, and I do not think there is anything else on the agenda-


James Alexander Jerome: Third reading.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, I am sorry.

February 9, 1971
Public Bills


Jean-Thomas Richard: I think it is time for the Chair to resume ordinary business.
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: When shall the said bills be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Alexander Jerome: the third reading of the following bills:
Bill C-21, respecting the Electoral Boundaries, Readjustment Act-Mr. Robinson.
Bill C-83, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Bechard.
Bill C-88, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

Mr. Mather.
Bill C-178, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Laniel.
Bill C-233, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Trudel.


Albert Béchard: I want to say a few words to thank the House and my colleagues for the courtesy they have shown towards the citizens of the Magdalen Islands and their representative.

Motion agreed to and bills read the third time and passed.
* * &



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, if I may deal with the business of the House for this evening before we call it six o'clock, the government proposes to deal at eight o'clock with the Indian Affairs reference on the Order Paper, followed by Bill S-4, the New Zealand trade measure and then Bill S-2, the statistics measure. From consultations had with hon. members opposite it is anticipated that there will be little or no debate on these measures. The House will then go to Bill C-184, the Export Development Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I do now leave the chair to resume same at eight o'clock p.m. Once again may I suggest to hon. members that they might consider my suggestion that instead of wasting unfinished half hours of their time, as has been the case today and recently, it could be much more logical to discuss their business for a full day on Mondays.
At 5.35 p.m. *he House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That the following matters be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development;
1.	The annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ended March 31, 1968 and the evidence adduced by the committee in its consideration thereof during the twenty-eighth Parliament;
2.	The annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ended March 31, 1969;
3.	The subject matter of Arctic icebreaker service; and
That during its consideration thereof the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe these terms meet the request of members of the committee and we are happy to agree to this motion.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would just add that while the committee has a very wide bill of fare here, I hope it will not neglect to look at some of the problems raised fairly recently involving the question of logging in Wood Buffalo Park and-


An hon. Member:: And the Peace River dam.


Gerald William Baldwin: You took the words right out of my mouth. I had in mind the very deteriorating effects on the Mackenzie River system as a result of the stupidity of a previous government allowing this dam to be built. My hon. friend goaded me into saying that. These are questions that have been raised and I know that the committee, which is very dedicated in its duties, will look at these problems.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
* # *

Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill S-4, to implement an agreement amending the trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on third reading of this bill to amend the Canada-New Zealand-
February 9, 1971


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are at the report stage now. Is any debate allowed, if there is no amendment?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on third reading of this bill to amend the Canada-New Zealand trade agreement. The main points of the agreement are not at issue and I am sure that this bill will be passed promptly. However, I would like to say a few words about the present implication of the bill in relation to the impending trading rearrangements that must necessarily follow within a few years. These arise because of the likely entry of the United Kingdom into the European Common Market.
New Zealand, which has long valued the United Kingdom market as its main area of trade, is faced as a result of the entry into the European Common Market by Great Britain with virtual exclusion of its products from Great Britain and the common market. The British are sensitive to the needs of New Zealand and have tried to obtain from the European Common Market assurances that trade from New Zealand can enter the United Kingdom under its old preferential rate. Appreciating the value of the British market, New Zealand supported Mr. Heath at the Singapore conference to do something to counteract Soviet influence in the Indian Ocean.
Although Canada is vitally interested in the British market, especially for agricultural products, the Canadian delegation confined itself to protesting that Great Britain was not affording Canada proper recognition of the importance of Canada's exports to Great Britain, and the Prime Minister then proceeded to negate the importance of maintaining some Western influence in the Indian Ocean.
The importance of the agreement to Canada and New Zealand lies in the fact that until now New Zealand has been largely a dairy producing country depending on the British export market for butter and cheese. But with the possibility of losing drastically their trade with Great Britain in dairy products, New Zealand has introduced a change-over from dairying to beef production and has been looking for markets around the borders of the Pacific, particularly in Canada, the United States and Japan.
Trade with New Zealand was in Canada's favour until 1969, when it became roughly balanced. In 1970 until October, Canada imported $27 million worth of beef. The Canadian beef industry has always operated with a minimum of protection. The flow of beef which has been substantial shows a danger of creating dislocation in the meat industry. Since 1964 the United States has imposed quotas on beef from Australia and New Zealand. The European Common Market has imposed rigid quotas, tariffs and variable levies against all manner of agricultural products, including beef. Japan imposes a quota plus a tariff of 25 per cent of the value-cost plus freight-of beef. The United Kingdom, reversing its
New Zealand Trade Agreement Act almost century-old process of food subsidy in preference to tariff, is now in the process of instituting a system of variable levies for many agricultural products, including beef, to go into effect April 1, 1971.
It is interesting to note that in the other politically sensitive area where importation of New Zealand agricultural commodities such as butter is effectively prevented from being imported into Canada by means of an import licence, the Canadian Dairy Commission has a monopoly-85 per cent of the dairy industry is concentrated in Quebec and Ontario-and this percentage is steadily being raised by the transfer of quotas from the Prairies. This means that the dairy industry will not have to bear any competition from New Zealand, particularly in dairy sensitive areas of eastern Canada. But in the matter of beef production and other forms of meat there is really nothing in this bill that will help even at times of a very severe dislocation of our market. Last year about 7 per cent of the beef consumed in Canada came from Australia, and this year it is estimated that 12 per cent of the beef consumed in Canada could come from Australia and New Zealand.
In the few comments I have made on trade I have indicated the importance of the British market both directly to New Zealand and indirectly to Canada. We all wish, however, that the European Common Market, in the interests of world trade, will reduce the massive walls of tariffs, quotas and other restrictions that have created in the eight years of its existence a relatively inefficient agricultural industry. In conclusion, I should like to state that Bill S-4 can be said to be largely non-argumentative and is welcomed as a means of updating the trade arrangements between New Zealand and Canada.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words during the third reading stage of this bill. My remarks are along the lines of those of the previous speaker in trying to bring some warning to this House and to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) regarding the situation into which we are heading. I first stated my views back in 1969 when the minister returned from a trip to Asia. One of the goodies that he brought back was, as he told us, that we would have an increase in imports of beef from New Zealand. At that time I pointed out that we really did not need that much more beef from New Zealand, that we were practically self-supporting and that we had a satisfactory trade with the United States in beef. Sometimes the products were flowing from their country into ours and sometimes it was the other way around. I also told the minister that he was encouraging imports in a pretty sensitive area.
The minister, who was good enough to reply to me, set out the situation as he saw it. However, 1 am afraid that even at that time I could not bring myself to agree with him. He pointed out that what we would be bringing in would be largely what can be described as manufacturing beef. Subsequently, I corresponded with the Department

February 9, 1971
New Zealand Trade Agreement Act
of Agriculture to find out what quantities of beef were coming in, the manner in which they were coming in and the manner in which this beef was classified. Predictably, the quantities of beef coming into this country increased to the extent that the Canadian Cattlemen's Association became alarmed, and a recent issue of their magazine carries an article by Mr. Gracey expressing the alarm of the association.
Those who are acquainted with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association know that they do not usually go to the government or raise a protest. I suppose they pride themselves on being one of the last bastions of free enterprise in Canada. Their favourite saying is: We will stand on our own feet. However, they are becoming alarmed because they think their feet will be kicked out from under them. That is the situation. The minister can afford to be bland about it, but frankly I cannot afford be so indifferent to the situation.
In the matter of dairy products we realized a number of years ago that a balance would have to be maintained because of the higher cost of dairy production in Canada as compared with New Zealand which has an extremely favourable climate. We have developed with New Zealand a quota system, an agreement or an arrangement, whereby their products can come in here if they do not unduly disrupt and, indeed, destroy our own market. Yet in discussions in this House I have not been able to obtain any commitment from the government that they are prepared to take a similar attitude with regard to beef. I have raised the question in the House as well as in the committee when the bill was before it. I asked the witnesses before the committee whether the sale by New Zealand of beef in Canada could be regarded as dumping. The answer was no. That is right because the New Zealanders are not selling beef to us any cheaper than they are selling it to their own people.
I also asked the witnesses before that committee whether quotas could be established by negotiation or by agreement, that is, whether we could establish by agreement or by negotiation the quantity of beef that may be allowed into this country. Again the answer was that under this agreement we could. I am a little baffled as to why I am unable to receive a clear and coherent answer concerning the policy that will be followed on the amount of importation of beef from New Zealand in reply to the long series of questions which I put to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), as well as in answer to the question I put in the adjournment debate to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard).
I do not know why they are reluctant to give this information or to set out the policy, unless they do not have a policy. This is wrhat really concerns me. We had such an influx of this product into Canada last year that we were exporting it to the United States to the point where the United States stopped it at the border and said they did not want any more of it. This ban continues. As a result, of course, whatever was on the high seas at that time simply came into Canada. Canada then was forced, through its representatives, I understand, to say to New Zealand that they would have to slow down.
When I asked a question regarding this matter the other night, the answer 1 received was that if this continues the government will have to take the kind of action that needs to be taken, an answer which was not too clear. I submit to the government that this is just not good enough. I think that the beef producers of this country are entitled to know government policy. They are entitled to know how much beef will be brought into this country, what the limits are and what is the competition in terms of price and volume with which they will have to contend. I think they are entitled to know this, because the people who are producing beef in this country, the farmers and the ranchers, are putting money into production. Cattle herds are increasing. Feed-lot establishments are substantial. All this is capital investment. As I pointed out the other day, we are being urged to plant more land to forage, which means increased beef production, sheep or dairy cattle. Anyone who has followed the policies of the Minister of Agriculture knows he is not encouraging anyone to go into increased dairy production.
What really concerns me is that there is not a limit of policy set out that can be understood to have this are in the business. I think we are entitled to have this limit of policy set out; I think we are entitled to know. I do not think it is good enough to sit and wait while the government decides it may be something or may not do something, to sit and wait until the United States opens its borders and then wait until it closes its borders. According to the information that has been given to me by responsible people in government, it is possible to work out a policy. As the previous speaker said-and he was dead right-New Zealand is doing what it is because it is in a tough position with dairying and sheep and it is increasing its beef production and then exporting its problems to us. I say to the government that we have enough problems of our own. Let us not expect to handle other people's as well.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to intervene only briefly for the purpose of correcting some of the misinformation, or at least wrong information, that has been given respecting the magnitude of beef imports during the past few months. I am surprised that people from the great agricultural areas of Canada, particularly those areas that are dependent on export markets for most of their economy, would be advocating protectionism and restrictions in advance, because we know that these kinds of moves lead to retaliatory or what some people call compensatory action by other countries. It seems to me it is in the interests of Canada, which has a very highly efficient beef and other meat producing establishment, to do as little as possible to encourage other countries to throw up barriers against it.
To get back to the substance of the matter with respect to the statistics that have been given, some figures have been thrown around to the effect that we have been importing from 10 per cent to 12 per cent of Canada's beef requirements from oceanic countries. I do not know
[Mr. Gleave.)
February 9, 1971

where these figures came from, but they are completely erroneous. I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but speaking from memory the amount of beef imported for use in Canada during the first nine or ten months of 1970 was in the order of 60 million pounds as compared with a total production in Canada of something like 1.8 million pounds or, in effect, about 3 per cent. The fact is that there was some transshipment of beef through Canada from the latter part of 1969 until July 2, 1970, and this was destined for U.S. packing houses for use in the manufacturing industry. This was manufacturing beef. I hope hon. members will bear in mind that the greatest amount of manufacturing beef coming into Canada is frozen blocks of beef, just to fill in the deficiency in Canadian production for those purposes; and almost all of it goes into plants for processing and manufacturing.
I admit that some attempts were made to put this frozen meat on the fresh meat market, but I know of none that have been very successful because it was not comparable with the product produced here in Canada and offered in an unfrozen condition to housewives, that is, a product that has never been frozen. I hope hon. members are not suggesting that we should now build up a series of barriers to this kind of trade, which to my mind is legitimate because we do not have enough production to supply the requirements. I do not think it would be in our interests at this time, and perhaps not at any time, or at least until we see some serious deterioration in our own price structure, to put up these kinds of barriers.
In conclusion may I say that in our discussions with the Australian and New Zealand meat marketing agencies during the past summer, they fully realized it is in their interests to ship into Canada only that which can be absorbed to fill the deficiency and to do this at prices beneficial to them and to our producers.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already spoken in the debate. He cannot speak a second time.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: May I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question of the minister. Is the minister prepared to answer a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I was not aware that the figures mentioned by the minister were quoted. However, I would like to ask him whether the agreement which he described, or the understanding with New Zealand and Australia has reached the point of Canada and Australia mutually working out the quotas which our market can absorb.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, this agreement is only with New Zealand and as far as I know there are not specific provisions in it for establishing any kind of quotas either to fit our market or for any other purpose. In practical terms, the only difficulty we have had with this importa-
New Zealand Trade Agreement Act
tion of meat was when there were great quantities of it going through Canada to U.S. destinations. That caused us and the United States some problems too. I do not want to gloss over the magnitude of those problems other than to say that the amount coming in was not disruptive of our own markets or to our producers' interests in those markets.


Mr. Benjamin:: Can the minister say whether discussions have taken place with the New Zealand government to develop some sort of international rationalization of markets as between New Zealand and Canada? They grow mutton and lamb, and we grow beef. Has there been discussions about trade-offs, or has the minister looked into this possibility?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not in those terms. The discussions we have had from time to time have concerned their wish to have access to the Canadian market for the type of beef to meet the deficiency in our production and for our own consumption. In that respect the discussions have been very useful and have led to agreements, not formal agreements but an understanding that we would operate in this market to the benefit of both countries.


Mr. McKinley:: Can the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) give us an assurance that what happened with respect to this beef being transshipped through Canada to the United States, when its entry to the U.S. was cut off, will not happen again?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I cannot assure the hon. member that someone will not try it in the future. What happened in the last instance was that New Zealand and other countries had a beef quota set by the United States and they were getting some additional supplies by transshipping through Canada. I communicated to the governments of the countries concerned that we did not wish to be party to this attempt to circumvent U.S. rules. While I cannot positively assure the hon. member that someone will never try this again, I think we reached an understanding that it was not beneficial to our countries to be involved in this kind of operation.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister another question? Since the minister has indicated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind hon. members that we are not involved in discussion at committee stage. Technically, the minister still has the floor. The hon. member may ask the minister a question if the minister is prepared to accept it. I must again suggest to hon. members that we are not in committee at this stage and we should not embark upon a committee-style discussion. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) may make a speech, if he wants to, when he has the floor.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know what to say, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 9, 1971
New Zealand Trade Agreement Act


Mark Willson Rose: The Minister's remarks seem to me to be quite contradictory. It seems to me the minister is suggesting that New Zealand beef will be allowed into Canada so long as it is not a threat to the Canadian cattle industry and that it is helping us to overcome the deficiencies of the Canadian cattle industry so far as our domestic market is concerned. I hope the minister agrees with my assessment of what he said. My question to him is this: Since the beef industry has a continental market, is he suggesting that if the market for Canadian beef should be enlarged in the United States, we in turn will be importing beef to fulfil our demands domestically and that this would depend upon the amount of beef imported under the continental market system to the United States?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I still have the floor to answer questions. I assume that I have. There is no suggestion of that at all. There are certain types of meat-we have been referring to manufacturing beef which is said to be of low quality but which is actually of high quality-that Canada is deficient in so far as its own requirements are concerned. We would not like to see a situation developing in which this meat was coming through Canadian ports and also supplying the market for this type of meat in the United States. Although they import much larger quantities of this kind of beef for the same purposes into that country, they set quotas. It seems to me that it is up to the United States authorities to make their own decisions of how great a quota for this kind of meat they want and how much of it they want imported, and Canada should not be a party to trying to circumvent rules which have been set in the United States.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the minister prepared to consider other questions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a brief question of the minister which arises from his remarks. Could he inform the House if any consultations or discussions were held with Canadian canners, dealers or other firms that were engaged in the transshipment of meat and meat product from New Zealand to Canada and to the United States? Were discussions held with those firms and, if so, could he indicate what were the results of those discussions?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I cannot say that any particular meeting was called for that purpose. We made it known to the people in the trade that Canada was very unhappy at being in the position that it was the country through which transshipment was taking place and that we were not going to allow it to happen to the point where it could jeopardize the very satisfactory trading relations that we have established with the United States. The people in the trade were advised that that is the position of the government.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising to ask a question or to make a speech?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member cannot ask a question unless the minister is prepared to accept it. I see that the minister is willing to accept it. The hon. member may have the floor to ask his question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister how in the agreements concerning the importation of New Zealand beef he was able to reconcile the demands of the various provincial governments, particularly those of Saskatchewan and Alberta-regardless of whether the quality of beef produced in Canada meets the needs of our market-for an enlarged production of beef of any kind or quality without the establishment of a quota, with the importation of beef from New Zealand, some portion of which stays in Canada. Has he had any discussions with the administrations of the provinces which are paying the farmers money to diversify? Can he reconcile that position with the agreement reached with New Zealand?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that we export beef at times and import beef at other times. Our present situation is that there has been a deficiency in almost all classes of beef in this country for several weeks, and as a result there has been some importation of some high quality, fresh beef from the United States as well as manufacturing quality beef from these other countries. It seems to me that the determining factor in whether demand is being met or not at a certain price is the market place. The canner and cutter cows, which provide the class of beef that we are importing from Australia and New Zealand, have been running at up to $2 per hundred higher this year as compared with the same date last year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and
passed.



STATISTICS ACT


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill S-2, respecting statistics of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?
February 9, 1971


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-184, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), who first proposed an amendment at this stage, has suggested that the amendment not be proceeded with on the understanding that all the arguments would be made on third reading. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that Bill C-184, to amend the Export Development Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move an amendment which has been recommended by the Governor General. I think that copies of the amendment have been distributed to all parties: if not, I have several copies that can be distributed. Am I to assume that the amendment has been read or does Your Honour suggest that I read it?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the amendment might be put to the House at this time. Moved by Mr. Pepin:
That Bill C-184 be amended
(a) by striking out lines 4 and 5 on page 1 and substituting the following:
'1. (1) Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Export Development Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"4. (1) The chairman and six other directors shall be appointed by the Governor in Council from among persons employed in the public service of Canada."
(2) Subsection (3) of section 4 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) The five directors not appointed from among persons employed in the public service of Canada shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office during pleasure for such term, not exceeding five years, as will ensure as far as possible the expiration in any one year of the term of not more than one such appointee."
Export Development Act
2. (1) Subsection (1) of section 11 of the said act is repealed'	; and
(b) by renumbering clauses 2 to 10 as clauses 3 to 11 respectively.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances the amendment which the minister now seeks to move would be out of order. Because I say it is out of order I do not wish that to sound as though it is, unless hon. members want to take it that way. This is not an amendment to the bill that is before the House, but rather to the act which the bill seeks to amend. We on this side of the House have tried that scores of times and Your Honour has rightly prevented us from doing so. However, we were asked earlier today if we would give unanimous consent to waiving the rule in this case. If the substance of the request is as it was communicated earlier today, we will not object to proceeding with it in this way, but we would like it to be clear that the opposition is granting a concession to the government which is seldom granted to us.
We are willing to have the rule waived and for the minister to be permitted to amend the bill before the House in a way that actually goes behind the bill and amends the act. This, of course, is on the understanding the minister has been able to persuade the Governor General to give his recommendation to the proposal.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have been consulted about this. We are prepared to give our consent. As a matter of fact, it is a good indication. Any time the government frankly admits it has made an error and wants to correct it, we are always prepared to allow them to rectify it. We do that in this case.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thank hon. members opposite for their generosity. I suggest that I am not being terribly immoral, because this procedure can be used when there is unanimous consent of the House. However, I am grateful.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair should express the thought that the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. There is no question but that the amendment is not regular from a procedural standpoint in that it seeks to amend the act rather than the amending bill. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, such amendments proposed from time to time are always ruled out of order. I do not want it to be considered a precedent that on this occasion we have accepted the amendment. As mentioned by the minister and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), it is understood that this procedure, which is highly irregular, is proceeded with by unanimous consent.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Pepin) agreed to.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.

February 9, 1971
Export Development Act


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, we in the official opposition are glad to support this bill because it will do something very important, that is, help increase exports. It is important that we do everything possible at this time to increase exports of manufactured products. As hon. members know, manufactured products are labour intensive: they are our best weapon to combat the serious unemployment situation which we are facing. This country has not been doing too well in increasing exports of manufactured products during the past year. I received the latest report from the Dominion Bureau of Statistics today. During the past year our exports of manufactured products increased by only 4.2 per cent over the previous year. People may ask what is wrong with that. The answer is that it is not good enough. As the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) stated recently when answering a question put to him in the House, the number of jobs in Canada is increasing but the number of people looking for jobs is increasing faster.
Our work force is rapidly increasing. Young people are entering the labour force at a very rapid rate. We must provide jobs for them. Obviously jobs are not being provided at a fast enough rate: that is why unemployment is steadily increasing. It is obvious that unemployment cannot be cured by the public works method. When this party was in power a few years ago, we tried that. We were faced with the same situation. It did not work because it cost too many thousand dollars of public funds to create a single job. There is just so much that the exchequer of the country can afford at any time. Once the construction projects are completed, you are right back at square one: once again you have unemployment on your hands and you have to find jobs.
The only way to cure unemployment is to create jobs. By stimulating the economy it is possible for producers to sell in an atmosphere which will enable them to increase sales, production and employment. This does not cost the Canadian taxpayer one cent. It is the only-practical way of overcoming unemployment because it is on a continuing basis. That is what we are looking for. We in the official opposition are very glad to support this bill. This measure will do something that is most important for the country at the present time, namely, help increase sales of manufactured products. We say to the government: Get on with the job and use this tool to help you sell more manufactured products and thus produce more jobs for Canadian workers.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was considered on second reading I noted that the Export Development Corporation and its activities represented a very important instrument in our trade policy. I think this has been borne out by the subsequent consideration of this bill. Through its programs of export credit insurance and export loans and guarantees, I think the Export Development Corporation has played and can
continue to play a very important role in promoting a healthy trade relationship and assist the economy. However, I think it must be noted once again that this instrument of policy can only be effective if in fact it is developed within the framework of an adequate trade policy.
This I pointed out during the second reading debate and I think it was underlined by some of the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howard) when he introduced the bill to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He pointed out that discussion had taken place during the second reading debate on the problem of promoting the export of Canadian products and the fact that considerable emphasis must be placed on the sale and export of semi-finished products and raw materials rather than more highly manufactured products. The parliamentary secretary went on to point out that promotion of one kind of export in preference to another rests with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Still later he made reference to concerns that have been expressed about the degree of our trade with the United States and said that in this case also it is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, rather than the corporation, that would make that kind of effort in dealing with these problems.
I think this underlines the point that some of us made at the time the bill was considered at second reading, namely, that this instrument of policy can operate effectively only if there is an adequate policy framework. It is perfectly obvious to all hon. members that some of the programs of this corporation have made a very important contribution to the Canadian economy. I draw attention to the value and importance of its operations to western Canada and particularly to my region in such things as grain sales. However, there is one area of the operations of this corporation which was included in the act originally passed in 1969 which I think requires further consideration. This has to do with the section of the act relating to foreign investment insurance. There are in fact amendments in the bill now before the House to some of the provisions of the original act which the government has found unworkable, and thus were unable to conclude with other countries the type of agreements and treaties that were originally hoped for when the act was first passed in 1969.
We are very concerned with the fact that Canada is becoming involved in this kind of business. I want to make it clear that we are dealing in this bill, and indeed in the act that is being amended, with the provision which encourages private investment in other countries. This has nothing to do with whether this is allowed or prohibited, but only with the point as to whether as a matter of public policy we will introduce programs that will have the effect of encouraging private Canadian concerns to develop enterprises in foreign countries through the instrument of insurance protection against what has been termed political risk. It has been suggested that this may be interpreted in some quarters as an attempt on Canada's part to enter, as it were, the twen-

February 9, 1971

tieth century scramble lor investment in countries that have not been so fortunate as Canada in terms of economic development. It has even been suggested that this could be interpreted as Canada becoming part of the new investment imperialism, a new form of colonialism that is becoming prevalent in the twentieth century.
I think we can question the propriety of this situation and ask whether this is a good approach to take to our international relationships. Is this sort of policy going to serve the long run interests of Canada? Secondly, I think we can question whether Canada can really compete in this league, given all the circumstances.
It seems to me that a second area of concern relates to what benefits accrue to Canada as a result of this action. It can be pointed out that there is provision in the act to safeguard Canada's interests and to ensure that in fact there will be benefit to Canada as a result of assisting or encouraging private investment of Canadian money in foreign countries. However, I suggest this is a subjective matter, one on which it is very difficult to make an objective judgment. I suggest conflicts will arise in assessing these projects in terms of the extent of the benefits that will accrue to Canada. It might very well be the case that some short-run benefits can be measured, but we have as well to take into account some of the long-run problems that will develop and determine whether in the long run we will see the growth of a resentment toward Canada of the sort that some countries now suffer.
The political implications involve subjective considerations that are very difficult to measure. We have Canada's experience, where our resources have been developed to a great extent by foreign financial assistance. Some people suggested that this was essential for the development of Canada, and given a particular set of circumstances this was possibly so. But the fact is that we in Canada did not do an adequate job of developing our own resources and of mobilizing their full potential. Consequently, in the absence of adequate facilities and machinery it was really a case of foreign capital moving in to fill the vacuum.
We now have the situation where while we are still concerned about imports of capital into Canada we are going to adopt as a feature of public policy a program that will encourage and assist the export of Canadian capital for purposes of private investment to develop other countries. I think the very real question that arises is whether this is the best way in which we as a nation can assist the developing nations of the world.
This investment insurance program has been referred to as a program to protect investments against losses due to political risks, such as war, revolution, confiscation or expropriation. It seems to me that some of the evidence which was revealed at the committee indicated not only difficulties which were encountered with the structure originally developed when the act was passed in 1969 but also very fundamental questions as to the advisability of this program.
Export Development Act
The officials and the parliamentary secretary, when they appeared before the committee, reported in answer to questions by members that there have been some 200 inquiries on behalf of international prospective investors and that this represents an interest in over 70 countries, 40 per cent of which were in the Caribbean and the remainder distributed over other parts of the world. By category of investment, 40 per cent was in respect of manufacturing, 17 per cent in respect of hotels, 15 per cent in respect of food or beverages, most of which is also manufacturing or processing, 10 per cent in financing and the balance of 15 to 20 per cent in a variety of mining, service industry, retail outlets, housing and warehousing.
It was also reported to the committee that bilateral negotiations have been carried on with 20 countries in an attempt to reach some sort of an agreement within the framework of existing legislation. It was indicated that difficulties had been encountered and that there were in fact fundamental objections on the part of some countries. Other countries just said: Look, we cannot deal with you because we are prohibited from signing an agreement under the laws which presently exist in our country.
It is now the intention of the government to change this act so that it will remove the requirement for a bilateral agreement authorizing the Export Development Corporation to provide investment insurance in cases where the minister is satisfied that the legislative atmosphere is such that Canadian investment will be adequately protected. It was also mentioned that the second requirement is that an investor must get a letter from the appropriate governmental authority of the host country that they do not object to this investment and, hopefully, that they approve.
Some questions were asked and some evidence was given concerning the negotiations that had been carried on with individual countries such as Spain, Nigeria and others. It was indicated that a great many difficulties were encountered. I do not intend to go into them in detail now. A further point of concern, as was indicated, is that there would be no difference in the manner in which the Export Development Corporation would deal with a foreign-controlled or owned company in Canada which desired to make further investment in a foreign company. In answer to a question asked by myself, Mr. Aitken said:
-we would not have any view with regard to the ownership of a particular Canadian company that came to us and wanted to make an investment abroad because after all you need not necessarily know who owns the company. The shares may be held abroad even though it appears to be entirely a Canadian company. However, with respect to the inquiries we have had I have here in front of me a list where we have given the investor a commitment to provide him with insurance in the event that we can have this bilateral arrangement. On looking over this list I see only one case where I know that the parent company is an American concern and there are some 20 on the list.
When I asked him if other companies which are foreign-owned or controlled were to make inquiries, his answer was, "We would treat them equally". I suggest there are policy implications that need to be considered

February 9, 1971
Export Development Act
by the government. These to some extent go beyond the considerations of the operations of the corporation itself and must be considered by the government as a matter of policy in establishing the framework for the operation of this corporation.
The parliamentary secretary, in answer to one of the questions put to him during the committee proceedings, indicated that it was the hope of the government that the new limitations being established in this bill with regard to export credit insurance, export loans and guarantees would last for three or four years before the government would again have to come to Parliament asking for an extension of the limits. At the same time, in answering a question concerning the foreign investment insurance provisions of this bill Mr. Aitken indicated that in so far as they could judge at this early stage of development they anticipated, or thought likely, that the firms which would take up this provision would use up approximately $120 million of the liability. That brings us very close to the $150 million limit proposed in this bill.
I would note in this regard that one of the clauses of the bill does call for the extension of the limit of liability that might be undertaken under the foreign investment clause, the extension being from $50 to $150 million. Thus, it would seem to me that if there is in fact the interest that has been indicated in this part of the bill, the government will have to come back to Parliament very shortly to ask for an extension, particularly if it wishes to continue with this measure.
I noticed in this regard that the parliamentary secretary indicated that the Department of Finance was only prepared to go up to $150 million. This indicates to me that the Department of Finance must have some doubt about this clause of the bill and that it has some questions in that regard and does not wish to see the limits of foreign investment insurance provisions extended too far. We will have to watch the operations of this part of the bill because in the long run there are very serious dangers contained in it for Canada.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, we have a few minutes left at our disposal. I will not be selfish enough to take up all the time because I know other hon. members wish to speak and the minister is straining at the leash to respond to the very illuminating comments that have been made. There are one or two comments I should like to make very seriously at this time. I hope he will agree with me.
What is involved in this bill has a lot to do with our general trading position in the world. I think we are in a precarious position and need legislation of this kind, so I am glad to support it. We are in an extremely weak position in world markets. One reason is very simple: the prestige of this country greatly diminished after the Second World War. I think this is due to a number of reasons, some of them controversial, which I do not intend to go into in detail. Because of steps we have taken to reduce certain commitments, military and otherwise, in Europe and because during the Kennedy Round negotiations our negotiators, no doubt acting skilfully in bargaining in a hard way, obtained a number of concessions which benefited us in the short term, we lost a lot of friends. I recognize the importance of negotiation and the fact that you cannot be too honest on an international basis, but it is tremendously important to have a reservoir of good will and understanding.
Within a comparatively short time we will be faced with a difficult situation. No one can predict what will happen in Europe. The United Kingdom government is headed by a very determined man who apparently is going to get his country into the European community, Even today it is quite obvious that the international trading world will have great difficulty in salvaging the English market for New Zealand commodities and for sugar products from some of the other Commonwealth countries. Certainly there will no incentive to create circumstances which will permit Canada to benefit from this situation. England and some of the other Common Market nations may ultimately react to our benefit, but we are faced with that situation and our situation vis-avis the United States. We do not have the capacities of Japan, although I am not downgrading the Canadian position. I am sure that the minister, who has been over there recently, will bear me out. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was over there a few months ago, and so was my leader who publicly stated the things which he knew but which were reinforced by what he learned over there, things which the government should have known.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, acting as an innocent abroad, was publishing statements from time to time indicating that he was first discovering these very alarming facts. Where will this leave Canada? We will be faced with a very serious problem, and the minister knows it. I am not saying that he is not trying to do something about it-and perhaps this bill reflects it but I wonder whether it goes far enough. I would like to think that some time we will have a discussion. We have had many debates in this House. Unemployment is our No. 1 problem and we have to do what we can on this side of the House to awaken the government to these problems. But I think the minister should take the opportunity to initiate a debate. He should take a day of the government's time and initiate a debate on the situation. We do not have this kind of debate. If he does so, we will be glad to participate in it and decide, after he has spoken, whether we will continue to support him.
I was overseas recently and met a number of people in the European countries. I discussed with them the question of our trading relations. We must consider the extent to which we can make use of this bill and its ability in working with underdeveloped countries. We are starting what is known as the second decade for aid to developing nations. The fact that it is called the second decade is of some importance, because when the program was first initiated it was called the decade of aid to developing nations. However, it was discovered that ten years was not enough.
We must bear in mind that the gap between the developed and the developing nations is widening and it may

February 9, 1971

take 30 or 40 years to close it. In the meantime, time is against us. We cannot wait, because time does not wait and because a train of circumstances is set in motion which is leading us toward an unbridgeable chasm. The growth and the per capita wealth of the developed nations in comparison with that of the developing nations is tremendously serious. Now that the developing nations are able through various media to discover that there is a better way of life and a better world, these people will not sit idly by for an eternity and permit the situation to continue.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to have support for my point of view. I conclude with this comment. I shall read to the minister two or three paragraphs from a booklet of which the minister may be aware: it is called "Canada's Trade Policy in the Second Development Decade", written by Benjamin and Jean Higgins. It deals with the uses which we can make of such weapons as this bill, the Export Development Act and other measures to assist the developing nations through our trade policy. I am reading from page 65 of the booklet. These are words which the government may well bear in mind with respect to problems near at home. They read as follows:
But from what has been said already concerning unemployment, it should be clear that the most useful discovery of all would be a formula for modifying western industrial technology, applicable over a wide range of manufacturing activities, which would use less capital and more labour while raising productivity of both labour and capital. Here indeed is a challenge, and one that has yet to be accepted and translated into action in any country, whether advanced or underdeveloped. What is required is not merely laboratory research but application on a pilot-plan scale as well. And no matter how brilliant the engineers and the natural scientists engaged in such research, their efforts are unlikely to be crowned with success unless they understand clearly what it is they are seeking. After centuries of inventing labour-saving devices and of identifying the discovery of such devices with technological progress, it is not easy for western engineers and scientists- or for the engineers and scientists of LDCs whose training is essentially the same-to think in terms of new techniques that will use more labour rather than less, while raising output per man-hour and per unit of capital. But we cannot say that no such technology exists, because no one has tried seriously to find it. If Canada could produce such a technology-*
I interpolate here to say that I wish Canada could produce such a technology and export it using the medium of the Export Development Bank.
-it would be a boon to mankind.
Technical assistance programs are essentially a device whereby the existing stock of skills and the flow from the educational system are supplemented through international transfers of human resources. Very often the lack of certain types of human resources is the major bottleneck in the development of a particular country and the major factor limiting capacity to absorb capital assistance. In such cases transfers of any type of scarce skills can be helpful.
From the analysis above, however, it is clear that the most useful form of technical assistance in the Second Development Decade will be provision of those managerial, scientific, and technical skills needed to ferret out opportunities to establish successful new industrial enterprises, to organize them, and to nurse them through their infancy. In Canada these skills are
Export Development Act
usually found in private enterprises rather than in government departments or universities.
I am waiting for some approval from my friends to the left, but apparently they are not interested.
One way of making such skills available to the LDCs, obviously, is through the establishment of new Canadian enterprises in those countries. But this method may not always be appropriate, and ways must be found of making the skills of private enterprise available to our foreign-aid program. The new private enterprise division of the Canadian international development agency could prove very useful in this respect.
This may not be completely relevant, but I point out to the minister that this is a technique by which we can be of assistance to the developing countries through the effectiveness of this bill. I commend these thoughts to the minister's attention when this bill is passed and he administers it.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, there is a line from Shakespeare that is appropriate tonight-"The quality of mercy is twice blessed; it blesses him that gives and him that takes". I remind hon. members of that line because I think it applies to the comments made by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) and by the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
Tonight we have heard two sides of the same question. We have heard the fears of the hon. member for Regina East that Canadian corporations operating abroad are somehow going to bring disrepute to Canada and will bring down anger on all of us.


John Stratford Burton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I did not make any such statement.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have paraphrased the hon. member's words, but he implied that if we send Canadian companies to take their place in the markets of other countries we will somehow inherit the opprobrium that has fallen on a number of other nations which did this. I cannot accept that premise. I believe we have a responsibility to take our talents and invest them abroad, if this will help other nations, and I believe that the points raised by the hon. member for Peace River are worth remembering in that regard.
We have an obligation that we have accepted in international aid. We are seeking to achieve a target of 1 per cent of our gross national product as aid to the developing nations. We know that this is a difficult objective for a country the size of Canada, but the United Nations and other authorities in this field are more and more encouraging the development of foreign investment in the developing countries as a legitimate and useful way in which the developed countries can aid those nations. I believe this is useful to those nations not just because of the wealth it creates for them but because of the skills we are able to transfer to them and the managerial techniques. The plants we establish bring wealth to them as well as to Canadian corporations. In doing so, I think

February 9, 1971
Export Development Act
we must recognize that we should be prepared to abide by the laws that those nations may want to apply to Canadian corporations operating within their boundaries. We should be willing to accede to their desire that such corporations should be good corporate citizens. But that does not preclude Canadian corporations performing a very useful and valuable service to them and to us. It is for that purpose that this part of the bill has been included.
The hon. member mentioned that during committee discussions we dealt with the question of foreign-owned corporations in Canada being eligible for this benefit. Well, it is possible that this can happen, and Mr. Hugh Aiken, the chairman of the Export Development Corporation, indicated that in some cases it had happened. I make no apology for this. A corporation which operates in Canada brings wealth to Canada and should qualify for the same benefits as a Canadian citizen or Canadian corporation.
The hon. member also mentioned the $150 million limit, which he indicated would not last very long. I think this may be true. I think it is quite possible that we will reach that limit very soon, but I do not think that the reluctance of the Department of Finance or of the Treasury Board to authorize higher limits in this case was because they feared the money was not well invested. I think it was simply because there were outer limits beyond which the Canadian budget could not go at that time.
Now I wish to make some comments on the statements made by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). He seems to have hit-and-run: I do not see him in the House at the moment.


Gerald William Baldwin: He won the ball game; he hit a home-run.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: I think he struck out. He was citing statistics concerning development of our manufactured, semi-manufactured and raw material exports. It is very convenient, if you take a particular statistic from here and there and use it according to whim, but you are not giving the whole picture. One of the points the hon. member tried to make was that somehow we have been remiss in the development of our manufactured goods exports, and he cited figures for a particular year. I want to tell hon. members that over the past five years our exports of manufactured goods have gone up by 300 per cent. I think that is a pretty good figure, a better figure than that used by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
The hon. member for Peace River said that we need to obtain the tools, the instruments that we need to meet the responsibilities and difficulties that we may encounter because of the expansion of the European Economic Community. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Export Development Corporation bill is just such a tool that Canada needs. It is the kind of tool with which we can do what he has suggested, and for that reason I respectfully recommend it to hon. members for their concurrence.


John Stratford Burton: Before he resumes his seat, would the parliamentary secretary accept a question?


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Yes.


John Stratford Burton: In his remarks the parliamentary secretary made reference to my comments about the limits which the Department of Finance had insisted upon, as revealed during the committee proceedings, and in answering the point I made in that regard he indicated there were other limits imposed upon any action the government might take in this regard. He also referred to the government's budget. Would he elaborate on what other limits are involved in establishing the $150 million which would be considered by the Department of Finance in that regard, and indicate just how the government's budget comes into the picture, because it seems to me that this is not a direct imposition on the government.


Bruce Andrew Thomas Howard: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the acoustics are bad in the chamber tonight. I mentioned outer limits, and what I suggested was that this was the outer limit for budgetary purposes to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was prepared to go at that time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am prompted to intervene in the debate is that listening to the parliamentary secretary I was reminded of the salesman on the old Mississippi boat who had made his sale and then almost protested too much. In fact if I were charitable, a trait derived from my Irish ancestry, I would say that the parliamentary secretary had almost protested too much in biblical terms, but since we are not talking about biblical terms I will let it go at that.


An hon. Member:: Good.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The few remarks that I intend to make tonight are more relevant than the minister might think. I confess that my remarks may not be very relevant to the Export Development Act, but they will have a lot to do with exports. I am one of those on this side of the House who finds the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) one of the more interesting, ingenious-


An hon. Member:: Intelligent, and capable.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and capable ministers on the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Frankly, I can well understand-


Some hon. Members:: More.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -why they are clapping at this innuendo which reflects on the government. It is because there are so few ministers who are interesting or intelligent: that is why they are clapping. They have a good character reference with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

February 9, 1971

He is one of those ingenious characters who can stand up in this House with a snowball-in fact, he could stand in Hades with a snowball and it would not melt in his hands: it would remain unmelted while he recited the latest statistics up to the end of the month. If the snowball dissolved, and that would not help his statistics, he would not tell a white lie in this chamber. The snowball would be dissolved and it would be a lump of water in his hand. Therefore, he would never betray the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman), the co-ordinator of committees in this House, would do well to talk on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, especially if he is interested in seeing peace, progress and harmony in this House. I have a great personal kinship with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, but we hold a political dialogue. I say to the hon. member, with all deterrence to the House, that this minister helps us detour and circumvent most problems. I am now coming to my point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My point is this.


An hon. Member:: Hurray.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not apologize to a gosh darned person in this whole gosh darned chamber. I give full credit to the hon. member to my left for making the pontifical, profound and positive remarks he has made: that is great alliteration. I think it is time, since we are talking about the Export Development Act, to talk about a different kind of export. We can say how great this will be for our great customers, but I am talking about Canadians who are unemployed and who have not a gosh darned breadcrumb in their throats because of the policies of this gosh darned government, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I say this because the government can help the people who are unemployed.


An hon. Member:: By exporting them.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear the hon. member from the Koote-nays, who replaced that other great member from the Kootenays, the late Mr. Herridge. But the point is-


An hon. Member:: He is too late.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Do not distract me from my thoughts. My thought is this-


An hon. Member:: Don't go away.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member on my left-


An hon. Member:: Let's hear from the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: There is no coaching here. Let me start over again.
Export Development Act


An hon. Member:: Previously it was the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That may be so. He has it made. I was talking about exports in Canada. We are considering the Export Development Act, which is all very fine. I think the minister would be the first to agree that if I were to suggest that if he were anxious to help Canadians to export he should seek the help of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to find pretty quickly some type of counterbalance to the floating dollar. I am serious in what I say about the floating dollar. The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) is commenting. He is one of the guilded figures of the skating world as a result of the North American championships which have been held in Peterborough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I do not fault him for that. I know that hon. member well. In many ways we are ad idem, which is an old Latin term for "togetherness". He might say that we are together in this just society. I do not say that. I say that if the just society means anything, it means that instead of talking about the apocryphal Export Development Act we ought to be concerned about the export of Canadians from Canada.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is not in charge of this area. I hope, goodness to gracious, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) will not flounce around and bubble with our dollar. Just because some may call him "Bubbly Benson" does not mean that he can bubble with the dollar. To find its level you almost have to look at a thermometer. I sometimes wonder just what the level of the dollar is. In Canada's interest, it is time for us to deal not only with the Export Development Act but with the stabilization of the dollar. The Minister of Finance ought to introduce some income tax reforms over a five-year period or a two-year period which would help us make up through exports what we are now losing as a result of our floating dollar.
I come from an area that exports certain quantities of goods, yet they do not know what they are competing against in the Boston market. None of us know what they are competing against in that market and few of us know the problems our traders encounter in competing in the American market. We do not know exactly what we are competing against, because of our floating dollar. I do not mind if some things float. I have seen this government performing for eight years, and all it has done in that time is float from problem to problem. They do not have the guts to build a dam, but they are floating along. In my flight of fancy there is nothing to compare with the bubbling, floating procrastination of this government that represents the establishment. It is no reflection on the Chair, Mr. Speaker, when I say as a liberal Canadian that I would find myself compromised if I were a member of the government. They imagine that they are Liberals, yet this is one of the most staid, reactionary, Cromwellian and Conservative governments that we have ever had. especially since 1922.

February 9, 1971
Export Development Act


Mr. Whelan:: The hon. member is making a gosh darned good speech.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear the former parliamentary secretary for fisheries, who grows tomatoes, interjecting. That is meant to be no personal slight. I am saying nothing against that great Canadian who was part of this whole government machinery. The fact is that Canadians wonder, and I sometimes wonder, why we are debating the government organization bill, why we are getting involved in these areas when, frankly, we are only concerned with our own pockets. The great majority of Canadians-


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker-


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


J. Michael Forrestall: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a question. Is he speaking on the bill in front of us?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the point of order is from that member. He is one of the most relevant members and relevant contributors.


J. Michael Forrestall: All I did was ask a question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you have a question, ask it through the Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: I did.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. My understanding is that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has a question. If the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) is prepared to receive it, I think the House would be interested.


J. Michael Forrestall: My question is based on some very relevant comments which were made in the gallery a few moments ago. Isabelle wonders whether she can come down and straighten this out.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Isabelle may be the name of a new cone going to the moon. I have not gone to the moon yet.


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is one of the more constructive, charitable and intelligent ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: That is not saying much.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As my whip says, while lashing me across the back, that is not saying much. Be that as it may, it is time that we in Canada started to define some policy. I am completely against the policy of pay out from the pocket with no philosophy. How are we going to get the money in the pocket? I am not accusing the minister of
this; I will do that later when we get to some other issues. Right now I am talking about the Export Development Act. I suggest to Your Honour and members opposite-


Grant Deachman: Carried.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is not carried yet.


An hon. Member:: He is still quoting.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear echoes saying "Nowlan, you shouldn't get serious because people do not want you to be serious". Unless we start getting serious in Canada about some of the problems, this institution will go down the drain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am not fooling with the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), the member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, or wherever the hell he may be from, or with any other member. There will come a time when institutions will land and when people will land. It is time to be serious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with some of the litany opposite. I may not have been the most serious person when I started and I may be taking too long to make my point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with the "Hear, hears." What bothers me is that Bill C-184, and most other bills introduced in this chamber, are fine for one specific purpose. No one can take exception to them. However, as far as concerns the great malady, illness or sickness that is across this land tonight, they do not do anything to resolve the fact that there are "X" number of unemployed and "X" number of people on welfare. I am not suggesting that if this party were in power, as it was in 1960 and 1962, the same situation would not be in tune. I state to members opposite that I do not stand here tonight as a hypocrite. The member for Madawaska-Vic-toria (Mr. Corbin) can laugh, because he has not been through the battles. He is still a neophyte. In terms of eons of political time, I am on the moon and he is left in the swamp.


An hon. Member:: There is no doubt that you are on the moon.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Many members opposite are not tuned in to the realities of this land. I was a visitor in the opposition lobby and in the opposition gallery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Earlier the hon. member used a Latin phrase. If I could reiterate it, I suggest with great respect that he and I should be ad idem as to what is relevant before the House at this time. I invite the hon. member to return to being relevant.

February 9, 1971


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour has correctly chastised me. I have wandered to a degree. Frankly, I do not apologize for that. However, I accept Your Honour's direction. I will close my remarks as long as there are no interjections. That is not a bribe; it is blackmail. I support the Export Development Act. I suggest that we get on with it and pass it this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I agree with that. I agree with the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Howard) exquisitely, profoundly and most articulately. Until the treasury benches, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce get together to develop a system whereby our exporters will get some tax relief from the floating dollar, we are pretending to be like Alice in Wonderland. I will continue this chapter at another time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, subject only to the consideration of the three members who are involved in the adjournment debate proceedings this evening, I feel we are ready to call it ten o'clock. However, in so doing we might embarrass some members who are expected to be here at ten o'clock to ask their questions. If not, I would certainly be prepared to proceed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The first two members are here, and the third will be here shortly. We agree to calling it ten o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the Chair should call it ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, November 30, I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the following question, as recorded on page 1584 of Hansard:
Has the government of Canada had an opportunity to evaluate the suggestion put forward by the government of Somalia to the United Nations that South Africa's major trading partners
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
hold meetings to discuss ways and means of eliminating their trade with South Africa and, if so, is the government of Canada considering initiating such consultations?
In his reply the Prime Minister indicated that the placing of an embargo on trade with South Africa had been discussed on numerous occasions at the United Nations and that the major trading nations had succeeded in defeating any such move. The clear implication of his answer is that Canada has no intention of even surveying the possibility of precipitating talks of the type which Somalia has suggested. I submit that he rejected the idea without even looking at the speech by the ambassador of Somalia in which the suggestion was made.
I was very impressed by the presentation of the ambassador of Somalia. It displayed a reasonableness and sensitivity to the problems which would confront major trading nations should an embargo on trade with South Africa be imposed, which one can hope for but which one has no right to expect from the representative of an African nation discussing apartheid. The ambassador in his speech acknowledged the dislocation which might be occasioned within the economies of South Africa's major trading partners should an embargo be imposed. He acknowledged as potentially valid the fears of South Africa's major trading partners that total compliance with such an embargo might not be achieved, with the result that some nations might make considerable sacrifices only to see other less scrupulous countries profit by seizing upon the opportunity thus provided to increase their own exports to South Africa, thereby making the sacrifice fruitless. The ambassador also acknowledged the undesirability of committing the United Nat'ons to actions which it could not follow through. The ambassador was simply asking that South Africa's major trading partners get together to seek ways and means of avoiding the problems I have outlined, in the hope that such talks might ult'mately result in making it possible for the United Nations to take effective action against South Africa's racist government.
I was simply asking the Prime Minister if his government was willing to take the initiative in this regard. His answer to me implied a total lack of interest in the proposal, and the reasons for his lack of interest are not difficult to discover. First, the government's white paper on foreign policy makes it quite obvious that for as long as this federal government remains in office, Canada's primary foreign policy objective will be to make all the money it can. Answers which I have recently received to questions I placed on the Order Paper make it plain that in South Africa Canada is making more money with a vengeance. In answer to question No. 177 on the Order Paper I was informed that Canada's exports to South Afr'ca in 1970 were expected to be approximately 30 per cent more in value than they were in 1969 and would likely exceed the 100 million mark. I realize the total value of our exports to South Africa, even at their

February 9, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion new level, represents only a small percentage of our total export trade. The point is that they are increasing at a proportionately high rate and that the increase represents a victory of the dollar over the human conscience.
If I may be permitted a brief aside at this point, I find it deplorable that this government's policies should have also resulted in a 30 per cent increase in imports of sugar from South Africa at a time when our imports of sugar from Caribbean nations, which desperately require the revenue thus to be gained, are dropping off. I submit that the unwillingness of this government actively to seek ways and means of reducing or eliminating trade with South Africa, let alone its permitting increased trade with that nation, is a cause for shame on the part of every Canadian. I submit that those who argue, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs often does, that there is nothing to be gained from isolating the South African regime-the corollary of which is that there is something to be gained through reinforcmg it through trade-are engaging in the same sort of self-deception as those who put forward similar arguments with respect to Nazi Germany in the 1930's.
The authors of the Black Paper had this to say:
-the value of Canada's economic disengagement from southern Africa should not be measured in immediate economic terms. It is important that some at least of the western nations demonstrate publicly that they are more concerned with the denial of basic human rights in southern Africa and the implications this has for human dignity everywhere than they are with short run financial benefit. A stronger Canadian policy would help to prevent the southern African confrontation from becoming an alliance of the white and wealthy west against the black majority. Already the southern African issue is causing serious rifts at the United Nations and within the Commonwealth. It is in Canada's national interest that these institutions operate successfully and expand their capabilities as multinational, multiracial forums for the resolution of international tensions.
Surely it is not too much to ask that our government take the extremely timid step of beginning the discussions suggested by Somalia.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, following the question asked by the hon. gentleman I looked up the proceedings of the United Nations General Assembly to see the origin of the proposal that had been made by the ambassador of Somalia. None of the resolutions ultimately passed by the General Assembly contained, to our knowledge, the suggestion made by the ambassador of Somalia. I would have to get confirmation from our permanent mission in New York, but it would appear that there has been no follow-up whatever to the suggestion and no consultations have been initiated by anyone.
I might add, however, that we have carefully considered the general question of cutting off trade with South Africa. In the foreign policy papers which were published last year we discussed the issues that are involved. I would point out to the hon. member that the principle that Canada has adhered to for a long time, with the exception of sanctions which have been approved by the United Nations, is one of not refusing to trade with a

nation because we disapprove of its form of government or find its action to be repugnant. X can assure the hon. member that the actions of the South African government in enforcing apartheid are as repugnant to us as they are to him.
We have been urged on many occasions to break off trading with countries because people do not agree with the policies followed by those countries. I would remind my hon. friend that we have been urged to break trading relations with Cuba and with Communist China. We have refused to do so. We believe that we should encourage trade as a means of making useful contacts between peoples. We believe that this is a principle that is worth preserving and that we should follow our practice, as in the past, of breaking trading relations only when sanctions are approved by the United Nations.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, for some time negotiations have been carried on between the city of Regina and the Department of Transport concerning the transfer of operations of the Regina municipal airport to the Department of Transport. One of the factors involved in making this transfer is an acreage of land that is still owned by the city of Regina but which was an integral part of the airport property. On January 15 I addressed a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), as reported at page 2445 of Hansard as follows:
Will the minister be holding further meetings with the city of Regina with regard to the sale of city-owned property at the Regina airport? If so, will the minister inform the House when such meetings will be held?
The Minister of Transport replied that arrangements had just been made for a further meeting with the mayor and other officials of the city of Regina. Subsequently on January 29 I addressed another question to the Minister of Transport, reported at page 2894 as follows:
Can the minister indicate whether any progress was made at the meetings this week with the city of Regina concerning the proposed sale of land by the city to the federal Department of Transport at the Regina airport, and can he give any indication when we may expect to have an agreement signed on this matter and also dealing with the future operation of Regina airport?
The Minister of Transport answered:
Considerable progress was made at the meetings this week with the mayor of Regina and other officials of that city. As I recall the timetable, we are going to Regina practically at the same time as the meetings will be held in Saskatoon to which I referred a few minutes ago, and I would hope that if we do not resolve the matter completely at that time it will be sufficiently advanced so that the contracts can be signed and the whole deal completed within the present year.
I am very happy to see that progress has been made in resolving the problem at Regina airport. The purpose of my intervention is not to be at all abrasive in respect of
February 9, 1971

negotiations which are now going on. I welcome the tact that progress has been made and I note that negotiations are to continue. I hope they will be successful. I urge the government to do everything in its power to ensure that a satisfactory agreement is reached.
In this respect I want to outline a few matters which have been of concern to the people of Regina and area regarding this matter. I am going to deal with this in a somewhat disjointed fashion since a notice of motion for the production of papers which I placed on the Order Paper on December 15 has not yet been called by the government. That notice of motion asked for a copy of all correspondence and other documents concerning the proposed sale of land owned by the city of Regina at the Regina airport to the Department of Transport.
Some of the points concerned were dealt with in an article in the Regina Leader Post of December 11 last. I might say that this was prior to the recent meetings which were held. The article stated in part:
Negotiations over the proposed sale of airport land in Regina to the federal government have been stalled, with the government refusing to accept the value placed on the land by two Independent appraisers-
It was also noted as follows:
Involved are 320 acres of airport land which the federal Department of Transport requires if it is to assume operation of the airport as it announced in 1967.
In reports prepared this summer, the two appraisers, Warren-Hawes Real Estate and Vernon Peterson of the provincial highways department, had assessed the land value at $16,285 and $15,400 an acre respectively-
Later on in the article it is pointed out that there are other contentions made by the city which will presently be negotiated regarding the computed value of the rent of the land which is owned by the city and being used at the Regina airport operations since January, 1968, when the last agreement between the city and the Department of Transport expired. There was a statement made by the mayor of Regina, in December last, when he referred to one point upon which I should like to hear the comments of the parliamentary secretary. This was his statement:
Since then the Minister of Transport and his department officials have consistently refused to accept the agreed appraisals and present them to the Treasury Board with recommendation for payment according to the agreement with the city

Later on it was stated that last March the transport minister agreed that the price of the land would be established by two separate qualified appraisers. I hope the parliamentary secretary can throw some light on these matters and that progress will be made in negotiations. My purpose in drawing this to the attention of the government tonight is to urge the government to do everything to ensure that a satisfactory agreement is reached.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Duquet), who is unavoidably absent from the House, I am pleased to respond
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
briefly to the question raised by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton).
The subject matter is one which has been around for some time in that preliminary discussions and subsequent negotiations between municipal representatives and transport officials have been under study for a number of years. The hon. member's original question was raised on January 15, at which time the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) informed the House of his initial conversation with the newly elected mayor of Regina, His Worship Mayor Walker.
Since that date the minister met with Mayor Walker in Ottawa on January 25 and reported that considerable progress had been achieved from their discussions. Then on January 29, in answering the hon. member's question, the minister stated that he would be going to Regina for further discussions with city officials and indicated that he was very hopeful that a contract could be signed at an early date. To be precise, I quote the minister from Hansard of January 29 as follows:
-if we do not resolve the matter completely at that time it will be sufficiently advanced so that the contracts can be signed and the whole deal completed within the present year.
In conclusion, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) asked me to inform the hon. member that he will be meeting this Saturday afternoon with a representative of Mayor Walker and with members of the Regina city council in Regina, and that he is extremely optimistic that satisfactory progress and conclusion can be reached from their discussion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED OIL PIPELINE FROM PRUDHOE BAY TO VALDEZ, ALASKA-CONSULTATION WITH UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset how pleased I am to see the minister here during this adjournment debate. I presume he is here to respond to the question raised. Too often those of us who participate in these debates on a fairly regular basis receive a 3-minute reply prepared by someone in advance a reply which has nothing at all to do with the particular representation we make. So I welcome the minister here and look forward to his response.
In recent weeks various Members of Parliament have raised the question of the threat to Canada's west coast ecology by the transshipment of Prudhoe Bay oil, first by pipeline to Valdez Island, Alaska and then by tanker to Cherry Point in Puget Sound which is just a few miles from the Canadian border. Members from Esquimalt-Saanich, Edmonton East, Kootenay West and I have all been attempting, possibly fruitlessly, to spur the Department of External Affairs into action, but as yet-in spite of our representations-we received nothing in reassurance from the minister.
It seems that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has been unduly reticent about this extremely serious matter. I realize that it is fraught with difficulties for him. Tankers are currently being built by

February 9, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the Bethlehem Steel Company in the United States which, according to my information, have a capacity of about 100,000 tons, and these are reputed to be planned to ply off our west coast for periods of up to 20 years. These 100,000-ton monsters are giants compared to the 18,000-ton Arrow which ran aground in Chedabucto Bay last year. At that time, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) suffered at least a week of sleepless nights over this threat, and what could he expect if one of these 100,000-ton monsters went aground? I do not think the Minister of Transport can last as long as a month without sleep.
These 100,000-ton tankers in trouble can cause approximately six times the amount of damage that was caused by the Arrow grounding. In addition, this is a very sensitive area in Canada. The Boundary Bay, Puget Sound area is very close to our area and Puget Sound is the only marine productive area in Canada. Anyone familiar with marine productivity of tidal flats cannot fail to be alarmed at what a tanker wreck could do to Canada's south western ecology. I think it can be accepted that fishing could be ruined in large parts of our spawning areas for years to come and water fowl, resting and recreation areas such as beaches would also run the risk of being defiled for years ahead.
During the debate of the bill of the Minister of Transport to amend the Canada Shipping Act last October, a bill which was designed precisely to protect our shores from the kind of tanker pollution of which we are now fearful, my party strongly urged the minister to extend Canada's sovereignty in regard to pollution at least 100 miles off shore instead of the measly 12 miles proposed in the bill. Other countries have done this. The United States has gone out to its tidal shelf for a number of reasons into which I have not time to go now. Peru has done so; and even we saw fit to extend our sovereignty 100 miles out in the Arctic. If this had been done last October when we were debating the bill, if the minister had accepted the suggestion warmly, I think it would have served as a warning to the Americans that we will not tolerate the possible devastation of the Strait of Juan de Fuca.
In that case perhaps the oil companies concerned, who have obviously committed to this plan if oil tankers are under construction, might have been impressed with the need to locate their refinery further south instead of just on our border, perhaps in southern Washington, Oregon or California. However, this did not happen and we have been left with Hobson's choice: either Canada accepts tanker oil off our west coast or we may be moved to rationalize future Alaskan oil movement through the corridor which is now being proposed to carry natural gas. Either choice is agonizing. Simply put, the case is whether Canada is prepared to risk its marine or Arctic ecology. It is a horrid position in which to be put.
It is fair to say that U.S. energy demands are only beginning to be felt, and it behoves Canada to depart from its historic timid, perhaps deferential position of
reacting to U.S. initiative, and instead began to assert its own initiative in this U.S. energy game. The United States are desperately short of energy because of their population growth and because they squandered their own resources during the last 200 years. Therefore, I submit that we are in a very strong bargaining position and we will be more respected if we begin to assert ourselves. One of the things that might be agreed upon is an Arctic corridor.
I am sure the minister is anxious to respond, Mr. Speaker, because I know he is concerned about the question. Perhaps he feels it is beyond his jurisdiction, but I would like to hear him agree with our concern and say that he has made preparation to discuss this matter seriously with Washington and offer alternatives.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government shares the concern of the hon. member regarding possible damage to the coasts of Canada and the United States which could result from the massive movement of oil by tanker from Valdez to the United States Pacific northwest. We intend to discuss the hazards involved with the United States authorities at an appropriate time.
Oil spills would affect the United States as well as the Canadian coastline. This is a concern that we have in common. It really does not matter on the Pacific coast where a spill occurs, because some of it will affect both countries. In view of the interest which the United States shares with Canada in protecting the environment, it would be my hope that both countries will take such action as lies within their respective jurisdictions to ensure that the movement of oil does not despoil the Pacific coastline of our two countries.
So long as tankers confine themselves to the U.S. side of the boundary line, they will be wholly within United States waters. Canada, of course, cannot legislate concerning traffic on that side of the border. I say to the hon. member that even the declaration of a 100-mile or 200-mile limit would not affect the position in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. This is very much a problem that concerns our two countries and cannot be resolved by unilateral action on our part.


Mark Willson Rose: What about farther north?


Mitchell William Sharp: But that is not where the problem is going to arise. They are going to regularize this traffic through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.
However, it is the view of the Canadian government that a country is obliged to prevent activities within its jurisdiction from damaging persons or property within the territory of any other country through pollution of the environment. It might be of some value to request the International Joint Commission to study the risks of pollution which might result from heavy tanker traffic through the Juan de Fuca Strait. As the hon. member knows, the United States government is still studying environmental considerations relating to the construction of a pipeline across Alaska. We are following this matter very closely. However, I do not think it would be appro-

February 9, 1971

priate for us as a federal government to appear before any U.S. tribunal that is considering these questions, any more than we would consider it appropriate for the American government to appear before our tribunals. Our contacts must be much more direct. I am sure the hon. member recognizes the question of the dignity of our government in dealing with the governments of other countries.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In view of the harm which could result to the Canadian environment, we will be approaching the U.S. authorities at an appropriate time to seek their assessment of the risks of oil spills in the Pacific northwest if the proposed massive oil movements materialize.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Wednesday. February 10, 1971