1971-04-07

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this first opportunity to rise on a question of privilege to clarify an answer I gave in the House yesterday on the subject of correspondence from members of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. At page 4946 in Hansard I reported that there was no further exchange of correspondence beyond that already tabled by myself in the House on March 17. This correspondence consisted of letters to me from the co-chairmen of the commission dated March 1 and a reply which I sent to them on March 11.
In giving my answer yesterday I was doing so with particular reference to questions from the hon. member for York South who wished me to consider tabling any correspondence relating to the conclusion of the work of the commission which was exchanged between one or both of the joint chairmen and myself or any other minister of the Crown.
On April 5, at page 4898 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
I am interested particularly if there is correspondence which sets out the reasons the commission decided not to produce its final report-all that kind of thing-so that all the information may be before Parliament and the people.
I repeat today that the correspondence tabled on March 17 contained the only letters I personally have received concerning the reasons for the decision of the commission not to proceed with its final report.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River asked if I had received a letter from Professor J. B. Rudnyckyj, who was a member of the commission. I indicated I was not aware of such a letter but would look into it and see whether it had been received and might be tabled. I have received this letter and at the appropriate time in the proceedings, perhaps in motions, will be pleased to table it.
I should like to point out to hon. members that Professor Rudnyckyj wrote his letter to me on March 16, several days after the exchange of correspondence between myself and the co-chairmen of the commission. His letter was postmarked March 26, received by my office on March 30 and acknowledged on April 2. I first became aware of it when it was drawn to my attention by the hon. member for Peace River and later by my office.


Mr. Baldwin:: I am always glad to oblige, Mr. Speaker.



MR. HAIDASZ-WORLD HEALTH DAY-FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF DISCOVERY OF INSULIN

Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to bring to the attention of all hon. members that today is world health day and its theme is "a full life despite diabetes". In 1921 Frederick Banting and Charles Best discovered insulin at the University of Toronto. Today the World Health Organization is commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of this great medical discovery which has brought improved health and extended life for many diabetics and also provided a great stimulus to medical research. On this occasion while we pay tribute to Banting, Best and their collaborators in their efforts to conquer diabetes, I express the hope that Canadians will increase their support for medical research.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I realize the importance of the statement made by the hon. member but may I suggest at this point, without reflecting in any way on the substance of the comments made by the hon. member for Parkdale, that the reading of such statements is highly irregular. Even when an hon. member gives to the Chair notice of his intention to raise a question of privilege, it is difficult for the Chair to determine whether there is a valid question of privilege. The statement, of course, has nothing to do with privilege. I suggest to hon. members that it is not proper to make that kind of comment at the opening of the proceedings of the House.



MR. SKOBERG-SAFETY OF RAIL OPERATIONS IN FRASER VALLEY

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, in rising on this point of utmost urgency and privilege I should like to point out that last September the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission established a public inquiry to look into the causes and circumstances surrounding accidents on Canadian railways. Because of the heavy workload of the commissioners, delays have occurred in the hearings. The next sitting will not be until May, which delay can only contribute to an explosive issue. Mr. Speaker, slowdowns and work stoppages in rail operations have occurred in the mountain regions and are largely attributable to unsafe conditions in the Fraser Valley. Actually, the bodies of the three crew members lost in the accident some time ago have still not been recovered from the Fraser River.
Further railway mishaps of the kind that occurred on Monday can only result in family tragedies, discontent and militant action by the rank and file of all railway operating personnel. This can only result in a disruption

April 7, 1971
Finance
of normal rail service and affect our entire economy. If Your Honour finds that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I should like unanimous support for the follow* ing motion which I wish to move:
That this House call upon the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to initiate an immediate on the spot inquiry into safety of rail operations in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I suggest to the hon. member that his comments do not relate to privilege. The hon. member might have raised the matter by way of a motion under Standing Order 43. I fail to see how the question he has raised in any way affects his privileges as a member of this House. I will not in any way reflect on the importance of the matter raised by the hon. member which has been brought to the attention of the House, but I suggest to him that there is no privilege. It might have been appropriate, more proper and more in keeping with the Standing Orders if that motion had been proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 rather than under the heading of privilege. Of course I must rule that there is no prima facie privilege and, accordingly, no motion can be put to the House at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
tTranslation]


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in the two official languages-Mr. Lessard.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table two copies in each of the official languages of the report of the Prices and Incomes Commission entitled "Bank Service Charges".



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in the two official languages, two copies of the Atlantic Development Council report entitled "A Strategy for the economic development of the Atlantic region in the 1971-81 period", which I received yesterday.
* % *



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2), I wish to table copies of the letter received from Professor Rudnyckyj, a member of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.



COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today "Instant World", the general report of the Telecommission. The tabling of this document and its release to the public marks the completion of the first and perhaps the most difficult phase of a process of study and consultation [DOT]on the state of communications in Canada, and on the needs, present and future, of the Canadian people. This first phase began more than a year ago when the Telecommission was launched on September 18, 1969. The next step in this process will end when I come before the House to present the government's white paper on telecommunications policy and regulation.

The telecommission report was intended from the outset to serve as a mechanism for the collection of information and opinions on the basis of which proposals could be formulated to solve Canadian telecommunication problems. This means that the document presented to Parliament today does not contain officially endorsed views of the federal government nor a key to its future policy. With the publication of this vast store of information, it is expected that the government will be able to proceed in a short time with the preparation of a white paper which will define the government's policy on telecommunications.
We will now begin immediately a process of further consultation with the representatives of provincial governments, private industry, users and other interested groups. As Minister of Communications, I will participate directly in these consultations, as will senior officials of my department.

April 7, 1971



Because the Telecommission report is to date the most complete and most coherent discussion of telecommunications problems and opportunities in Canada, I earnestly commend it to the attention of all members of this House and to all Canadians who have an interest in the rational and equitable development of telecommunications facilities in our country.
This document represents the final distillation of the work of 43 separate study groups. It represents an almost unprecedented collaboration of hundreds of individuals, groups, institutions, departments and agencies of government, private firms and universities. The object of this work was to collect all the information possible on which to base sound judgments in the months and years ahead. The next step in the continuing search for better arrangements and better policies will be, as I have said, the white paper.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has expressed the hope that we will all read the report carefully. I can assure him that we shall. I am particularly tantalized by his use of the words "white paper", and I shall read the report with great care in the hope that it may include some method of getting through to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we have not, of course, yet had an opportunity to read "Instant World", a document which was certainly not prepared instantly. The whole field is a tremendously complex one.
The minister in his statement talked about the need for the equitable development of telecommunications facilities in our country. This will not be easy to achieve. We see, for example, that common carriers such as Bell Canada would like to expand into areas concerned with computers and data processing. If they can do so this would, in effect, prevent the development of a separate computer industry. We see the uncontrolled development in recent years of cable television systems in such a way as to threaten the continuation, let alone the development, both of the CBC and the private CTV television networks and their ability to produce programs and obtain the advertising necessary to pay for those programs because of the fragmentation of the market which has followed the widespread proliferation of cable television systems. These are just two examples within the telecommunications field of the tremendous problems we face.
We shall, of course, read the report with a great deal of interest. We trust that in addition to posing questions with which most of us are already familiar it will offer some solutions, some answers, to the problems we face.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in short, in his statement the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) announced the publication of another white paper which will define the future government policy about telecommunications.
Request for Skagit River Valley Study
Now I would like to remind my hon. colleagues of the various stages the government went through before really doing something.
On September 18, 1969 it announced the establishment of the Telecommission to undertake a process of study and consultation on the state of telecommunications in Canada and on present and future needs of the Canadian people in this field. To this end, the government formed over 43 separate study groups.
On April 7, 1971 it tabled in the House of Commons the conclusions of those studies that do not express the official opinions of the federal government nor what policy it intends to follow in this field.
Later, the government will begin, and I quote: a process of further consultation with the representatives of provincial governments, private industry, users and other interested groups.
Those studies and consultations will result in the presentation of a white paper on the subject.
The publication of a white paper does not constitute a concrete policy; it is merely a means whereby the government can probe public opinion and encourage interested parties or groups to make what remarks they feel are timely.
I therefore regret that the minister did not, in his statement today, give us an exact date on which a Canadian telecommunications policy could be implemented. I feel that studies and research must not be neglected in that field. But it seems that such studies and research works have become an excuse for the government not to take real action. I believe there are problems related to the provinces which the government is keeping from us.
Canada greatly needs a national policy taking regional or provincial characteristics in the field of telecommunications. The importance of that field is undeniable. Mr. Speaker, and its implications for our economic, political, social and particularly cultural life will be considerable. To be sure, there should be nothing left out in the preliminary stage consisting in research and studies, but this stage should not be indefinitely drawn out to serve as an excuse for lack of action and of a specific and up-to-date policy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the report will no doubt get the full attention of members of our group, but the minister's evasive statement only increases our impatience for the adoption by Canada of a modern policy, taking into consideration rights and interests of the provinces in the very important field of telecommunications.



SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-TABLING OF REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND FORESTRY

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to table in the

April 7, 1971
Request for Skagit River Valley Study two official languages the text of the Skagit River reference which has been jointly agreed upon by the governments of Canada and the United States and is being formally communicated by the two governments to the International Joint Commission.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has just tabled the text of a joint reference by the governments of Canada and the United States to the International Joint Commission. In this joint reference our two governments ask the International Joint Commission to study the environmental consequences of further flooding in the Skagit River Valley in British Columbia. This study is concerned with the ecology of the Skagit Valley and the consequences, in environmental terms, of raising the Ross dam in the state of Washington.
The International Joint Commission has been asked to report on the nature, scope and impact of the raising of the dam and to recommend measures for the protection and enhancement of the local environment, all of this to be consistent with its order of approval given for the raising of the Ross dam back in 1942.
It is becoming increasingly clear that decisions to build dams and raise water levels should be taken after there has been a thorough investigation of the environmental consequences. Since the Skagit River flows across the international boundary, the Canadian government has a special responsibility in this regard.
There is widespread concern about the environmental consequences of raising the Ross dam in my own home province of British Columbia. In our discussions with the United States we found that the U.S. government was also sympathetic to this concern and it agreed that the best way to proceed was to request the International Joint Commission to organize and carry out a detailed study on the basis of which it would make recommendations to all concerned. The International Joint Commission has a long tradition of helping our two countries to resolve problems along our boundary and it is experienced in dealing with environmental questions in boundary water areas.
It is the usual practice of the International Joint Commission, in carrying out investigations of this kind, to draw on the expertise of governments at the federal, provincial and state levels. The Canadian government will, of course, be glad to make available to the International Joint Commission such information and staff as the IJC may request in this connection.
I expect that the International Joint Commission, in accord with its normal procedures, will hold public hearings prior to making its recommendations to government. It will, of course, be up to the commission to announce the timing and location of these hearings. These hearings will provide an opportunity for private groups and individual citizens to make their views heard.
I might add that I have informed the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources of British Columbia
about this reference to the International Joint Commission and he has told me that his government supports this inquiry.
It is my hope that this study by the International Joint Commission can be launched without delay. Because a good deal of information is already available I also expect that the IJC will be able to complete its investigations and make its recommendations to the Canadian and United States governments before the end of October, 1971.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, when the minister speaks of concern in his native province about the flooding of the Skagit valley he is certainly not exaggerating; in fact, in my opinion he is indulging somewhat in understatement. If I may express a personal opinion, I think it would be a great misfortune if this valley were flooded. The proposal to do so obviously results from a decision made in former days when the preservation of the valley did not seem to be of very much consequence, but today it does not seem to me good economic sense to flood the valley for the purpose described, and certainly in terms of environmental considerations it does not seem to make any sense at all.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have to consider the significance of the reference to the International Joint Commission upon which the two governments have agreed. The commission is asked to make recommendations for the protection and enhancement of the environment not inconsistent with its order of approval of 1942, and the agreement between Seattle and the province of British Columbia of 1967. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it seems very clear that the International Joint Commission is not even asked to make any recommendations involving the withdrawal of permission to flood the Skagit Valley. The only recommendations that the commission is authorized to make under this reference concern the protection and enhancement of the environment consistent with the authorization granted in 1942.
It is quite interesting to read the reference with some care, Mr. Speaker. In the first paragraph it says:
The commission is requested
(a) to investigate the environmental and ecological consequences-
Of the flooding, and so on. These are quite broad investigative procedures. The second paragraph invites the International Joint Commission:
-to report on the nature, scope and impact of these consequences:
This could be quite a broad reference in terms of investigation and reporting.
But the significant and important paragraph is that authorizing the commission to make recommendations. Clearly the recommendations seem to be limited to recommendations which are consistent with the order of approval dated January 27, 1942. Therefore I have to ask the minister whether my impression is wrong when I draw the conclusion from these terms of reference that the International Joint Commission is not authorized to

April 7, 1971

make any recommendations which would eliminate the flooding of the Skagit Valley, and that the recommendations therefore can only relate to measures that the commission might recommend to reduce the environmental consequences of the flooding.
This is the way I interpret the reference, having read it as carefully as I have been able to in the short time I have had. No authority is given to the commission to reopen the decision of 1942 or to withdraw in any way the right that was granted then and in subsequent orders and agreements regarding the flooding of the Skagit Valley. The commission is simply authorized to recommend ways and means to reduce the damage that may occur in the process.
This is how I read the reference, Mr. Speaker. I must add, and I hope I am not being unfair when I say it, that it was snowing when I went into the Skagit Valley but still I was able to see it and, Mr. Speaker, I have the distinct impression it is snowing in the House of Commons today.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, the Skagit Valley controversy has become a symbolic one for British Columbians. More and more British Columbians are and have become alarmed and aroused at the prospect of the Skagit Valley being flooded for the purpose for which it is to be flooded. It has become symbolic because Canadians by and large are no longer content to be but hewers of wood and drawers of water for our friendly neighbours to the south.
Our interest in this issue goes back for some time. Over a year ago I received a reply from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in which he indicated that before any final approval could be given an application would have to come before the Federal Power Commission in the United States and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Canada. Apparently the government is no longer holding to this particular view. I can only guess at the reasons behind the change.
On both sides of the border conservationists and ecologists are beginning to take concern for the environment beyond the stage of mere dilettanteism and have built up mass support for a better quality of life. We are beginning to agree that the preservation of our environment has a real value superior to the despoliation or exploitation of a particular area for a specific purpose. Environment has a value in itself and should be preserved.
The government obviously has preferred the International Joint Commission rather than some other independent body to study this particular issue. The IJC would be the best vehicle by which-and I hope I am wrong-to accomplish a six months' delay. Certainly some of us would like to see the 1942 and 1967 agreements negated. I refer both to the one which came about first of all with IJC approval in 1942 and the other between Seattle City Light and the British Columbia
Request for Skagit River Valley Study
government in 1967. The government is very sensitive in dealing with the IJC because any suggestion that the IJC was being interfered with by government would upset a number of other questions under the commission's responsibility all along our long and so far undefended border.
The government of Canada has the power to negate the agreement outright but has chosen this other device. I am certain this other device will please the premier of British Columbia because it will take him off the hook. I think it will appeal to him also because this is an ostensible second look at the problem and the IJC which approved the matter in the first place is now to continue the study. In other words, there is not to be a disinterested appellate review conducted here. Some of us could be excused for being a little cynical and for believing that this proposed investigation might be little more than a whitewash, an appearance of action or pseudo-action.
I think the House would have been in a much better position to make some decision on this matter if the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) had indicated whether or not he had discussed with the government of British Columbia the cost of renegotiating or getting out of the agreement completely. It seems to me there could have been a federal-provincial sharing of the $8 million already spent by Seattle City Light. I might also mention the matter of the annual compensation to British Columbia of a pitiful $35,000 when we know that the downstream benefits should have produced at least $1 million according to the Columbia River formula.
I see you are becoming a bit impatient, Mr. Speaker, and I promise to wrap up my remarks forthwith. I believe the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) put his finger on the point that this is an ecological study only since we have no assurance that it is anything beyond that and there is nothing to indicate that the project will not go ahead regardless of the Commission's findings. In conclusion may I say that it does not really matter how many hearings or studies are conducted because the vast majority of the people of British Columbia want the proposed plan to flood the Skagit River Valley stopped and stopped completely.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, as one of the first references to this matter goes back to the Speech from the Throne of October 13, 1970 and that it was mentioned on many occasions, we are happy to note that an inquiry has been requested by the International Joint Commission to establish the probable consequences of raising the level of Ross Lake in British Columbia.
Obviously, if this would happen, our country would suffer, but I believe that the International Joint Commission is ready to carry out a serious study and to consult environmental experts and others to assess the possible consequences of this action so that this will not happen and that the City of Seattle will find other sources for its electricity.

April 7, 1971
Possible Closing of Canadair



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I request leave to move the adjournment of the House, under Standing Order 43, to discuss a question which has not yet been considered in the House, and which is extremely important.
At the present time 29 subcontractors of Canadair are in a very poor financial situation and will have, all or most of them, to lay off most of their employees, which might put several thousand people out of work in a few days. Indeed, the Aero Machine Parts Company, in Lon-gueil, will have to do so either today or tomorrow.
That situation, Mr. Speaker, is brought about by the precarious situation of Canadair, which had 10,000 employees in 1968, at the time we were promised a "just society", 3,900 in April 1971 and 1,900 by the end of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and ask him to state the meaning of his motion as soon as possible. May I suggest at the same time that the procedure he is following seems to be slightly out of order. The hon. member is proposing that the business of the House be adjourned under Standing Order 43, so that an urgent question may be discussed. A motion of this kind should be made under Standing Order 26 and not under Standing Order 43 and requires furthermore the regular notice. If the motion is moved under Standing Order 26, the notice I just referred to must be forwarded to the Chair in written form within the deadline provided for in the Standing Order and then the statement of the hon. member must be limited to a few sentences.
The hon. member seems to have merged both Standing Orders and is using the best of two worlds to make a statement which I feel is rather lengthy. I woold therefore suggest that he indicate as soon as possible the nature of the motion he wishes to put forward.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to show the importance and urgency of my question and to request the unanimous consent of the House, because at the end of 1971, there will only be 1,900 employees at Canadair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member and ask him to come to the point. If he does not accept the suggestion of the Chair, he will not be allowed to present the motion or to indicate to the House the substance of his motion.
I invite the hon. member to co-operate with the Chair and to consider that all hon. members generally who present motions under Standing Order 43 abide not only by the letter but also by the intent of this rule, and content themselves with making very brief statements explaining the urgency of the question.
[Mr. Laprise.l


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose my motion, in view of the very critical and very important situation of the closing in a few days of a major company, Canadair of Montreal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has not yet indicated the meaning of his motion. At all events, I take it for granted that he is suggesting that this House adjourn for the purpose of considering the important and urgent matter to which he has just referred, and I invite the House to indicate whether there is unanimous consent pursuant to Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have noted as I did that there is not unanimous consent. Consequently, the motion that the hon. member intended to present to the Chair cannot be considered by the House at this point.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was rising to present a motion under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize that the hon. member intends to follow the suggestion made by the Chair that he will move a motion under Standing Order 43, but we are still on motions and at this point I recognize the President of the Privy Council, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Moose Jaw.
* * [DOT]



EASTER RECESS-ADJOURNMENT FROM APRIL 7 TO APRIL 19

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy
Council) moved:
That when this House adjourns on April 7, 1971, it shall stand adjourned until April 19, 1971, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time:
[Stage Direction]
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of the Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 7, 1971


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I indicated the urgency of my motion when I spoke earlier and I will not repeat what I said. I now ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present the motion that I read earlier, which is as follows:
That this House call upon the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour to initiate an immediate on the spot inquiry into safety of rail operations in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Moose Jaw. Is there unanimous agreement under Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Rowland:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could perhaps prevail upon the Secretary of State or the Minister without Portfolio who assists him in his duties to make a statement before we leave motions on the Opportunities for Youth program and, specifically, the criteria being employed since there is considerable confusion and this is the last day on which the government can make such an announcement prior to the closing of applications.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that it might be difficult for the Chair to prevail on a minister for the purpose suggested by the hon. member. I suggest to the hon. member that he might attempt to do his own prevailing.



BROADCASTING ACT


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-237, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this bill reflects the growing excessive nature and the alarming increase in commercial advertising directed at children on television. It would have the effect of prohibiting such commercial advertising. But the immediate objective would be to have the bill referred to an appropriate committee where the subject matter could be studied by Parliament.
Questions
I know that all hon. members support this bill, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the second time?


James Aloysius McGrath: By leave, now?


Mr. Speaker:: The bill can be read a second time now only by unanimous consent. The suggestion has been made that second reading take place at the next sitting of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa
7 April, 1971
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Gerald Fauteux, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 7th of April, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Louis-Fremont Trudeau Brigadier General
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Nowlan: How much has CBC paid in each of the past five years, up to and including the 1970-71 estimates for (a) American professional football broadcasting rights (b) Canadian Football League broadcasting rights?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: (a) There were no rights payments involved. U.S. games were received by network extension through agreement with the originating U.S. network, (b) CBC was not the primary rights holder during the past five years. Arrangements for CBC English and French network coverage of CFL games were negotiated with rights holder, CTV. In two of the five years in question arrangements were made under which the sponsors of the CBC

April 7, 1971
Questions
telecasts purchased rights for CBC coverage directly from CTV. In the other three years the CBC paid CTV approximately half the total cost of the rights as its share for CBC coverage.


SECRETARY OF STATE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES- PERCENTAGE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Gérard Pelletier: (a) Nil; (b) 2%; (c) 5%; (d) Nil; (e) 93%; (f) Nil.


OFFER OF MONEY FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO RETURN OF JAMES CROSS ALIVE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Did the government receive an offer of a gift of $1,000 from Mr. Jack McDowell, ex-M.L.A. of Winnipeg, for information that would lead directly to the return alive of Mr. James Cross and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was his offer accepted and (a) if so, on what date (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is that there is no record of such an offer having been received and therefore the second part of the question is not applicable. I feel that I should inform the House and the right hon. gentleman who put the question on the order paper that our inquiries in this regard have been confined to the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General. If he has any further information to lead us to inquire in other offices we would be happy to pursue the matter further.


NATIONAL REVENUE SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES-PERCENTAGE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of National Revenue is designated for (a) winter works (b) to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Customs and Excise: (a) nil (b) 100% (c) nil (d) nil (e) nil (f) nil. Taxation Division: Not applicable. This division does not have any supplementary estimates.


INJECTION OF DRUGS BY GIRLS ON CBC PROGRAM
Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	Was there a doctor or other medically competent person in attendance when the two young girls self-injected drugs on CBC Weekend Program, February 7, 1971?
2.	Was an analysis made of the contents of the hypodermics used?
3.	Were the program officials aware of the contents of the hypodermics and (a) if so, how was this determined (b) if not, for what reason was it not determined?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1, 2 and 3. No; it was not known in advance that the persons being interviewed were going to take the action which they did.


MANPOWER DEPARTMENT PREDICTIONS OF STUDENT UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Comeau: 1.	Has the Department of Manpower and Immigration made any predictions for this year as concerns students unemployment vis-4-vis the increase in unemployment among the general labour force and, if so, what are they?
2.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration intend to release more funds than last year?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The department has not made any such predictions.
2. The release of funds for the Student Employment Program is not the responsibility of the Department of Manpower and Immigration.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMPETITION NO. 70-ID-4301
Mr. Aiken: 1.	Has an appointment been made under Public Service Commission Competition No. 70-ID-4301 under the title of "A Challenging Career to Promote Equal Opportunities for Women"?
2.	Did any of the applicants hold a university degree in economics or sociology as prescribed in the poster?
3.	Did the successful applicant hold a university degree in economics or sociology and, if so, what degree and from what university?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.
NOTE: A competition open to the public (70-430-27) was conducted concurrently with the competition referred to in the question, which was a "closed" compet-

April 7, 1971

tion; i.e., one in which only persons employed in the public service were eligible to compete. An appointment was made as a result of the open competition. The successful candidate has the academic and other qualifications required for the position.


POST OFFICE-COST OF EQUIPMENT TO BE USED IN PREPARATION OF MONEY ORDERS
Mr. Peddle: 1.	With regard to the reply to Question numbered 903 at page 4034 of Hansard, March 8, 1971, what equipment, other than imprinters, make up the difference between the two dollar figures shown?
2.	Who was the supplier of the equipment?
3.	Were tenders called?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister without Portfolio):: For the Post Office Department: 1. and 2. Optical Character Recognition Equipment (Supplier-Recognition Equipment (Canada) Ltd.) $788,200; Microfilm Cameras and Film Processing Equipment (Supplier-Recordak of Canada Ltd.) $40,175; Microfilm Reader Printers (Supplier-3M Company of Canada Ltd.) $6,820; Site preparation and conversion costs at headquarters (Performed by Department of Public Works) $258,500.
3. Yes.


FRENCH TELEVISION AND RADIO FACILITIES, FREDERICTON AND SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: By what date does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expect to have French television and radio available to Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the CBC that it hopes its application for a French-language television station to serve the Fredericton-Saint John area can be heard by the CRTC early in 1972. An application for a French-language FM radio station to serve this area is expected to be filed in time for a Spring, 1972, CRTC hearing. On air dates would be approximately one year after the applications are approved.


DAIRY SUBSIDY QUOTAS, 1968-69 TO PRESENT TIME
Mr. Moore: By province, what was the subsidy quota (a) in pounds (b) in dollars for the dairy years (i) April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969 (ii) April 1, 1969 to March 31, 1970 (iii) April 1, 1970 to the present time?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) Subsidy Eligibility Quotas, Industrial Milk and Cream Producers
Questions
(a) Subsidy Eligibility Quotas, Industrial Milk and Cream Producers
	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71
	('000,000 pounds butterfat)		
P.E.I	
5.5	5.1	4.9N.S	
1.6	1.4	1.3N.B	
3.7	3.3	3.1Que	
153.0	146.7	144.6Ont	
123.4	106.6	95.5Man	
14.4	13.3	12.7Sask	
11.5	10.3	9.6Alta	
30.5	26.7	25.0B.C	
1.1	0.8	0.5Canada	
344.7	314.2	297.2(b) Subsidy Payments	1968-69	1969-70	1970-71 (Apr.-Dec.)P.E.I	.... 1.7	($'000,000) 1.5	1.0N.S	.... 0.5	0.4	0.2N.B	.... 1.1	1.0	0.6Que	.... 44.8	37.1	23.4Ont	.... 34.7	27.5	18.2Man	.... 4.4	3.9	2.7Sask	.... 3.6	3.1	2.1Alta	.... 8.9	7.5	5.1B.C	.... 1.3	0.6	0.2Canada	.... 101.0	82.6	53.5


EMPLOYMENT OF ARCHITECTS BY NATIONAL AND HISTORIC PARKS SERVICE
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many architects, specially trained and skilled in the restoration of French period structures, have been offered temporary employment to meet the program demands of the National and Historic Parks Service?
2.	What are the contract terms in each case as to (a) time (b) payment (c) other benefits (d) location of employment and project to be worked on?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. None.
2. Not applicable.


SALE OF &quot;GOLDEN SCARAB&quot;
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Was the Golden Scarab sold by the Industrial Development Bank to Catalina Exploration and Development Limited and, if so, under what circumstances and on what terms?
2.	What representations were made by the Bank concerning Canadian standards for such vessel?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1. Yes. Under the usual terms and conditions of an Industrial Development Bank loan.
4992

April 7, 1971
Orders jor Returns
2. In connection with the offering of the ship for sale to potential buyers, the IDB had an estimate made by a firm of marine surveyors and its own engineering staff of the cost of preparing the vessel for sea. This estimate did not purport to take into account any cost which might be incurred in converting the vessel from a tuna seiner to a seismic survey vessel or for any other purpose.
BOEING 707's PURCHASED FOR ARMED FORCES


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How many Boeing 707's have been purchased for the use of the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	What was the price per aircraft?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Five.
2. First four aircraft-$10,564,975 each including Canadian federal sales tax. The fifth aircraft-$9,993,465 including Canadian federal sales tax.


COMPUTER SERVICES INCOME. DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of the Solicitor General (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: (a), (b), (c) and (d) Nil.


COMPUTER SERVICES INCOME, DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Robinson: What income, if any, is derived from the computer services provided by the Department of the Secretary of State (a) from other departments (b) from sale or services to industry (c) to provincial government departments (d) to municipalities?


Gérard Pelletier: (a) Nil; (b) Nil; (c) Nil; (d) Nil.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	On how many occasions has the Prime Minister made use of the Jet Star since June 25, 1968 and in each instance, what was the designation of the flight and what was the purpose of the flight in question?
2.	On each occasion that the Prime Minister has used the Jet Star, what are the names of the persons who accompanied him and what was the responsibility of each during the period in question?
3.	On the occasions that the Prime Minister used the Jet Star were any stop-overs made other than to service the aircraft and, if so, what was the purpose of the stop-overs and duration in each case?
4.	What was the total mileage travelled by the Jet Star since June 25, 1968, when used by the Prime Minister?
Return tabled.


USE OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT BY PRIME MINISTER BETWEEN JULY 1 AND SEPTEMBER 30, 1970
Mr. Coates: 1. On how many occasions did the Prime Minister make use of government aircraft between July 1 and September 30, 1970?
2	(a) What were the specific dates on which the Prime Minister used the aircraft (b) what was the reason in each instance for the use of the aircraft (c) what was the destination (d) what were the names of the people who travelled with the Prime Minister on each occasion (e) were they members of the government service and, if not, did they make any payment to the federal treasury for passage?
3.	What was the cost on each instance that the Prime Minister used government aircraft?
Return tabled.


COST OF PRINTING GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS
Mr. Peters: 1.	What was the total cost of printing all publications, reports, news releases and other public documents issued by government departments and agencies in the calendar year 1965?
2.	What was the total cost of printing similar material issued in the calendar year 1969?
3.	Approximately what percentage of the increase in cost is attributable to (a) a larger number of printed items (b) more expensive paper and use of colour (c) the necessity of publishing all material in the two official languages?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 188 is acceptable to the government.



AGREEMENTS BETWEEN QUEBEC AND OTTAWA WITH RESPECT TO HIGHWAY AT MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 188-Mr. Valade:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all documents, letters or communications concerning agreements between Quebec and Ottawa with respect to the east-west highway at Montreal.
Motion agreed to.

April 7, 1971


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received any information about what is going on in East Pakistan with regard to the reports of mass killings and shortage of food and medical supplies? Has the hon. gentleman received any information that he considers reliable either through the United Nations or the resources of his own department?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have no information directly from any representative of the Canadian government. We will be talking to the Canadians who have come out of Pakistan about the situation there. I think it is clear, however, that there has been a good deal of violence and killing. It appears from the reports we have received, which I think are available to all members of the House, that there has been violence on both sides. This is something which I am sure we all deplore. The question before the Canadian government is how best it might be able to help, and I do not think pious declarations against violence are going to achieve anything. We are searching for some means by which we can be constructive, by supplying relief or something of that kind.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister about the reports that India has six divisions massed on the Pakistan frontier. Can the minister tell us whether he has any information on this subject and, if so, is it of any concern to him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak about the massing of troops on the Indian side of the border. The most reliable information I have is that there has been no incursion of Indian troops into Pakistan.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Is it the intention of the Minister to take any initiative with regard to the United Nations on what is transpiring in that part of the world or any initiative with regard to the secretariat of the Commonwealth to involve the Commonwealth or the United Nations in this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I said in the House the other day, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General of the United Nations has been apprised of the situation by a letter from the Indian government. It is my understanding that he still has the matter under consideration and has not yet replied. I can understand his hesitation because I am sure that he wants to do something constructive in this situation, and under the circumstances it is very difficult to know how best to proceed. We have been consulting with the International Red Cross to discover whether there are any practical means by which we might be able to help.
24081-35i
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his proposal which was referred to the other day for providing jobs by instituting a shorter work week, earlier retirement, delays in young people in entering the work force and less emphasis on women working. In view of the fact that it would be necessary for some income to be provided for these groups who are either kept out of the labour force or retired from it, does the government intend to introduce a guaranteed annual income or has it some income policy to cope with the situation which would arise if the measures referred to by the Prime Minister were put into effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we have a policy, Mr. Speaker, concerning these areas. The details of it are known to the House and I do not think I can be expected to go into the details of the white paper at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if studies regarding a guaranteed annual income are under way in addition to the study made by Dr. Willard, who is conducting such studies and at what levels of income is the government aiming in the event it institutes a guaranteed annual income?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member is not asking a question of a rather detailed nature and whether this kind of question ought not normally to be placed on the order paper. Unless the right hon. Prime Minister has the information immediately available and can give it briefly, I suggest to the hon. member that normally this kind of question should be asked through the order paper.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was directing my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and asking if studies were going on in his department at the present time, who was conducting these studies and at what levels of income the studies were being conducted. It seems to me the minister could give me that information.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that it is clearly set out in the white paper on income security that we were prepared to entertain studies and demonstration projects in this area. As has been noted in the press, some provinces have indicated that they might be interested in combining with us in such studies. This matter is under consideration in some provinces right now.

April 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the Prime Minister's references to earlier retirement, is the government considering a review of its paper on income security with a view to providing that the old age security pension be made available at an earlier age?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there have been observations in terms of retirement pensions made in the white paper. We have discussed it at the welfare ministers conference and we have invited proposals from all interested associations and people in Canada. After we look at those views it is possible that we will give consideration to them.



SUGGESTION BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING PROVISION OF JOBS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's suggestion may I ask the Minister of Labour if any legislation is going to be introduced regarding a reduction in the work week?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, one of the things we are doing is presenting a new Canada Labour (Standards) Code in such a manner that will make it more effective than it has been in the past. It does limit workers to a 40-hour work week.



SUGGESTION BY PRIME MINISTER RESPECTING PROVISION OF JOBS-NATIONAL DAY-CARE ACT

Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? Is the minister or his department giving consideration to a national day-care act as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, because such an act would be of help to mothers who must be in the work force?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the white paper recognizes the need for day-care centres and suggests that the route for the accomplishment of this end would be discussion with the provinces with a view to possible amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan. This question is being considered by the provinces and was discussed at the last welfare ministers' conference.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and having in mind the Prime Minister's suggestion about decreasing the emphasis of the role of married women in the work force, whether he is now considering the provision of a salary for married women?



INDUSTRY


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the federal government has been studying since 1963 a possible assignment for Cana-dair's own CL-215 aircraft which were previously used to fight forest fires in Canada and across the world, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman could tell us when the government will be in a position to "graduate" its answer after having studied the matter for so many years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been asked not too long ago and it has been answered by the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce.



SUGGESTED DEVELOPMENT BY CANADAIR OF REPLACEMENT FOR ARGUS AIRCRAFT

Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Supply and Services. Is his department investigating the possibility of turning over to Canadair responsibility for developing a follow-up aircraft for the Argus?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not under consideration at the present time.



PROPOSED NORTHERN PIPELINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION-PROVISION OF CANADIAN PRODUCT TO EASTERN CANADA

Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the continuous conflic.ing statements by various ministers and the talks being held in Ottawa and Vancouver and to be held with United States authorities on the pipeline issue, what position is the government advancing at these talks? Has the government got a formal position on this issue?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in the House I have expressed the view of the Canadian government that there are dangers to the ecology arising out of the building of a pipeline across Alaska for ships to carry oil through the Strait of Juan de Fuca.


Louis-Roland Comeau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government is all mixed up on this issue I would ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-
April 7, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member has a supplementary question to ask. We should not enter into debate.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister oi Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the price of oil and gas is to be considerably higher on the east coast, will the minister now consider supplying Canadian oil and gas to the east coast?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the price increases announced today, resulting from higher world petroleum prices as well as higher tanker costs, are being considered by my department and by the National Energy Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister think he will roll them back?


John James Greene: Any conclusions with respect to the viability of a pipeline will be very carefully considered by the board. In the meantime, the National Energy Board is prepared to consider quickly an application by any entrepreneur wishing to build a pipeline to the Montreal market.


Gerald William Baldwin: When are you making your next speech, Joe?



PROPOSED TRANS-ALASKA PIPELINE SYSTEM-SUGGESTED INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION HEARINGS ON POSSIBLE POLLUTION FROM TANKERS

Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he had an opportunity to explore with his United States counterpart the possibility of International Joint Commission hearings similar to those scheduled on the Skagit Valley question, in order to permit all relevant information on the important question of tanker traffic and consequent oil pollution in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Gulf of Georgia to be made completely public?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity of exploring this matter with the Secretary of State for the United States, nor have my officials. I will bear the hon. member's suggestion in mind.


David Anderson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members wish to ask supplementary questions. The Chair will recognize the hon. member, but I suggest that we should try to go as quickly as we can to other subjects.


David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the realization by the government of the United States and the government of Canada that public hearings on the effect on the environment of raising the Ross dam should
Inquiries of the Ministry
be held, will the government House leader now reconsider his acceptance of the motion of the hon. member for Peace River to shelve the second report of the House of Commons Special Committee on Environmental Pollution and bring this matter forward so that similar public hearings can be held by members of the House on the environmental question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member's representations have been heard and noted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is in the form of a representation. He must assume that it will be considered sympathetically by the minister.



PROPOSED FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS TO U.S. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION HEARING

Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry who may become minister of the environment. Does the government of Canada intend to make any representation at the Federal Power Commission hearing in Washington on the question of the Skagit Valley and the application before the FPC, in view of the effect this project will have on Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, it would not be appropriate for the government of Canada to appear before a foreign tribunal of that character.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to have the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich journey to Washington again and do the work that the government of Canada ought to be doing?


James Aloysius McGrath: And get his face slapped for doing it. The hon. member is not appreciated over there.



SKAGIT RIVER REFERENCE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION-SCOPE OF AUTHORITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the agreement between Canada and the United States for a reference to the International Joint Commission. In view of clause (c) of the reference which limits the commission's power to make recommendations to matters which are not inconsistent with the commission's previous order of 1942 and the agreement between the city of Seattle and the province of British Columbia of 1967, I ask the minister whether this means that the commission

April 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
will have no authority to make recommendations against the raising of the Ross dam and that it will be confined exclusively to dealing with the ecological effects of the construction of the dam and the flooding of the Skagit Valley?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman has asked me for a legal opinion which I would not venture to give in the House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a good retreat.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a legal opinion. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is a member of the government which signed the agreement. I am asking the minister what the agreement means. Does the agreement mean that the International Joint Commission will have the power to recommend that the Skagit Valley not be flooded, or is it restricted by clause (c) to discussing merely the ecological effects of such flooding? Surely the government which signed this agreement knows what it means.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked his question twice. Perhaps the minister would like to reply quickly, after which the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the only reply I can give is to read clause (c), if you will permit me to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the moment has come to recognize the hon. member for Portneuf.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister did not deny that my interpretation was correct.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. minister for Regional Economic Expansion concerning the closing down of the Slater Shoe plant.
Since some industries which are presently running into trouble will be able to hold on for a few years on grants from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, I wonder if the minister could tell the House what measures he intends to take to see that industries being run by millionnaires and which are considering transferring their equipment to foreign countries-as in the case of the Slater Shoe Company-will be able to pursue their operations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is asking the minister to make a statement of a rather general nature and I do not think the question is in order.



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he examined the act of the Prince Edward Island Legislature, entitled "An act for the prohibition of certain public gatherings"? If so, is he giving consideration to acting under Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act and referring this measure to the Supreme Court of Canada for consideration and decision?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have only just seen a copy of the act, and I do not know if royal assent has been given to it. Until we have had an opportunity to study it more closely, I do not think it would be proper to make any comment.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: A supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wide suspension of normally accepted liberties, particularly the right of assembly, and in view of the importance of this legislation in light of similar legislation dealt with in this House last fall, was there any consultation with the Minister of Justice or other members of the government before this legislation was introduced into the provincial legislature of Prince Edward Island?


John Napier Turner: Not so far as I know, Mr. Speaker.



DEVELOPMENT OF PARALLEL POLICY ADAPTABLE TO NEEDS OF UNITED STATES MARKET

Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the statement yesterday by Jack Austin, deputy minister of resources, that Canada is developing a parallel energy policy that will permit ready adaptation to the needs of the United States' market, can the minister say if this is the case? If it is the case, when will the minister announce the national energy policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I think the deputy minister's speech referred to the development of Canada's national energy policy in the decade since the national oil policy was announced. While the term is certainly descriptive- a parallel policy rather than an integrated or continental policy, and very well put-we have developed Canada's national energy policies in the Canadian interest and to the benefit of Canada but have continually sought to sell our surplus product in the American market.

April 7, 1971



INCREASE IN CANADIAN OIL PRODUCTION TO MEET


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the crude oil price increases in the Middle East and Venezuela, and the increased crude requirements in Canada amounting to 7 per cent, will a policy be developed to increase the amount of Canadian production to meet increased domestic requirements to a greater extent in view of the fact that foreign imports are to increase by 12 times as much as the Canadian production increase will be?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, Canadian production and sales have been increasing at a very rapid pace. Last year there was something like a 20 per cent increase in our exports over previous years. I feel sure that all these economic factors such as the increase in price and a higher price for offshore crude will tend toward an even greater productivity and production on the Canadian scene.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize one last supplementary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the public statement by the National Energy Board to the effect that we should be increasing our refinery capacity in Canada as well as for security of supply in eastern Canada, will the minister now give the National Energy Board power to rule over exports of oil?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the two questions are properly related. The National Energy Board and the government have continually attempted to encourage a greater refining capacity in Ontario which is essential to the national energy policy and the national oil policy. Unfortunately, contrary to pronouncements made by the New Democratic Party, refining in Ontario is not a highly profitable matter.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with Robert Brown of Home Oil Company. Is the minister in a position to advise whether Mr. Brown has been able to dispose of his shares in Canada to Canadians? If not, what further negotiations have taken place in the past week or so between the minister, his department and Mr. Brown relative to the sale of shares outside of Canada?
Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that the Home Oil Company is still Canadian. If the government's intervention played some part in that result, I am even happier to announce that fact.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John James Greene: I am instructed that negotiations are still taking place. I have not been privy to these, nor have I taken part in them since my indication to the House that we had broken off direct negotiations for the public purchase of Mr. Brown's shares in Cygnus Corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested in the minister making reference to the illusory government intervention for which the minister gives himself a pat on the back. I ask if any step has been taken by the minister or those associated with him which would prevent Mr. Brown selling his shares outside of Canada.


John James Greene: As I previously indicated, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Brown has indicated to us that he is fully aware of the government's desire that Home Oil remain Canadian. I am confident that in his negotiations he is attempting to achieve this end. If a pat on the back is deserved for this result, I will be very pleased to receive same from the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing as immodest as self-praise. As the minister is so interested in what is being done, will he advise when was the last communication with Mr. Brown in connection with this matter?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the last communication with Mr. Brown was when 1 last reported to the House, at which time Mr. Brown indicated-as I indicated to the House-that he was going to pursue his attempts to find a Canadian buyer for his shares in Cygnus Corporation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated or has caused to be indicated to Mr. Brown that he would not be free to sell his shares abroad?


John James Greene: As I indicated to the House at the time of the negotiations, Mr. Speaker, these negotiations were carried out in good faith and in confidence between the parties. Until the matter is completely resolved, I think that confidence should be maintained by me.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcolin):: My question is for the Secretary of State, arising out of an earlier announcement concerning the CBC. Can the minister advise the House whether the CBC has been caught up in the tide of public sentiment in favour of the program "Sesame Street", or is that program to be dropped in accordance with the Canadian content rule?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I can at last say that the program "Sesame Street" will be back on the CBC English television network next season.

April 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, whom I welcome back to the House after his visit to the invigorating shores of Nova Scotia. Is the minister now prepared to make a recommendation to the government in keeping with the main recommendation of the report of the Atlantic Development Council whereby they recommended that full employment policies must be pursued by the government of Canada in order to make regional development policies effective in the Atlantic area? Is the minister prepared to make that recommendation to his colleagues in the government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I stated after the report was transmitted to me that the next step will be to study all the recommendations with the chairman of the council. After that I will report to the cabinet. I will then be in a position to announce any new policies.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. When can we expect the report to be studied by the cabinet, because it is a very important report, affecting as it does the ten-year plan for the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
# * *




Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House whether negotiations are under way with the province of Quebec as to the signing of a new Canada-Quebec co-operation agreement for the economic development of the Lower St. Lawrence region, the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen Islands?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that agreement should be signed at any time now.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION


J. Michael Forrestall: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and concerns the recommendation which urges the government to enter into meaningful negotiation with the four Atlantic Premiers. Will the hon. gentleman pay special attention to the
recommendation which calls on him to meet quarterly with the four Atlantic premiers?


Jean Marchand: I do not know whether we shall meet quarterly but we shall try to have at least one meeting. I think the recommendation of the council to which the hon. member has referred is an important one.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING TARIFF STRUCTURE

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: In light of the recommendation of the Atlantic Development Council, a constituent part of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, that the tariff structure be reassessed with a view to accommodating more equitably the regions of Canada experiencing disparity, is the minister prepared to discuss this idea formally with the government of the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: I think the first discussion should take place with the chairman. Then I would make a report to the cabinet and after that, if necessary, enter into negotiations with the provinces.



GRANTS FOR GASPE ROADBUILDING

Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if before asking my supplementary the Chair would kindly allow me a question of privilege before adjournment-


Mr. Speaker:: Indeed, the hon. member can always rise on a question of privilege. It might be better if the hon. member waited until the end of the question period, although he is entitled, under Standing Orders, to do so right now. Nevertheless I suggest he should wait until the end of the oral question period and ask his supplementary question now.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether the agreement soon to be signed with the province of Quebec will provide for a substantial grant intended for the Gaspe road network?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



PRAIRIE PROVINCES-SIMILAR STUDY TO THAT DONE BY ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Having regard to the apparent importance of the ADC report on Atlantic development, does the gov-

April 7, 1971

ernment intend to discuss with the Prairie provinces the idea of organizing a comprehensive analysis of this kind as a basis for the economic development of the Prairies?


Jean Marchand: This is a question I could discuss with my cabinet colleagues, Mr. Speaker.



WATER RESOURCES


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Have discussions taken place between officials of the Alberta government and the federal government in connection with the proposed diversion of the Pembina River into the North Saskatchewan River?


John (Jack) Davis: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Randolph Harding: Have any studies been projected to determine what possible ecological effects such diversion would have on the Athabasca Delta, the Mackenzie River and the Mackenzie Delta?


John (Jack) Davis: I do not know personally, but I will make inquiries.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


J. Michael Forrestall: I would if I could return to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the recommendation of the Atlantic Development Council that government monetary and fiscal policy be sensitive to regional needs, and in light of the fact that the Atlantic region has suffered excessively from the burden of personal and corporate income tax, will the minister now give some assurance that he will remove or consider removing the 3 per cent surtax on personal and corporate income tax in the Atlantic region?


Jean Marchand: I believe I have the authority to discuss this subject with all interested parties, but I do not have the authority to decide.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we should give other members an opportunity to ask questions at this point.
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



FARM PRODUCTS MARKETING BILL-EXCLUSION OF CATTLE AND CALVES-ACTION OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, since it involves a short preamble. On February 4 I asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it was still his intention to have cattle and calves excluded from the provisions of Bill C-176. He replied that it would be up to the Standing Committee on Agriculture to determine how they wished to amend the bill, but added there was general agreement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question. I suggest it is not quite fair of him to deliver to the House a preamble of such length.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am getting there. Yesterday, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, such an amendment was moved by a government member and 12 of the 15 government members voted against it, including the minister's parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is not a question; it is a speech. I recognize the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Robert Elgin McKinley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my question is coming immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot do this. He has referred in part of his question to proceedings in a committee and this is not in accordance with the rules. At the same time, it is not entirely fair to the other hon. members who are just as anxious as he is to ask questions, particularly when there are only seven minutes left before the end of the question period. Nevertheless, the hon. member might be allowed to put his question at this point.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Does the Prime Minister not consider this vote to represent a distinct lack of confidence in the Minister of Agriculture by the majority of government members and would he use his influence to have such an amendment accepted when the bill comes before the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the preamble was out of order and that his question is also out of order.



WELFARE


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National
5000

April 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Health and Welfare. It arises from a question asked earlier by my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. In light of the Prime Minister's suggestion that there should be a retrenchment in the labour force, has the minister suggested to the Native Council of Canada that Metis and non-status Indians should continue to live on welfare, or was he able to offer them a more positive response to the proposals in the paper recently presented to him by the council?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out, commenting on the many observations contained in their brief, that many of the recommendations we were putting forward in the white paper, including amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan, would materially assist many of the Metis to get off welfare.


Paul Yewchuk: My supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that $1 billion has been offered by President Nixon to the Indians of Alaska in exchange for land and oil, has the right hon. gentleman considered making a similar offer to the Indians inhabiting the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: May I ask whether payment would be made in dollars, or wampum?



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the youth program planned for the coming summer months is subject to a deadline of April 14 in many cases, I believe, and since there is still vast confusion all over the country as to how this program is to be carried out, will the Secretary of State, or whichever minister is in charge of this scheme, give an assurance to the House before we adjourn for the recess that further consideration will be given to the plan and an extension of time granted if necessary?


Gérard Pelletier: I think, Mr. Speaker, from the hundreds of projects we are receiving, that the hon. member is more confused than the young of this country.
I am surprised at the hon. member being so confused that apparently he does not know that a meeting has been arranged for five o'clock this afternoon for all hon. members interested in meeting the civil servants, information officers and other people in a position to supply
all the information that they might not have yet or even that which they have received already but, and I have evidence that this is true of some opposition members, have not read.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such notice as the minister refers to, nor have other hon. members. I am beginning to reach the conclusion that the minister does not know his rear end from third base.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the recent, regretted resignation of the chairman of Devco, Mr. Robert Burns Cameron, a great Canadian who has served Nova Scotia and Canada well, and bearing in mind the urgent need for preserving the continuity of office of chairman of this important corporation, can the minister advise the House how soon he may be appointing someone to fill this vacancy?


Jean Marchand: I regret the resignation of Mr. Cameron and I share the hon. member's feelings about him. I hope that very soon I can find a replacement.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the uncertainty with regard to the future of Devco, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on this important question when the House resumes later this month?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the chairman manager with then have been appointed.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-East Richmond):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion seek and take the advice of Mr. R. B. Cameron in any appointment he may make to the chairmanship of the board and also in filling vacancies on the board of directors?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that we shall consult all those who are familiar with Devco and its problems. In fact, Mr. Cameron is one of the most able people familiar with the problems of Cape Breton.

April 7, 1971



UTILIZATION FEES TO PATIENTS FOR DOCTORS' SERVICES-DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCES

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister ol National Health and Welfare. In light of the fact that the federal government introduced a national health care scheme, is the minister going to consult the provincial health ministers regarding meeting the increased cost of utilization fees to patients for doctors' services?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This area is now under discussion and will be under discussion with the provinces more so during the course of the next few months.
Hi ^



FINANCE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I gave him warning, if not notice. I regret that my warning was short. Has it been ascertained that Canada will be exempt from an amendment to include short-term as well as long-term capital flows in the United States interest equalization tax, and is the government consulting United States officials on the whole matter? If so, when will a definitive announcement be made?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been exempted from the application of the interest equalization tax and, so far as I know, from all the associated restrictions. My colleague the Minister of Finance was in Washington yesterday and I would suggest that if there are any questions on detail, they should be directed to him.



RESUMPTION OF NORMAL MOVEMENT TO WEST COAST PORTS AND SHIP LOADINGS

Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the movement of grain again proceeding normally to west coast ports, and when will capacity ship loadings once again be in progress?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the commissioner of the Wheat Board indicated to me today that he thought that by tomorrow we might be back to normal unloads. Yesterday 338 cars were unloaded at Vancouver.
Inquiries of the Ministry PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ACT PROHIBITING CERTAIN PUBLIC GATHERINGS-POSSIBILITY OF DISALLOWANCE

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Justice a further question concerning the act to provide for the prohibition of certain public gatherings passed by the Prince Edward Island legislature yesterday? In view of the fact that this act seems to deny certain basic liberties that belong to all Canadians, will the government in its review of this matter consider the possibility of disallowing the act?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would not think that would be the remedy in any event. In the final analysis the courts would be the proper forum for challenging any act, if that challenge were on a constitutional basis.



BARLEY-SUGGESTED INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICE TO INDUCE GREATER PLANTING

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible to the House for the Canadian Wheat Board, and the urgency of my question is that the planting season is almost upon us. My question refers to the current initial prices established for wheat, oats and barley. In light of the 60 per cent increase in barley acreages required this year and the tendency of farmers to lean toward the production of more wheat because of price advantage, will the government consider raising the initial price of barley to increase the incentive to grow more of this grain in order to meet current markets?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was very encouraged by the report from DBS that in fact farmers plan to increase their barley plantings to 14.4 million acres and to hold their wheat at 18.6 million acres. I should like to see further increases in barley acreage, but they are planning to plant sufficient barley to allow us to export at a pretty high level.



INFORMATION CANADA


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Does the minister intend to table the report called "Community Information Centres", which has been circulated among the press? If so, when he tables the report, which I suppose will be after the Easter recess, will he inform the House what the government intends to do with the report, and in view of certain recommendations regarding the functions of these centres, does he intend to be Dorothy Dix's big brother or minister for Information Canada?
5002

April 7, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Roberi Sianbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the hon. member refers has been circulated to all hon. members. It is a consultants' report and will be studied as such. I would appreciate having the views of hon. members as well as the views of the provincial premiers and mayors of principal Ontario cities who will also receive this report.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have a copy of the report and have read it. It includes recommendations for setting up neighbourhood counsellors to advise on time, weather, how to apply for a job-not how to get one- drivers' licences, how to get an abortion, the names of reliable garagemen, counselling on data storage, how to repair your car, and all that kind of thing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time and I hope the right hon. gentleman will soon ask his question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would need the whole afternoon to read portions of this remarkable document. I ask the minister whether, among those consulted in order to bring about this monstrosity, Mao or any of his associates was communicated with.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, but since he has left the chamber perhaps the Prime Minister could look after it for me. Have Messrs. R. C. Scrivner of Bell Canada and John Colman of the Royal Bank of Canada turned down an invitation to sit on the interim board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation? If so, can the Prime Minister tell us why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether they have turned it down. I do not know whether such offer was made to them to sit on an interim board of directors of something or other. Perhaps the hon. member is right, but I have no jurisdiction over that. Perhaps he should ask them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to hon. members who have been rising during the question period; I was hoping we could give them an opportunity to ask their questions but we have run three or four minutes beyond the regular time. Perhaps at this moment the Chair might recognize the hon. member for Matane before calling Orders of the Day, since he has a question of privilege. Is the hon. member for Selkirk rising on a point of order?


Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand how the Prime Minister can tell the House that he has no
jurisdiction over appointments to the board of directors of the CDC in the interim stages.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, a written statement I made on the last report of the Bank of Canada and especially on the economic theory, was interpreted by some newspapers as reflecting on the government's anticyclical policy. In this instance, the newspapers in question have completely distorted my thinking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I should point out to the hon. member that when rising on a question of privilege, as in this case, the hon. member must give notice to the Chair and, in the circumstances, the hon. member will appreciate that he cannot carry the matter any further.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, in view of the importance of the question which I would have liked to direct to the Prime Minister in connection with the census.
As the census is a rather important matter, I think that the Chair will allow me to deal briefly, in view of the injection of $3.5 million which will affect 42,000 workers-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will acknowledge that there is no question of privilege here. I sincerely regret that the hon. member has not been able to ask that important question. He may perhaps be able to get the information he is seeking in another manner, or later this afternoon. I feel the same for the hon. members for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) and Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), who are among those who did not have the opportunity to ask their questions this afternoon.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John (Jack) Davis: that Bill S-13, to amend the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know that all hon. members are concerned about overfishing in the North Atlantic, especially overfishing near our own shores, and I think they all agree that we must bring this situation under control. We must conduct these fishing operations in international waters on a sustained yield basis. We need a formula which will enable us to operate in this way. We need data. We need assurance that fishing carried out by nationals of other countries conforms with a set of rules which make sense from a long-term point of view.

April 7, 1971

The amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act contained in Bill S-13 will grant powers to Canadian officers to board the fishing vessels of other countries, and reciprocal powers whereby officers of other countries can board Canadian vessels on the high seas.
There has been a long history of fishing in the North Atlantic, stretching back over 400 years. There have been indications, especially in recent decades, of serious overfishing. In order to deal with this problem of overfishing a conference of 11 countries was convened in Washington in 1949. The International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries was drawn up at the 1949 conference, and was signed in Washington later that year.
By 1953 the convention had been ratified by Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States. Since 1953 the Federal Republic of Germany, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Poland, Roumania and Japan, in that order, have become members of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries and ICNAF is now a 15-member organization. The commission coordinates investigations of the fisheries off our east coast and makes recommendations to member governments for the protection and conservation of the fish stocks there. Conservation measures have already been drawn up and enforced in all five sub-areas of the North Atlantic.
It has become apparent that various measures must be undertaken. The first steps taken were to regulate the size of the mesh of nets that could be used. Then regulations were drawn up with respect to closures during periods when the fish were spawning. More recently, ICNAF has dealt with limitations of catch in particular areas. One of these areas includes Georges Bank and Browns Bank, south of Nova Scotia. There is need to extend these regulations geographically as well as in terms of gear, species, catch limits, seasons, etc.
Responsibility for enforcement of regulatory measures recommended by the International Commission, and approved by member governments, has rested with each government for its own flag vessels. As far back as the mid-1950s Canada made the suggestion to the commission that it should consider some sort of international scheme for enforcement. We need to know more about the enforcement methods of other governments. We need to be able to meet the complaints of our Canadian fishermen to the effect that the regulations which we have agreed to with other countries are not being enforced on foreign fishing vessels, particularly those that come near our shores.
On June 6, 1970, at its annual meeting at St. John's, Newfoundland, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Commission recommended that protection officers of any contracting government be permitted to board vessels operating under the flag of another contracting government. The purpose of this recommendation was to enable our fisheries officers, for example, to examine the catches taken and the gear used by foreign vessels fishing off our coasts.
The amendments to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act provided for in this bill will make it
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
possible to grant authority to Canadian officers to enforce these regulations on vessels flying the flags of other contracting governments. They will also permit the officers of other contracting governments to board Canadian fishing vessels for the same purpose.
The Canadian fishing industry, I understand, is enthusiastic about this arrangement, as are Canadian inshore fishermen, in that this will place better information in our hands and enable the regulations developed under ICNAF to be effectively policed.
I might add that Canada and the United States, by mutual agreement, have already been carrying out joint enforcement procedures. This very day, for example, Canadian patrol vessels are operating with U.S. coastguard vessels over Georges Bank and Browns Bank. Canadian officers are on U.S. coastguard vessels and, conversely, U.S. officers are on Canadian vessels, thus permitting enforcement by the vessels of either country on U.S. and Canadian flag fishing vessels. With international enforcement in effect it will no longer be necessary to have the extra officer from the other country on any given patrol vessel.
We are all concerned about overfishing. We need to establish rules in the North Atlantic fishery so that the fishery can be operated on a long-term sustained yield basis. We need rules also to make absolutely sure that Canadians get their fair share of the catch. This bill, which will allow our officers to board foreign vessels and officers of other member countries of ICNAF to do likewise with Canadian vessels, will help to ensure that this desirable state of affairs comes to pass.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau) seeks the floor for the purpose of asking a question of the minister. Is the minister prepared to answer?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Can the minister tell the House what areas are affected by the convention and by this bill?


John (Jack) Davis: I understand that all the sub-areas____in
other words, the total area encompassed by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention-would come under these provisions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we welcome this bill and the international convention that it ratifies, and we commend the minister for the initiative he has taken in helping to bring it about. But we regret that the government has chosen to bring in this bill just a few hours before the House is scheduled to recess for Easter, because the bill would have afforded us a unique opportunity to examine some questions of very great concern to those of us who come from the Atlantic provinces.
As a consequence of the government's strategy, we will not have that opportunity today. Hopefully, there will be other occasions before the session ends when we can

April 7, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
have a full-scale debate on the situation that prevails on the east coast of Canada with respect to our fishing interests and our international commitments in relation thereto, because this is of continuing concern to the many thousands of Canadians in the Atlantic provinces who depend upon the fisheries for a living.
In my province the fishing industry is still the keystone of the economy, and in my view will be for a long time to come. The treaty-I suppose it is a treaty, a convention or an accord within a treaty-provides that Canada will share the right with other member countries to board foreign ships with a view to enforcing the regulations under ICNAF with regard to the use of fishing gear and the implementation and enforcement of conservation measures. We hope this initiative is not too late. My hon. friend from Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan), who has taken commendable initiatives in the whole area of conservation, will have something to say on that matter in the debate.
There is, however, one area about which I am concerned and in respect of which I believe this bill will be totally ineffective. I refer to trying to protect our Atlantic salmon fishery from virtual extinction as a consequence of overexploitation by the Danes off Greenland, because by the very terms of this convention we can enforce the regulations only within our own area. There is no way our fisheries patrol vessels, which are small in number and size, can adequately protect this Canadian resource from overexploitation by another country. I say "Canadian resource", because the tragedy of it is that our country spends substantial amounts of money annually to provide hatcheries and spawning grounds and to keep our rivers open and provide the necessary protection for our salmon which go up the rivers off the east coast of Canada to spawn, only to be, upon returning to the sea, scooped up in thousands of tons by the Danes to be taken to their country to be processed, canned and perhaps even shipped into Canada as canned salmon.
This is a new problem for us. It is a very recent one because only within the last ten years have the Danes discovered one of the greatest mysteries of all, the location of the North Atlantic feeding ground of the Atlantic salmon. The Danes discovered this feeding ground off the coast of Greenland. Since that time they have been harvesting these salmon, the product of Canadian protection and of Canadian waters, in tens of thousands of pounds.
As an illustration it might be worth while to place a few statistics on the record. The total Danish catch, in pounds of salmon, in 1960 was 220,000. In 1961 it remained at 220,000 pounds. In that year, however, they made their great discovery, and the catch went up to
661.000	pounds in 1962. In 1963 it went up to 1,100,000 pounds. In 1964 it rose to 3,306,000 pounds. In 1965 it was down again, but still substantially up at 1,760,000 pounds. In 1966 the figure was 2,865,000 pounds. In 1967 it was
2.865.000	pounds. In 1968 it was 1,300,000 pounds, and in 1969 it was 2,865,000 pounds. Estimates are not available for 1970.
It is interesting to note that our own catch of this valuable resource has remained virtually the same. Of course, there is a good reason for this. We have taken great steps to conserve this very important resource, important both as a commercial fishery and as a sports fishing industry in respect of tourism. Our catch has remained virtually the same at about three million pounds. The only difference is that we catch these salmon because they are a product of our scientific research, of our conservation policy and of the expense and effort we put into protecting our rivers from pollution, from poaching and from other things which would greatly deplete the stocks of salmon.
We have been notably unsuccessful in our efforts to prevail upon the Danes to substantially reduce their catch with a view to avoiding total extinction of the species. There is varying evidence in this regard, but I submit that unless something is done immediately the Atlantic salmon will be extinct in ten years. I think, therefore, we must, as a consequence of our failure to obtain meaningful agreement with the Danes, look at our position within ICNAF because this is supposed to be the international forum in which this type of agreement is reached. I want to know why we cannot get the Danes to reduce their catch of salmon.
Only a few days ago the Norwegians introduced regulations to reduce the catch of salmon off Greenland. So the Norwegians are concerned and are doing something about it. Also, just a few days ago our own minister issued a statement concerning new regulations aimed at protecting the species within our own jurisdiction. I am sorry the minister is not here. Perhaps he is more concerned with clean air and the rather attractive subject of pollution than he is with the cold, hard reality of dealing with this very important bread and butter industry.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Corbin) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Corbin:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member would allow me to explain that the minister has been called out of the House for perhaps ten minutes. I am taking notes and will keep the minister informed of the hon. member's points.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was commencing to refer to a statement made on March 12 by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) in respect of the introduction of new and strong regulations aimed at preserving the species within our own jurisdiction. I might say I do not agree with many of these regulations. It would seem that the minister expects Canadians to bear the burden of the overexploitation being carried on by the Danes: Canadian fishermen must bear the consequences of the failure of this government to bring full pressure to bear on the Danish government to substantially reduce the Danish catch off Greenland. I think this is regrettable.
These regulations will in my province have the effect of denying to the people the traditional right they have enjoyed of catching fish any time they wish. We now

April 7, 1971

have regulations under which only people engaged on a full-time basis in the fishing industry will be able to obtain a licence to catch salmon. The same thing applies in the rest of Atlantic Canada, but it is especially objectionable to our province where the people have traditionally enjoyed this right. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate understands the point I am making. Previously the people in our province, whatever their occupation may be, have enjoyed the privilege of going out and catching a few salmon for their own use or perhaps even to sell on the market. Now, however, these people are deprived of this right because of the failure of the government to obtain meaningful agreement from the Danes.
We have suggested in this House time and time again-and I am sure the minister has warmed to the idea-that the government impose economic sanctions on the Danish government if they will not comply with adequate conservation measures. Unfortunately our Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, in matters pertaining to international relations in the international fishery does not seem to enjoy the support or the good will of his colleagues in the government. Certainly he does not have the support of his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who should be most active in this area.
I should like to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself attend the next meeting of ICNAF which is scheduled to take place this June and at which these matters will come up for discussion. By so doing he will demonstrate to the other members of ICNAF who fish off our shores and who do not have the same vested interests in these fisheries that Canada has a great interest in this resource which we look upon as our own but which we are prepared to share with others.
I believe that the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the next meeting of ICNAF would demonstrate and underline the determination of this government in its external pursuits to protect the interests of Canadians, to protect this traditional, ancient and important Canadian industry, the North Atlantic fishery. Instead, we cannot get our minister to even open up negotiations with the French government with a view of reaching a satisfactory solution to the impasse in which we find ourselves with that country as a consequence of our ancient treaty obligations vis-a-vis the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon which lie practically within our territorial waters. Because of the presence of France off Newfoundland we have not been able to obtain any meaningful agreement with respect to our territorial sea and fishing limits. We have pestered the minister time and time again in this respect.
To return to the minister's statement of March 12, he said:
Not only do we have to talk tough to the Danes, but we also have to put our own house in order.
I submit to you that it is not Canadian fishermen who pose a threat to this very important fishery. I submit that the evidence which I have placed on the record, which is
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
well known to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, indicates that the real culprit is the government of Denmark who are overexploiting this resource every year to the point where it will be virtually extinct in a very short time. Yet our fishermen have to bear the full brunt of the failure of the government to reach meaningful agreement with the government of Denmark.
We must be a joke in the international forum, especially in ICNAF, because I submit there is not one member of the 14 member countries of ICNAF who have a greater stake in the North Atlantic fisheries than does this country. Yet this country has gone in with half-hearted efforts in its attempts to deal with these countries and bring forward a meaningful agreement in terms of conservation. Something must be done, and it must be done soon before it is too late.
I have made a suggestion in this regard. I have suggested to the minister that he try to obtain the support of his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A way for him to do this would be to invite his colleague to attend with him the next meeting of ICNAF, which I understand is to take place in June. At that meeting let the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, supported by the government of Canada in the person of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, forcibly and dramatically put forward the case for Canada, and by so doing let them talk tough to the Danes and tell them that unless they bring in meaningful conservation measures, and unless they subscribe to our terms respecting what we consider to be sustained yield of this Canadian resource, we will have no alternative but to impose economic sanctions on Danish products coming into Canada.
That is the only kind of language the Danes will understand, and in my view that is the only way in which we can protect this important resource from virtual extinction. To put it mildly, that would be preferable to imposing penalties on our Canadian fishermen who are not the guilty ones.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, those of us who participated in the parliamentary action which originally ratified the North Atlantic Fisheries Convention viewed that action as auguring well for the future. We hoped that it would usher in a new era of rational management of the various fisheries of the North Atlantic on a sustained yield basis; that the breakthrough would herald the day of better things to come in the way of a rational use of the living resources of the sea throughout the world. Of course, many of those hopes have not materialized, as has just been indicated by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Even while we were dealing with the bill that ratified this convention, we were aware of some of its limitations but hoped that the passage of time would bring about a realization that necessary improvements to it would be made. One of the limitations of the original convention is that any recommendations of the commission can have the effect of law only by unanimous consent, and any of us who are members of this House of Commons know that it is not always easy to get unanimous consent on a particular course of action. That is an inherent weakness

April 7, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act in the current situation so far as the effect of this treaty, in law, is concerned. I think that perhaps it lies at the root of some of the problems that were outlined in respect of the very existence of the North Atlantic species of salmon.
In addition to that, of course, the limitation in the original convention expressly puts the territorial waters of any of the countries involved out of bounds so far as the application of the treaty is concerned. I think this should be stressed in light of the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East because, if my understanding of the situation is correct-I know that he is much more familiar with the geography of that part of the world than I-much of the salmon take of the Danes is within their territorial waters off the coast of Greenland.
This highlights some of the inadequacies of our ability to establish a rational arrangement under the rule of law on the high seas. In light of statements and statistics given to this House and to the Standing Committee by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis), the result has been obvious. There has been a direct decrease in the annual catch, particularly of Canadian inshore fishermen, in recent years. This indicates that despite the provision in the treaty for scientific research into management of the resources, our high hopes for conservation of the various species when we put the parliamentary stamp of approval on this convention in 1954 are a long way from realization.
I think the House should understand that when we consider the modest proposals contained in the bill before us. These will certainly not bring an end to the problems in respect of the North Atlantic fishery, the survival of some of the stocks and the maintenance of the income of Canadian fishermen. Very startling things have happened since 1954. At that time few of us realized the technological changes that would bring about huge, highly mobile fleets travelling the high seas of the world with the support of mother supply ships. The countries historically concerned with the Northwest Atlantic fishery are today by no means the only countries involved. There is an indication of this in the adherence to the treaty since the original signing of a number of other nations, notably the U.S.S.R. and Japan. When this bill was originally put through Parliament it did not occur to me that one of the signatories of the Northwest Atlantic fisheries treaty would be Japan. We in British Columbia tend to think of that country as a Pacific fishing nation.
This is undoubtedly one of the compounding factors in the decline of many of the resources of the northern Atlantic, Mr. Speaker, and although the commission has not yet come to grips with it they will have to do so in the future. Obviously, no nation is more concerned with the success of the work of the commission than Canada. While it is true that many of these resources lie in what traditionally has been regarded as the high seas, nevertheless what we are discussing are to a large extent Canadian resources. I think we must make it clear that we regard them as such, and that while we have no
desire to take a "dog in the manger" attitude toward the resources of the sea adjacent to our shores, our special position can and must be recognized by other countries.
I think we would all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the proposals in the bill represent a modest improvement in the terms of the original treaty. It proposes to strengthen the policing powers, and I suppose it says something for the years of association of the fishing countries of the Northwest Atlantic that they are prepared to agree to mutually policing the vessels of member countries.
It seems to me that ancillary to the passage of this measure perhaps Canada should undertake more adequate policing than it has in the Northwest Atlantic. Because of the special interest and importance of this area to Canada, and in particular to the Atlantic region, I suggest that within the limits of this new arrangement we should take full advantage of the opportunity to ensure that the regulations put forward by the commission, and accepted, are in fact enforced. This may require larger expenditures by the department but I think it would be well warranted.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think we must recognize that many of the basic problems will remain unsolved after the passage of this measure. It seems to me that the situation is highlighted by the recent action of the minister with regard to cutting back on the Atlantic salmon take of Canadian fishermen and by the depletion of resources available to fishermen on the Atlantic coast. It underlines the need to have a Minister of Fisheries in Canada.
While I do not want to enter into debate on another bill, the fact that we are to enter into important international negotiations when the commission meets in June, the fact that we will have to speak out strongly and firmly to the Danes, the fact that the other bill makes no provision for any reorganization of the Department of External Affairs, the fact that our international relations pertaining to fisheries have been carried out by the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in the past and that our Department of External Affairs has had no structure to deal with these issues, underlines the fact that when we go to an international convention we need someone who can speak for us officially, with the prestige of being the Minister of Fisheries for Canada.
To me this underlines the fact that at international conventions, quite apart from other gatherings, we need someone with the title and prestige of Minister of Fisheries for Canada. I say that because the kinds of questions surrounding this little amendment to the international convention highlight a worldwide situation. The amendment highlights whether the law of the jungle is to prevail on the high seas, whether there is to be ruthless exploitation and extermination of the living resources of the sea or whether we are to move to something better so that those resources will be managed and used for the benefit of mankind under the rule of law. These are the kinds of questions that come to my mind as I consider the ramifications of the bill before us.

April 7, 1971

When we arrive at the point at which these crucial decisions must be made they might relate to new agreements or new regimes regarding the exploitation of resources, or to the suggestion made by the hon. member for St. John's East, that is, to the threat of sanctions against other nations which will not give due recognition to our needs and requirements-I hope that our own house will be in order so that Canada can speak with an effective voice in these international councils.
These considerations are important, not only for a particular industry in this country but also in the long range, as many distinguished scientists and others have suggested. In the long run, the survival of the human race may well depend on whether we learn properly to use and manage the resources of the sea, particularly the rich, living resources of the sea which can provide an important part of the total food requirements of the human race.
I say in conclusion, without speaking in detail about the situation regarding Atlantic salmon which was the subject of the speech of the hon. member for St. John's East, that I regret that the minister felt he had to take the steps to impose the kind of restrictions upon the Atlantic salmon fishery that he recently announced. May I also say in passing-this may surprise the hon. member for St. John's East that the fishermen in British Columbia would be much happier if the restrictions which we know must be imposed in British Columbia with regard to the licensing and taking of the salmon resources of the Pacific were based more on the principles which the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry followed in respect of the Atlantic fishery, rather than on the approach, technique and philosophy that the minister adopted with respect to the Pacific resources.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker-and I am referring particularly to the Atlantic salmon situation-that we all hope that Denmark will follow the obviously sensible course of embarking upon some kind of reciprocal arrangement on the utilization of that resource. Perhaps the arrangement could be similar to some of those we have been able to work out with nations on the Pacific coast. Although those arrangements have not worked out ideally or to the complete satisfaction of all fishermen of Canada or the United States over the years, nevertheless there have been situations, such as the one respecting the fishery of the Fraser River, in which an obvious and common sense arrangement was worked out for sharing the catch.
It may very well be that that kind of arrangement could be worked out as far as the Atlantic salmon is concerned, because we must consider that apparently their feeding grounds are within the territorial waters of one of Denmark's possessions. I hope that will be the upshot of any discussions, Mr. Speaker, because I for one hope we can deal with this matter rationally. I hope that the kind of confrontation suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East will not become necessary.
When the bill goes to committee we shall want to hear further particulars about the work of the commission, how this proposed policing arrangement will be carried out, by whom it will be carried out, and that sort of
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
thing. When the bill comes back to the House for third reading I hope we will view the picture somewhat more optimistically than we can view it on the basis of the facts now before us.


John Howard Lundrigan: April 7, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
day fishermen use large cod traps, about the size of this chamber. These are sunk in the Atlantic ocean. There are particular methods of allowing fish to get into these traps. Great boatloads of cod were harvested that way. Cod was in plentiful supply in every little cove around Newfoundland.
Our forefathers, the original inhabitants of what is now Canada, sailed from the island of Newfoundland to Labrador where they did one of two things. Some settled in the small coves, bays or inlets on the Labrador coast. They went out in their small boats with their cod traps and harvested great quantities of fish. Others would remain on their larger vessels or schooners, 100 to 200 feet in length, and spend the summer on their boats using cod traps. They would process their product on board the vessel.
Perhaps the minister is not aware that Newfoundlanders used to travel to Labrador in great fleets of schooners long before Russia was known as a fishing nation. There are great communities in my constituency, such as Greenspond, the home of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter). Before the schooners left the harbours of these communities in the spring to go to Labrador, their masts looked like a great forest of timber as they stood at mooring. The minister knows what I am talking about. I am referring to the masts used for their sails. It was possible to walk across the decks of the schooners in the harbours at Bonavista Bay and Notre Dame Bay, the home of the great schooner builders and captains. All these harbours were literally filled with schooners. Under the guidance of the captain, homespun in their home town, the members of the various communities boarded these vessels to sail to Labrador to reap the benefits of the great fishery there. The Labrador fishery was so plentiful that traps placed in little coves or inlets were filled with great, beautiful black cod. These cod are now declining. This is the history of our fishery.
In recent years we adopted new technology: we became more involved in gill netting and dragging operations with longliners, boats approximately 65 feet in length. The operation of draggers is a very important part of technology. We are not very far advanced toward other stages of fisheries. It certainly cannot be said that our traditional fishery was not competitive with that of other nations. As a matter of fact, we were the vanguard of fisheries in the world 20 years ago as far as Canadian waters were concerned.
I wish to deal with events since 1949 when Newfoundland became part of Canada. As the minister stated, this was the same year that the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fishery came into existence. That board now has 15 members from Scandinavian, Iberian and western Europe countries as well as the United States and Canada. These countries' representatives have been making recommendations in the hope of controlling the harvesting of marine resources in order that we will have a sustainable yield of our marine resources. The board has been meeting since 1949. The number of members has been increased. This commission made annual
reports, all of which recommended certain managerial procedures to be adopted by the member countries.
Another type of activity was manifested in a number of Law of the Sea conferences, the most important of which was at Geneva in 1958. At that conference international agreements were reached among nations which had a particular interest in the seas. There is a particular name for these nations; they are called maritime nations. In 1958 these nations agreed there should be a definite responsibility on the part of nations which were taking resources from the sea, to manage the resources. To use Canada as an example, there should be a definite responsibility on the part of Canada to enforce managerial control and conservation measures in the waters adjacent to its territorial sea in the event that we should not reach international agreement for such conservation measures. I think I am quoting the article correctly. I believe it is article 14.
In any event, the articles of the 1958 agreement stated that Canada could unilaterally impose conservation measures, quotas, closing areas, limits of technology, such as the number of ships and gear, and the like on the continental shelf, which extends 400 miles off our shore, if Canada could not reach international agreement with the nations that harvest our resources. This is an international agreement. I think it was unanimously agreed to at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1958.
Another date of particular note is 1964, when the then Prime Minister of Canada launched his great Magna Carta for the development of Canadian fisheries Canada and the protection of our marine resources. He promised Canadians that we would impose a 12-mile limit as the first step toward conserving our resources. Another noteworthy date was reached in 1970. Canada met with the U.S.S.R. as a result of tremendous political pressure regarding incidents on our west coast involving collisions between Russian ships and our fishing schooners or vessels. Because of tremendous political pressure in the minister's constituency and elsewhere on the west coast of Canada, representatives of the U.S.S.R., British Columbia and the federal government reached certain agreements about the Russians fishing offshore and using west coast ports.
In 1971 another event deserves note. Approximately 60 foreign vessels were inside our three-mile limit off the southwest coast of Newfoundland. This occurred only a few weeks ago. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) decided to impose a 12-mile limit on all vessels, including Canadian, on a very small portion of the southwest and west coasts of Newfoundland. This was the first response to the promise made by the Pearson government in 1964. The history of this particular problem goes back 22 years, ever since ICNAF and Law of the Sea conferences have been making recommendations. The response to this by the present government and previous governments has been puny and ineffective. For example, the minister stated that we have had the imposition of quotas on George's Bank. As a matter of fact, the fishing of haddock is not permitted by any nation at the present time.
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
April 7, 1971

I have referred to the situation in British Columbia, to which we received a response. I have mentioned the 12-mile limit on the southwest coast of Newfoundland. In 1973 the maritime nations will again meet at a Law of the Sea conference. These are positive steps and I do not criticize them. However, the fact is that since 1949 nations that were unheard of as marine nations have become involved in the harvesting of our resources. The greatest predator is the U.S.S.R. I do not know if Germany is the second greatest competitor of the Soviet Union, but I believe she is.
There are times when the vessels of more than 20 nations are fishing off our continental shelf. Countries such as Algeria are now constructing fishing fleets hoping to be able to take advantage of the historic rights of France and to operate under the French flag off our coasts. Roumania-this was unheard of in years past- now has great fleets of vessels quite unlike our own small draggers or inshore fishing craft, great processing vessels and dragging vessels which literally declare war on a fishing area. One billion pounds of fish was taken in one year from Hamilton Inlet Banks, the great spawning ground of the Labrador fishery, enough to occupy the largest fishplant in Gander-Twillingate employing 350 people for 100 years. In that year the Soviet Union took 25 per cent of all the fish on the Hamilton Inlet Banks, according to authoritative reports and statements from the Department of Fisheries and ICNAF. The Soviet Union took 250 million pounds of fish from those banks.
The following years saw a decline in the Labrador fishery to the point at which thousands of our Newfoundland fishermen went to the fishery only to come home empty-handed. The fishing was a complete and utter failure. The minister knows why the Labrador fishery has failed. It was the tragic result of overfishing. The oldest traditional fishery in the world, certainly the oldest in North America, has been destroyed; it has been a disastrous, total failure in the last three years as a result of overfishing on the spawning grounds. I invite hon. members to imagine the coast of Labrador. Some 250 miles off Grosswater Bay we come to Hamilton Inlet Banks. Hundreds of vessels were fishing there day after day. The minister knows what happens. He has talked about it on television. He knows how Soviet vessels operate.
Again, let us take what happened on Georges Bank as an example. Three or four years ago news went around that Canadian fisherman were getting good catches of haddock there. The Russians declared war on Georges Bank. They went in with great fleets of ships; it is their practice to move in packs of between 20 and 60 ships. They have 40 ships operating there, including factory ships, medical supply vessels and everything else-a whole community. They declared war on Georges Bank and in that year they destroyed the haddock fishery to the point at which the chances of its spontaneous recovery are most unlikely. Biologists in the Department of
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
Fisheries tell us that depletion of stock may have reached the stage at which natural processes cannot replenish it. This is the result of overfishing.
Now the minister tells us we should impose quotas and restrict fishing on Georges Bank. He can do this for a very good reason: there are more haddock in Lake Ontario than there are on Georges Bank at the moment. He is able to impose restrictions on fishing in the area because there are no more fish there. The depletion of stocks had reached such proportions that everyone realized that the time for action had passed. Everyone in Canada interested in the fisheries knew that stocks had disappeared by the time we got round to taking action.
The minister tells us about the patrols we are carrying out, the great effort which Canada is making. At a time when there were 60 foreign vessels off the southwest coast of Newfoundland a few weeks ago, the Canadian response was two small ships trying to patrol the whole of the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the coast of Newfoundland. One is a 65-foot vessel called the Cape Freals. It would have trouble navigating the Rideau Canal in a high wind. Indeed, it would be just as effective on the Prairies as in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
The minister says they are doing a great job, that the crews are even working overtime while still keeping within the departmental budget. He says "You must remember that these men must rest from time to time; they must have time to themselves; they must have weekends off." What a shame, disgrace and embarrassment for the Canadian nation to treat its fisheries, to treat its sovereignty, to treat its territory in this way! The department sent in two capable aircraft when the situation had reached the point at which the fishermen themselves were threatening to take up arms to assert their rights. What a response to a threat of the kind we have been facing!
The minister was warned what was likely to happen. Members on this side of the House have made numerous recommendations and I shall repeat some of them today. We have asked that Canada take immediate steps to convene a conference in lieu of a Law of the Sea conference-the next to take place two years from now. We have urged that Canada convene a conference on marine resources in order that the nations of the world involved in the fishing industry might sit around a table and talk about conservation and management as a first step. This should have been done in 1959 following the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva. Canada was given the right to ask the nations of the world to attend a conference to discuss this subject and if after six months they refused to agree on conservation measures, then Canada could take unilateral action. This was never done.
We have asked that the Canadian government impose a 12-mile limit right around the coast of Newfoundland and the coast of Canada. We have asked that the Canadian government enforce the laws which it has had on the books since 1964 and which have been brought forward under various guises since then. We have asked the government to take the question of our sovereignty over

April 7, 1971
N.W. Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act
territorial seas seriously since among other things this directly affects the livelihood of so many of our people. We have asked that the government use National Defence facilities to enforce the laws of Canada in this area. We have asked that the government recommend quotas to the various nations which are engaged in harvesting our resources. I understand that the Soviet Union, for example, is willing to talk about quotas, to talk about restricting catches and the number of boats and the amount of gear which may be employed. After all, Russia too has been getting an increasingly small return on the total capital and technology invested in its fishing fleet. Indeed, they are getting an even smaller return per manhour than we are.
The simple fact is that Canadians are not willing to give the fisheries any degree of priority. The reason is, I believe, that when many people think of Canada they think only of the central heartland, of the Montreal-Toronto complex. They think of a power structure which is basically in tune with manufacturing industries, and I do not think they are prepared to lift a finger which might upset the delicate international balance which presently exists. They certainly are not prepared to lift a finger on behalf of our fisheries.
Various North and South American and European nations are launching new initiatives in the area of marine resources, which is one of our great frontiers of resource development. But Canada has crawled into a shell in this regard. I say, as I have said before, that as long as we have the present incumbent in charge of the External Affairs Department, a man with the backbone of a marinated herring, we will not have any action with regard to marine resources. If you were to read the proclamations of the minister of external affairs, Mr. Speaker, you would find that he wrote off fisheries as early as 1952 as a poverty endeavour. He never took the trouble to enlighten himself on the fact that this is one of our great frontiers of Canadian development, an area that could pay dividends to the nation as a whole.
The Minister of Fisheries has not heard a word I have said because he has been talking to his colleagues. This is an indication of his interest in fisheries. He is conducting a slow but deliberate policy of withdrawal from the fisheries into the more sophisticated area of environmental control, air pollution, cleaning up the Eddy match factory and the sewage emptying from the Prime Minister's residence on Sussex Drive. He has taken on this new image of Mr. Clean. We do not even get the response we used to get to the mail we send the Minister of Fisheries. He is now too busy acting as the big brother in the Canadian cabinet. He has no more time for the fisheries.
If the minister wants to enjoy a healthy political life in this House of Commons, he had better change his attitude. We have lots of time to discuss the plight of the fishermen of Canada, and whether this government likes it or not we will get the government to take action that

benefits the fishermen. That is, if the government wants to conduct the business of this House in a sane and satisfactory manner. The Minister of Fisheries should listen to people who know something about the fisheries, such as the hon. member for St. John's East and other of my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces. When they make recommendations to the Minister of Fisheries, he should listen damn carefully and try to encourage his colleagues, the flower-powered Prime Minister and the fellow who sits to his right to do likewise.
He should imbue these men with a knowledge of fisheries and impress upon them the importance of our marine resources. Let him keep them on their toes so that we have some action. We are becoming a little disillusioned at the responses of this government in the area of marine resources. It is time the government, which is interested in a just society, dished a little of it out to the fishermen of Canada in all our provinces.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very short. This is the last day of the session before Easter and I learned of this measure an hour or so ago. I agree with what the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) have said and I have no wish to repeat it.
This bill is a step in the right direction, something which as far as I am concerned we need. Other members have talked about depletion of our fisheries. I am concerned about what we do if certain countries fail to participate in this convention. How will we be able to control their activities in this field? I should like to know how many nations are contracting parties to this convention. If I understood the minister correctly, the agreements have not yet been signed but are about to be signed. I think every effort should be made to see that at least the ICNAF nations sign agreements; but those countries who are not party to ICNAF should also be made aware of the convention and be asked to participate in it.
There is no question that the Canadian government should afford protection to our inshore fishermen as well as to our offshore fishermen. Much concern has been expressed recently about herring stocks, for example. A few years ago an international convention was held in Fredericton which was attended by many scientists. I know scientists are wrong sometimes and therefore I do not criticize them, but most people who attended this convention predicted that the herring stocks off the Atlantic coast would never be depleted. Encouragement was given to produce herring meal and all kinds of plans were made to harvest herring in one form or another.
Now we find that some of the herring processing plants are having to close three years after this convention. Obviously something has gone wrong. In addition, other parts of the fishery that use herring meal have been affected. Fish that feed on herring are now less plentiful. In my province we hold a tuna fishing contest for the tourists every year, but in the last two years there have been no tuna to fish because of the herring shortage.
April 7, 1971

These are a few of the repercussions of the herring shortage upon the fisheries and this is why we need protection.
This bill will also enable us to check amounts of fish caught by other countries. I think of the lobsters that are caught on Georges and Browns Banks, where the United States has traditionally fished for large lobsters, cod that is fished by other countries and haddock which is pretty well depleted now. In addition we need new beds for scallops. I hope that this bill will permit us to make investigations and will provide some check on stocks of these fish.
It is no use my giving the House statistics-this has already been done and time is moving on-of the number of vessels fishing off our shores in the last few years. There have been hundreds and hundreds of them. I think of certain areas on Georges Bank, for example. As I say, our inshore as well as offshore fishermen are experiencing difficulties. However, I do not think we can adequately deal with this question on the last day before Easter. I hope we will be given the opportunity, either in committee or elsewhere, to study in great detail the problems facing our inshore fisheries. I am concerned to see how effective the bill will be and I hope it can be enforced.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
*	*	4>

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed the following bills to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill S-15, an act respecting the consolidation of the Income Tax Act in the printed roll of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970; Bill S-16, an act respecting Mic Mac Oils (1963) Ltd.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 6, consideration in committee of Bill C-207, respecting the organization of the government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto-Mr. Trudeau-Mr. Richard in the chair.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. Richard): Order, please. When the committee rose last evening clause 14 of the bill was being considered.
Government Organization Act, 1970
On clause 14-Establishment of Ministries of State.
Mr. Drury;: Mr. Chairman, during the course of the discussions a number of representations were made to the effect that if this particular clause and the subsequent ones looking to the creation of ministries of state are passed, this will provide the House with a final opportunity to examine the necessity for, the reasons in favour of, the modus operandi of and generally the conduct of the ministries of state that are to be set in place by proclamation.
Account does not seem to have been taken of the fact that while it will be possible, if this bill is passed, to establish a ministry of state by proclamation, the funds necessary for its operation will have to be provided in the usual fashion through the estimates, and that this will provide an occasion for inquiry into, questions to be asked and observations made in relation not only to the operations but also to the structure and, indeed, the necessity of the ministry itself. However, in spite of this, Mr. Chairman, and in an endeavour to exhibit a measure of co-operation to the House, we are prepared to propose an amendment to clause 14 and, as a consequence, an amendment to clause 16 which would provide the House, subsequent to the proclamation of a new ministry, with an occasion to express its view regarding that particular ministry. This would be done in the form of a negative resolution of the House of Commons, a rather new and as yet untested device for which provision was made for the first time in Bill C-182 which passed the House about a month ago and which is now before the Senate.
That bill provides for an amendment to the Interpretation Act, which in turn provides for this new instrument, a negative resolution of the House of Commons and gives statutory or background effect to it. In order, then, to offer the opportunity to the House, following proclamation, to express its disapproval if such be the case-I must confess that I find it hard to imagine a case when the House will be constrained to express its disapproval, so this will be a highly exceptional procedure-and in order to provide all the necessary safeguards, whether needed or not, I would move:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 22 and 23 on page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following: "the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons, establish a Ministry of State for that"
I have here copies in English and French of this amendment relating to clause 14. It might be of interest and perhaps convenience to the committee if I also suggested a similar amendment to clause 16 which provides for the same negative resolution in the event that changes are made in an existing ministry of state. This amendment would read:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 6 thereof and by substituting therefor the following: "proclamation, subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons, change, from time to time,"
I also have this amendment in French, Mr. Chairman.

April 7, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970 The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard): Order. The following amendment has been moved by the President of the Treasury Board:
That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out lines 22 and 23 on page 9 thereof and by substituting therefor the following: "the Governor in Council may, by proclamation, subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons, establish a Ministry of State for that"


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, shouldn't it be page 5?


Jean-Thomas Richard: The reference in the English text should be to page 5, although it was typed as page 9. It is also to be moved by Mr. Drury-I am just reading this for information at the present time: That Bill C-207 be amended by striking out line 6 on page 6 thereof and by substituting therefor the following:
"proclamation, subject to negative resolution of the House of Commons, change, from time to time,"


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be as brief as the minister was, and because of the tone of his speech and his proposal, which we accept as being conciliatory in an attempt to co-operate with all parts of the House, I will not repeat the objections that we have taken to clause 14 in its present form. They are on record and speak for themselves. The minister's approach has been reasonable. He has attempted to find common ground. There have been discussions, as there always are in this place, to see if there was not common ground, and now the minister has come quite a distance. I do not think he has come far enough but I will indicate how far we are prepared to go. It may be that the final mile will be worked out, if not today then at a later date.


An hon. Member:: In three or four months' time.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, that is not so. The government has made its position clear and we are entitled to make our position clear. I have before me the bill amending the Statutory Instruments Act and I think I am entitled to quote from it because the minister indicated that this is a new and novel procedure. The expression "subject to negative resolution" is contained in clause 28 of that bill, at page 17. I refer to Bill C-182 and I quote:
-the expression "subject to negative resolution of Parliament", when used in relation to any regulation, means that such regulation shall be laid before Parliament-
For "regulation" we substitute the word "proclamation" here.
-within fifteen days after it is made or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting and may be annulled


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the hon. member read paragraph (d) because my amendment relates to "negative resolution of the House of Commons."


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is quite correct. That paragraph reads:
-if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting and may be
annulled by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House.
The problem we see on this side of the House is a very practical one. An onus would be placed on an opposition party or a private member to secure ways or means by which he could have it annulled. It would be quite impossible, for example, for a government backbencher to do this because at the present time the procedure of using an opposition day is denied to all except those in opposition to the government. So if there should be a backbencher on the government side or a government member who should decide to move by way of negative resolution, he would be denied that opportunity.
It may well be that some time in the future this House might get around to enacting changes in our Standing Orders which would make a negative resolution an effective procedure, but so far it is not effective. I say there is no practical way in which a negative resolution can be of use at the present time. So, Mr. Chairman, I shall come right to the point. We propose an alternative. At one time I considered moving this as a subamendment, but in light of the amendment moved by the minister I doubt if this could be done. Therefore, perhaps I might place it on the record as an indication of our view, although I would move it as an amendment if I thought I would be in order.
It is our view that instead of having a negative resolution we should have an affirmative resolution. Let me read an affirmative resolution. I am referring to section 28A(1) (b) in clause 28 of the statutory instruments bill: the expression "subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons", when used in relation to any regulation, means that such regulation shall be laid before the House of Commons within fifteen days after it is made or, if the House is not then sitting, on any of the first fifteen days next thereafter that the House is sitting and shall not come into force unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of the House of Commons introduced and passed in accordance with the rules of that House;
That places on the government the responsibility to seek and secure some procedure. The government is much more able, because it has command of the government's time, to bring forward a resolution in the House of Commons and seek approval of that resolution. The minister may say this might cause a considerable amount of difficulty in the interval. Mr. Chairman, let us take parliamentary notice of the fact that very rarely does a year pass when this House is not in session for approximately nine months, and there is very rarely a calendar year when Parliament is not sitting for a period of three months.
The government has the means at its disposal under existing legislation to cope with the situation in the interval through the means of appointment of either a minister without portfolio under the present practice or, as the case might be, a minister of state under the new practice-I am not talking about the establishment of ministries of state-and provide that under the Transfer of Duties Act the minister without portfolio or minister

April 7, 1971

of state so appointed may during his period of office execute and carry out the duties required which would place the onus, as it should be, upon the government of seeking from this House immediately or if Parliament is not in session, within 15 days of the proclamation, the required authority.
The difference between negative and affirmative of course is very substantial, but it is not so great in this particular instance when we examine it. Under the present rules we would be giving up an entrenched parliamentary right by adopting this amendment. If the minister is prepared to consider this and also to consider the proposal made by my hon. friend from St. John's East in respect of an amendment to part II concerning the department of the environment-I understand there is disposition to work out something in respect of the use of the word "fisheries" in that part-it might well be that matters might be resolved.
All I can do at this point is read the amendment I would have moved had the minister not proposed his motion. I believe I am estopped from presenting it now as a motion because I do not think I can amend the minister's motion. The amendment I would have proposed is the following:
That clause 14 be amended by renumbering it as 14(1) and adding 14(2) as follows:
"14 (2) Any such proclamation shall be subject to affirmative resolution of the House of Commons."
That would provide the kind of safeguard I think this House is entitled to have before clause 14 in its present form is passed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the House leader of the official opposition suggested one should controvert the proposed amendment from negative to affirmative. I have listened with considerable care to his suggestion and find it rather difficult to accept. The only reason given for preferring the affirmative rather than the negative resolution is that to rely on the negative alone would deprive members on the government side of their ability-


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not the only reason. It is one reason.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: -to speak out against giving effect to a bill or proclamation made obviously with the consent of the government. I do not feel this is a serious deprivation of the rights of Members of Parliament. It offers the serious disadvantage, as the hon. member has pointed out, when the House is not in session of requiring the use of-I will not say "improper"-cumbersome and rather difficult procedures if one is to avail himself of the flexibility and usefulness of this kind of instrument to achieve the national purpose.
This of course can be set right, when the House reassembles, by the government using government time for what might turn out to be the kind of debate we have had on this occasion, when everybody is in favour of a
Government Organization Act, 1970
department of the environment and yet after some 15 days unfortunately we have not reached agreement.
The hon. member suggests the government should subject itself to this kind of possibility and yet we are offering to Parliament, if it should disapprove, the ability to make its disapproval known and to withhold the particular proclamation in respect of the setting up of a ministry. The possibilities are clear. They are there; they are open. If they should not be effective it would merely be because the mover and seconder of such a motion could not carry the House. I do not think we should be envisaging procedures which enable, as I mentioned last night, the tyranny of the minority to prevail.
I am not sure we could conclude this debate tonight, and perhaps the best thing to do would be to envisage an early termination of these proceedings. However, before doing so I would ask the indulgence of the committee to raise a point in respect of a clause we have not yet reached, clause 27(3) of part VII, on page 12. Subclause 3 of clause 27 provides, in effect, that the early retirement provisions will be available only in respect of persons who cease to be employed in the public service after the coming into force of this act.
When the act was introduced early in February it was assumed that its passage would be possible prior to April 30. This does not appear any longer possible. In the meantime, plans have been made for lay-offs of employees at two national defence bases in the province of Manitoba, at Rivers and Gimli, and the notices are effective in a number of instances on April 30. If the bill is not passed by then and the lay-offs occur, those who are laid off will not be able to take advantage of this early retirement clause as we had planned and hoped they would.
So, Mr. Chairman, I must give notice that when the House resumes consideration of this bill we will propose an amendment to subclause 3 on page 12, which I hope will be accepted, which will provide that the benefits of the early retirement amendments will be applicable to those who cease to be employed after April 30, 1971.


Gerald William Baldwin: I think I am able to tell the minister that provided he can establish a meritorious case for the passage of subclause 3 we will have no objection to such an amendment as may be required to give it retroactive effect. The onus will, of course, be upon him and the government to establish that it is a clause which needs to be passed.
Finally, I want to correct the impression which the minister was trying to create, that the only reason I was raising a question on the affirmative resolution was that I was deeply concerned about backbenchers on the government side. That is true to some extent, but I would point out most categorically that I also said there is no current procedure laid down whereby a negative resolution can be employed. As I read the Standing Orders, we would be in the position of having to move a motion, which would

April 7, 1971
Government Organization Act, 1970
be a private member's motion. Under those circumstances it would take its place somewhere toward the end of the list, so we might wait for a long time.
I do not think, however, that there is very much difference between us. I give my understanding that I will look seriously, and so will my colleagues, at what the minister has had to say and at his resolution. I urge him to look also with care and seriousness at the amendment we offered, trying to look at it from the point of view of those who will have to carry the burden of having to establish a case in some way or other by a negative resolution, which will be a difficult problem. The difference between us is not that great and I hope that the minister between now and when we come back to the bill will have an opportunity to do as I urge.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a word on the amendment which the President of the Treasury Board suggested the government would like to make to subclause 3 on page 12 of the bill. I say to him that from the contacts I have had with a number of public servants an amendment of this order will be very welcome, and even though the committee of the whole has already passed clause 27, I trust that the necessary consent will be given so that the amendment can be made. If that consent is not given, I shall offer my services to the minister to try to find some other way in which to do it.
However, there are two points that I would like to make. I gather the minister is making this announcement now so that those affected will know that this provision will apply not only to those who may be dismissed at the end of April but to public servants who may voluntarily decide to withdraw at the end of April. The minister is looking at me in a way I do not quite understand.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is I who do not quite understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said that what made this kind of amendment necessary was that certain people will be dismissed at Rivers and Gimli as of the end of April, but the provisions of the early retirement are available two ways, to those who are dismissed and to those who on their own initiative decide to retire. There are certain people who in anticipation of this bill are planning to retire and pursue other activities. I would just like him to be clear that the right of people who are in service on April 30, whether they are fired or leave voluntarily will be covered by this amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is much more of an expert in this than I am, so I hesitate, without grasping clearly what he is getting at, to make what appears to be a categorical statement. But let me say that what we hoped to do here was to cover by the passage of this bill prior to April 30 those whose jobs were in effect disappearing at Gimli and Rivers. Because of the nonpassage of the bill, it is necessary to make an amendment which will neither extend nor restrict the provisions of the bill as they now stand. It will not make it applicable
to either a greater or a lesser group but to all those who are contemplated here had we passed the bill today.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think that covers it, Mr. Chairman, and I am sure that when the officials in the department get at this they will make sure that the wording of the amendment which the minister will bring in will cover it. I know I am an old hand at nit-picking, but may I raise one other point. The minister referred to people who leave the service after April 30. I hope he meant "on or after April 30". In fact, let the amendment be drawn in such a way that there is no problem concerning people who leave at the end of April 30. That kind of problem does crop up. When you start talking about the month of May, someone who put in time on April 30 might not be covered. I am sure the minister knows what he wants to do and I just ask that the wording of this amendment covers those whom he intends to cover.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If you had passed the bill today, we would have no problem.


Jean-Thomas Richard: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to call any other government business between now and the time we will be summoned for royal assent. So if it is agreeable we could suspend the sitting until that time.


Mr. Speaker:: 

SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 5.50 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

April 7, 1971
[Stage Direction]
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting investment companies An act respecting weights and measures An act to amend the Pension Act
Royal Assent
An act to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952
An act to amend the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this House stands adjourned, subject to the order made earlier today, until two o'clock on Monday, April 19, 1971.
I remind hon. members and their colleagues that they are invited to join me in room 16 in a few moments.
At 6.03 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order, until Monday, April 19.

Monday, April 19, 1971