1973-11-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as previously agreed I am pleased to table in English and French a document outlining the government's position for the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
I would also like to have the unanimous consent from the House to have this document, as previously mentioned by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Davis, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moves that the background document on the issues involved in the forthcoming conference on the Law of the Sea be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, members should be aware that the government has today imposed a temporary surtax on imports of live cattle and dressed beef in accordance with section 8 of the Customs Tariff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The surtax will be levied at a rate of three cents a pound on live cattle and six cents a pound on fresh dressed beef. This measure has been put in place to stabilize the Canadian market for beef and cattle which in recent weeks has been disrupted by an unusually large volume of imports. The government is concerned that without such a measure Canadian beef producers will not have sufficient assurance of market stability to produce the volume of beef required to meet Canadian demand. Adequate levels of Canadian production will minimize the likelihood of significant price increases during the coming year.
[ Translation]
Steps have been taken to advise U.S. authorities of this action. They have been told that it is required to offset the disruption of the North American market largely brought on by the effects of measures taken earlier this year by the U.S. to regulate prices of beef and exports of cattle feed.
[ English]
The surtax is a temporary measure. We expect that North American trade in beef and cattle will return to traditional levels before long. The decision to impose a surtax will therefore be reviewed in 30 days.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to extend my appreciation to the minister for sending me a copy of the announcement, although I have only just received it.
I assure the minister and the Minister of Agriculture that the announcement was expected. In view of my remarks last night in the special debate on agriculture I must say that the announcement of the surtax will be welcomed by the beef cattle industry in Canada. In addition, I commend the two ministers for having made it on a Friday and not a Monday. I have in mind, of course, that when export controls were announced earlier they were announced at the beginning of the week, and it really did cause havoc. I have to say that the government does learn from experience in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I suggest that this is an instance where the representations of a Canadian industry, the Canadian cattle industry, through their organization, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, have indeed been heard, and I am sure that the cattlemen appreciate this.
I realize that it was a difficult decision not only for the government and its various departments but also for the cattlemen themselves. Until two weeks ago there was a clear division in the cattle industry on this issue. Cattlemen in western Canada felt that we should ride out the situation, that it would correct itself and no action should be taken. But in the two weeks that have elapsed since that time great havoc has occurred in the marketing system in Canada because of, let us say, the errors of another government which has involved itself in a basic agricultural commodity. This resulted in great disruption, and I am sure the action that was taken today was very necessary.
I suggest there was clear and sufficient evidence of the impact of these heavy imports of overfat cattle coming into Canada as long as two weeks ago for action to have

November 2, 1973
Cattle and Beef Import Surtax been taken then. Indeed, it should have been taken two weeks ago today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I point out that the three cents a pound surcharge on live cattle or six cents on dressed meat coming into Canada will not mean an increase to the consumer. It should not be taken for granted that there will be an automatic increase. What we can expect to happen is that the supply of fat cattle in Ontario especially but all across Canada will become more current. There has been a holdback reaching serious proportions. In Ontario especially we were getting an oversupply of fat cattle, and this announcement will at least indicate to the producers and feeders in Canada that some action has been taken to correct the situation. Producers will bring their cattle out of the feed lots to the market in an orderly fashion I hope, and market conditions should level out.
In no way do I see an indication of a price rise at the consumer level. I point out to the House, however, that the substantial price drops to the feeder and producer in Canada have not yet been passed on to the consumer through the retail stores, and this is where further action by the government is surely indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: In summary, may I say that I think the cattle industry appreciates the action taken today even though it is two weeks late, that it will indeed cause the situation to level out, and that in my opinion it will not raise the price of beef at the retail level.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather a pleasure to be able to rise and speak about a slightly different aspect of the cattle industry than Bangs disease with which I have been associated lately, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) tells me. I believe that this action by the Minister of Finance is timely because I have reports from my home province of Saskatchewan that approximately 15,000 to 20,000 head of American cattle have moved into the southern part of my province and something had to be done about this matter.
I believe that the surtax will be important in the long run to the consumers because we must protect the beef producers whose costs of production have been escalating and we must maintain a viable beef industry in order to protect the interests of the consumers. If too many farmers give up beef production, in the long run the cost of beef to consumers will skyrocket out of the reach of most consumers. This step has to be taken to ensure a continuing Canadian source of supply.
I also wish to point out that this action by the government in a sense is a result of or was caused by American price controls imposed several months earlier, as a consequence of which American beef producers held their beef back from market. The U.S. price controls have now been eliminated. United States producers have a surplus of beef and they are trying to flood the Canadian market with it.
The minister says that the surtax is temporary. I hope Washington does not pressure the government to remove it earlier than the 30 days stipulated. I can assure the minister that our party will be watching closely to see if

the surtax deserves reviewing and renewal. We will be doing this because we have to protect the interests of both the consumers and the producers.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, our party maintains it is time that we in this country started to stabilize farm products by establishing floor prices which are associated closely with the costs of production. If measures of that kind had been taken a number of years ago, many of the problems now emerging would probably not have developed.
It is time that our agricultural industry got away from its boom and bust cycles. We are at present in a boom cycle, but I just wonder when the bust is going to start appearing. Now is the time to start thinking in terms of passing legislation that will give the farmer an adequate return based on his cost of production so that we can have a steady supply of agricultural products both for our own people and for export purposes.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). However, I should like to take this opportunity to make a few rectifications.
Mr. Speaker, in a country such as ours where we can produce all we need in this field, it is obviously unthinkable to purchase foreign products. It is as if we did not know where calves come from. If this were the case, we would only have to ask a bull.
I therefore think, Mr. Speaker, that the government has not taken sufficient action and that it should decide not to accept on the Canadian market any product which can easily be made here. This is especially obvious in view of the situation in the province of Quebec, where farms are abandoned, where the number of farmers has been reduced by half during the past few years, and where there are many farms which could be used to produce cattle, and especially beef. It is unthinkable that we should refuse to help Canadian farmers to increase their production if need be. It is therefore stupid to import a commodity which is plentiful in Canada when we could be helping not only the present producers, but also farmers who wish to remain in agriculture, and at the same time reduce unemployment.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to table, in both official languages, the report of the United Nations Secretary General to the Security Council, contained in document S 110 52, dated October 26, as well as two notes from the Secretary General of the United Nations.
November 2, 1973



PROTEST AGAINST FLOODING OF SKAGIT RIVER VALLEY BY PROPOSED HIGHER DAM-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise to propose a motion of pressing and urgent necessity arising from the refusal of the city of Seattle in the state of Washington to cancel the proposed plan to raise the height of the Ross dam on the American Skagit River which will cause the flooding of the upstream Canadian Skagit River valley contrary to the protest against such flooding delivered by the government of Canada to the Seattle city council on March 31, 1972.
Recognizing the contribution of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) who generously offered to join with others in seconding this motion, with unanimous consent I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose):
That the House of Commons of Canada is unalterably and unanimously opposed to the flooding of the Canadian Skagit River valley which will result from the proposed city of Seattle project to raise the height of the present Ross dam situated in the state of Washington and downstream from the Canada-United States border; and
That this House further resolves that the government of Canada deliver the text of this resolution forthwith to the government of the United States of America, the government of the state of Washington, and the council of the city of Seattle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That the Minister of Finance make a statement on motions indicating what steps the government plans to introduce to prevent excessive profits being made.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: This motion also requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN EASTERN CANADA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. It has to do with the energy crisis which is particularly acute in its effects on eastern Canada.
In view of the extreme dependence of eastern Canada on foreign suppliers for our oil requirements and the desirability of developing our own offshore production capabilities, and in view of the reported detrimental effects on exploration and development projects by major oil companies caused by the jurisdictional disputes between federal and provincial governments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources meet immediately with the appropriate provincial ministers to resolve, once and for all, these jurisdictional disputes and procedural impediments which this nation as a whole can no longer afford.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last evening and the concern he expressed about security of supply and the importance of conservation, and in view of his failure to indicate any measures that the government is taking within its own organization to conserve energy, can the Prime Minister

November 2, 1973
Oral Questions
tell the House which minister has been placed in charge of an energy conservation program for federal departments and agencies, what authority has been given to that minister, and what machinery has been set up to carry through this program?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in a reply to the House three days ago, I think, this matter is very much before the government's mind. It has been discussed in cabinet. We have apportioned the responsibilities about which the Leader of the Opposition inquires among several ministers. They involve legal aspects which are being worked on, communications aspects which are being worked on and involve, of course, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I gather from the Prime Minister's answer that nothing has been done yet except that the matter is being discussed within the federal government. In view of the concern expressed by the minister last night about the probability of some interruption in supplies of oil from the Middle East, has the Prime Minister set afoot any special diplomatic effort to deal with these threatened interruptions and to attempt to prevent their occurrence? Has the Prime Minister instructed any particular effort to be made or has he personally set afoot any effort on his own behalf?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the assumption that preceded the question, I must inform the Leader of the Opposition that he is quite correct in saying that nothing has been done in the sense that no rationing has yet been imposed. However, when the Leader of the Opposition indicates that discussions are merely taking place I must say, of course, that this work is not just being talked about. I indicated that various ministers are involved in the kind of planning that it would be necessary to implement. The Leader of the Opposition is right; nothing has been announced that he may have missed.
To the second part of the question the answer is yes. Diplomatic initiatives have been taken. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has met with the various Arab ambassadors. He is, indeed, meeting today at the United Nations with certain important delegates from Arab countries, in order to ascertain their position on this and other matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Of course I look forward to the usual full and lucid exposition from the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns from the United Nations.


PRICE OF CANADIAN CRUDE OIL DELIVERED TO QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: My further supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to security of supplies in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. May I ask the minister whether, in terms of the pricing policy of any Canadian crude delivered to the Quebec or Atlantic provinces markets, the minister intends to see to it that the price of that crude shall be the frozen price, the price fixed for Ontario and western Canada, or does he

intend that any oil delivered to the Montreal market and the Atlantic provinces from Canadian sources should be at the same price as offshore oil coming into those areas, in order to provide some incentive to Canadian producers to do all they can to move oil into those areas?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, from contacts with the industry our feeling is that the industry does not require any incentive in this regard. They hope to move up to a level of about 55,000 barrels a day in the month of November and perhaps even to go above that if appropriate tanker arrangements can be made. With regard to the impact of Canadian source oil going into the Montreal market, we expect that to go into the cost base of the Montreal refiners in accordance with the discussions with the refiners on the basis of which we reached a conclusion of what their actual cost increase has been. We would expect this to help to offset any cost increases from abroad. Obviously the lower price will not offset any accrued prices coming from abroad in a substantial way because of the very much greater volume coming from overseas.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the minister's policy statement last night did not do anything to ensure either continuity of supply or price protection for consumers who live in eastern Canada, does the government have any intention of establishing a national petroleum corporation somewhat along the lines envisaged by the recommendation of his own department to the cabinet last April, or has this concept of a marketing mechanism been completely abandoned by the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the hon. member's preamble. I remind him that the price protection consumers have in the eastern market is that the prices have only been increased by the amount of provable cost and that the prices there are still under that freeze, although on a different level from that west of the Ottawa Valley line. With regard to continuity of supply, the sheer fact is that unless there is a possibility of price increases to the refiners east of the Ottawa Valley line, there really will be a cutoff of supplies to the Canadian market. With regard to a national petroleum corporation, that concept is before the government. However, I do not see it as a solution to the interim problem which is a problem arising from the interruption of supply coming from the Arab world and, of course, the fact that there have been dramatic price increases by foreign governments in the very recent past.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister's statement imply that the government is opposed to the principle of a national marketing mechanism which would purchase oil, both offshore and domestic, enter into a pooling arrangement
November 2, 1973

and standardize prices for all Canadians, the only differential being in the handling and transportation costs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker. I would not have the hon. member try to read between the lines. The government has not taken a decision on the question of a national petroleum corporation or, indeed, on a marketing mechanism. These are questions that are before the government. I can say to the hon. member there has been no decision taken on this point, either for or against.


REASON FOR INCREASE IN HOME HEATING OIL PRICE WEST OF OTTAWA VALLEY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: agree with the minister the government has not taken any decision. That is what is disturbing me. In view of the minister's statement last night that the price of home heating oil will be allowed to rise west of the Ottawa Valley, what is the rationale for that since, particularly in British Columbia and the Prairies, there is no possibility of these supplies of fuel oil moving into the eastern market?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I mentioned in my statement last night, a very substantial part of the Ontario supply of home heating oil has been imported from overseas refineries. We have been advised by the industry, particularly some of the independents who do not have refinery connections in Canada, that but for the opportunity to pass on the additional costs it simply would not be possible for them to bring in additional supplies for this winter. Therefore we put it on the basis that with regard to incremental supplies they may wish to bring in from now on, if they can establish to our satisfaction what the necessary cost is to purchase the quantity abroad they should be entitled to pass it on to the consumer. The rationale, of course, is that, as between the question of price and supply, obviously supply is pre-eminent.


POSITION OF PROPOSED NATURAL GAS PIPELINE FROM ARCTIC ISLANDS TO SERVE EASTERN CANADA
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Still on the subject of energy, I ask the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether there will soon be developments regarding the construction of a gas pipeline from Melville and King Christian islands to supply eastern Canada.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, several Canadian companies now have a study group on the feasibility of such a gas pipeline. We should know the results in about a year and I really cannot see how this pipeline could be built soon.
Oral Questions


AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE PETROLEUM PRICE FREEZE AND PRICE INDEXING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Are the Prime Minister and the cabinet satisfied the government has the authority, without special empowering legislation, to enforce the petroleum price freeze and the price indexing program, as suggested last night?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is really asking me a question of law. If I understood him correctly, my simple answer is that the members of his own party have been advocating a price freeze across the board, so I cannot see the worry of the hon. member.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Last night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made some nasty comments about Gulf Canada. Under what law is the government going to discipline Gulf Canada and other oil companies that do not comply with the price freeze?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SUGGESTED REDUCTION OF FEDERAL TAX ON DIESEL
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. I hope the minister will be allowed to reply. In view of the fact the federal government collects a 12 per cent tax on diesel fuel and gasoline, will the government consider reducing or abating this tax in order to offset the inflationary aspects of the announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and ease the burden on Canadian consumers in the five eastern provinces?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we would, of course, want to review the whole question of the federal sales tax on gasoline, but I would think the preponderant tax on gasoline is a matter about which he ought to talk to his provincial premier.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister, next to the Canadian consumer, seems to be the real loser in this whole affair. In view of the fact the five provincial governments, because of difficulties in trying to meet their budgetary requirements, are not able to reduce their tax on gasoline, and in view of the fact the federal government has budgeted for a surplus, may I ask the minister whether the same spirit that permitted him to reduce tariffs on some petroleum products coming into Canada will now permit him to reduce substantially or abate the 12 per cent sales tax on gasoline and diesel fuels?
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance is responsible for monetary and fiscal policy and supposedly responsible for the government's war against inflation. I think the House and the consumers of eastern Canada are entitled to an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 2, 1973
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: In analysing the impact of any tax on the consumers I also have to analyse the impact of, say, lowering the sales tax and having to find revenue in some other quarter, which might adversely affect the consumer in another way.


Mr. Baldwin:: Coca-Cola rather than gasoline.


OIL EXPORT TAX-CONSULTATION WITH ALBERTA-DISPOSITION OF PROCEEDS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with regard to the export tax of $1.90 a barrel on western crude that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has proposed. Has he held consultations with the government of Alberta on this matter, has he received the approval of the government of Alberta and, further, where does he contemplate that the revenue from this tax will go?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have answered these questions several times. I have discussed the tax on several different occasions with the Alberta ministers.


An hon. Member:: What is the answer to this one?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The answer is that the government of Alberta regards the tax as illegal and immoral but wants, above all, to have the money.


Paul Yewchuk: I ask the minister where he thinks this export tax should go. I already know Alberta's position. What is his position?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have said many times that we are prepared to make up to the province the revenue it would have received had it sold these products at higher prices in Canada. But the balance, we think, should be invested in research and other projects for the purpose of developing energy resources in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to pose a question or two to the Minister of Finance arising out of a report in this morning's press that corporate profits for the third quarter of 1973 have gone up by 57.7 per cent and, for the first nine months, by 46.9 per cent, a very substantial increase taking into account the fact that profits had already increased substantially in 1972. Is the Minister of Finance considering legislation having to do with some form of excess profits tax or some other way of bringing at least part of these profits back to the public treasury for the benefit of the Canadian people?


John Napier Turner: When making comparisons the hon. gentleman would, of course, have to take into account that profits this year, while

healthy, are recovering from lower levels in 1970, 1971 and 1972.


David Lewis: Not 1972.


John Napier Turner: I would expect a good deal of that profit picture to be reflected, as I believe it is being reflected, in heavy capital investment, fulfilling investment intentions which I described to one of the hon. member's colleagues as showing an increase of 19 per cent over last year.


SUGGESTED ABSORPTION BY REFINERIES OF PART OF INCREASED PRICE OF CRUDE OIL IN LIGHT OF PROFITS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the same area I should like to pose a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he studied the profit figures of the oil companies? If he has, he will have noticed that the oil refineries of Canada increased their profits by 68.2 per cent in the third quarter of 1973 compared with the same quarter of 1972, and by 37.9 per cent in the first nine months of this year compared with the first nine months of last year, which was a very healthy year despite what the Minister of Finance has just said. In view of these profit figures, ought not the minister and the government to insist that the refineries absorb a portion of the increased price of crude oil, especially since they are part of the same multinational corporations which are charging more in Venezuela and in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is in fact what they have been doing in the last several months. I would agree with the hon. gentleman that the profit picture is such that they can well afford to give the consumer this kind of relief for a period of months.


CORPORATE PROFITS-SUGGESTION THAT FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD BE EMPOWERED TO ROLL BACK PRICES
David Lewis: In the same area, Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On a number of occasions the Prime Minister has indicated to the House that if there should be any evidence of gouging of the consumers the government would be prepared to take action. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has studied the profit picture to which I have referred? If so, he will have found that Silverwood Dairies increased its profits by 87 per cent on an increase in sales amounting to only about 10 per cent, and that Maple Leaf Mills increased its profits by 147 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. gentleman should ask his question. It seems to me he is giving rather than seeking information. I am sure the hon. member wishes to co-operate with the Chair by taking this into account.


David Lewis: I do, certainly, but I cannot help but notice how anxious the Conservative Party is that these figures should not be on the record.
November 2, 1973


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: You are hogging the floor.


David Lewis: I have indicated sufficient about these two companies to make my point. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether this clear evidence of excessive profits by food processing industries, which is a form of gouging of consumers, has convinced him and the government that greater power should be given to the Food Prices Review Board so that it can roll back some prices on the basis of such profits?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon member will refer to my statements of August and September, he will find they were to the effect that the government would indeed be prepared to take action if reports were received from the Prices Review Board that they had looked into such cases, discussed them with management and the entrepreneurs involved, and that these people had refused to take the action that we thought was necessary for the welfare of Canadians. Then we would intervene. I have no knowledge of the particular cases to which the hon. member has referred, but I suggest he place them before the Prices Review Board if he has not already done so.
As to the effectiveness of government action, I refer the hon. member to the previous series of questions and answers. We did ensure that the prices of petroleum products would be frozen. This was indicated in my statement of September 4, and it is as a result of the government's action that the companies did agree to absorb the price increases rather than pass them on.


INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE TO PEOPLE ON FIXED INCOMES IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES AND QUEBEC TO OFFSET INCREASED HEATING FUEL COST
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the people of eastern Canada, especially those on fixed incomes amounting to $80 or $100 a week who are trying to raise families and heat their homes. In view of the fact the hon. gentleman has rejected the idea that any special arrangements be made in respect of kerosene and stove oil, the fuels mainly used by people on low incomes, and since he has rejected any move to give back part of the billion dollars he collects from gasoline and fuel taxes, does he intend to offer people on fixed and low incomes in the Atlantic and Quebec areas any help in offsetting the increase in the cost of fuel?


John Napier Turner: We have increased the disposable income of all Canadians, including eastern Canadians, by 6 per cent after discounting taxes and the rise in the cost of living. As far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned, the last budget resulted in the transfer of another $200 million to the seven provinces receiving equalization payments, including the four Atlantic provinces, which, if those provinces were so disposed, could be passed back to the local ratepayers.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have spent the question period up to this point largely on one very important matter. Perhaps we should attempt to move now to another subject.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Well, that is a decision for the Chair, of course. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on his supplementary and then pass to the hon. member for Vaudreuil.


John Howard Lundrigan: Obviously the minister assumes that everyone in those provinces has a low form of intelligence-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Howard Lundrigan: -and cannot understand his answers to question. The question I asked had nothing to do with what the minister talked about last spring, and nothing to do with transfer payments or equalization payments. He knows full well that those things have nothing to do with this immediate problem. I asked him to recognize the plight of the people faced with this immediate problem, which is only a matter of weeks old, and to offer some kind of indication-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is repeating the question he asked a moment ago, and perhaps at this point is putting it in the form of a representation. Perhaps hon. members might allow the minister to reply briefly so the Chair can recognize the next questioner.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I had not completed my question, but the fact of the matter is that if the minister is not going to answer the questions we pose and is going to bring forward deleterious arguments and information which in no way are related to the question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is of course, an argument the hon. member is putting forth at this time and what I suggested was an argument of representation rather than a question. However, in recognition of the importance of the matter I certainly have no objection to allowing the minister to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't lose your cool, John.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is entitled to take note of the fact that there is a family allowance bill before us which will increase family allowances to the amount of $20 a month per child and that we have escalated and raised old age pensions. All these measures are increasing the disposable incomes of Canadians as a relief against the erosion of income.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING EXTENSION OF OIL PIPELINE TO MONTREAL
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he firmly resolved to proceed as soon as

November 2, 1973
Oral Questions
possible with construction of an oil pipeline to Montreal to enable the east to share in Canada's natural resources?


Hon.   Donald. S. Macdonald@Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the reasons which caused the government to take a decision in principle in favour of the Montreal pipeline, as announced by the Prime Minister, have been more than ever confirmed by our experience both with the threatened Arab cutoff of oil and the very substantial price increases. It would be my intention, therefore, to meet with my counterparts in the Quebec government, after their substantial victory, to see if we can complete arrangements for such a pipeline in concert with plans they might have for petroleum development in that province.


An hon. Member:: Where are you going to get the oil?


OIL PRICE INCREASES-STUDY OF IMPACT ON CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance related to the question put by the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate. In light of the significant importance of the cost of living and the effect of the announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources last evening on particular industries, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he has undertaken any detailed study of the impact of these changes, particularly in view of the indication of what is to come, as they relate to Quebec and the Atlantic provinces? Has such a detailed study of the effects on the consumer and industry been undertaken?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Sir, it is being undertaken.


AIR TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and has to do with negotiations that have been going on for some four years between Canada and the United States in connection with air routes. I ask this question as a member from the province of Saskatchewan. Why is it that the province of Saskatchewan has been denied the right to one air route into the United States?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that any route was denied to Saskatchewan.


John George Diefenbaker: Absolutely.


Jean Marchand: No airline indicated that it was interested in having a route from Saskatchewan to the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister's memory is better than that. Did he not meet recently with the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and representatives of three cities, Prince Albert, Saskatoon and Regina, in connection with this matter? Has he forgotten?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not forgotten that, but I think that the airlines, and perhaps they are wrong-


John George Diefenbaker: That is not what I asked you.


Jean Marchand: Well, you do not know my answer so you do not yet know what I am going to say. The airlines maintain that they cannot operate these routes economically, but the government of Saskatchewan has another point of view and it is working with my department to see whether this is possible or feasible, and whether somebody will show an interest in these routes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it just shows you how forgetful the minister was a moment ago when he decided to delude the House. I should now like to ask him a question in connection with charter routes into Canada. Has he received a resolution for the pilots' association in opposition to the denial of any further charter routes into Canada in connection with the agreement about to be entered into? Has he received that or has he forgotten about that too?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have
received a wire, but not saying what the hon. gentleman suggests.


John George Diefenbaker: He got a wire but does not know what it said. Was it in both languages?

[ Translation]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND QUEBEC PREMIER-SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if he has himself invited Premier Bou-rassa to meet him this afternoon, or if this is an initiative taken by the Quebec Premier?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be at complete loss to reply to such a question, but I think that this was agreed upon between ourselves. I phoned the Quebec premier after his extraordinary victory the very night of the elections and he and I have agreed to meet as soon as possible, in fact today.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister. Could he disclose the main issues which will appear on the agenda of his discussions with the Quebec premier or at least could he say whether the constitutional reform or the eventual shortage of oil in Quebec will be discussed?
November 2, 1973


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as for the first point, I can assure the hon. member that the federal government is in no hurry to resume the constitutional debates. In my opinion, it is important for me to say so, because of the eventual headlines and the various interpretations given to that meeting. I have always said and I repeat it that if the Quebec government wishes to reopen the constitutional issue, we are ready to do so, but it is not for the purpose of holding fruitless constitutional conferences that I am meeting the premier today.
As for the oil issue, I suppose that it will be discussed, along the lines mentioned by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but I do not know anything about it for the moment.
[La ter:]


MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND QUEBEC PREMIER-INQUIRY AS TO PRESS CONFERENCE OR STATEMENT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since several members are most concerned about the discussions he will have this afternoon with the Quebec premier, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will make a statement after this meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, such is not my intention. The hon. member can refer to previous meetings that I have had regularly with provincial premiers concerning this. It is not usual-and I do not intend to change this practice-to give press conferences, or even to give all details on these discussions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he is looking forward to a successful series of constitutional conferences in the future, and will he find some other means of dealing with the provinces on energy problems rather than beating them over the head with the jawbone of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hellyer:: Is that a biblical reference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been tuned in on his hearing aid rather than thinking up some wisecrack question he might have understood my answer to the hon. member which was to the effect that I was not looking forward to a series of constitutional conferences.


OIL-INQUIRY AS TO CONTINGENCY PLAN IN EVENT OF CURTAILMENT OF SUPPLIES
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In
Oral Questions
the short term does the minister have any contingency plans if crude oil is cut off or curtailed from foreign sources of the province of Alberta?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. gentleman is representing the Progressive Conservative viewpoint in this regard, but I hope his party is not advocating that kind of action by the Progressive Conservative government of Alberta.


OIL PRICE INCREASES-STUDY OF IMPACT ON CONSUMERS AND INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the answer he gave to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. As he is aware, the rise in the price of fuel will have a tremendous impact on the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. I should like to know who commissioned the study mentioned by the Minister of Finance. I should also like to know what are the terms of reference of this study, when we in this parliament can expect a report from this study and what action will be taken by the government on the same?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I stated to the hon. gentleman's leader that I had asked for an assessment of the impact across the country of the events announced by my colleague last night. As a matter of fact, those studies are constantly under way. It is not a specific commission or specific inquiry. It is the usual and continual in-depth advice I get from my department.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There were a number of questions raised about the impact of the increase in fuel costs on low income Canadians and Canadians generally. The Leader of the Opposition directed a specific question to the Minister of Finance asking if there had been a study undertaken. When one talks about a study it is presumed that the study has some terms of reference, is a funded study, and that there is some expectation there will be a report received and recommendations made. The minister now, in response to the hon. member for South Shore, backs away from his original position and says it is a continuing monitoring process. He has deliberately made a statement to the House which is not in accordance with the facts and is trying to give the impression he is aware of what is going on. It is obvious that there is no study. There is nothing being done. He is trying to circumvent the major aspect of this issue with deleterious statements of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe there are further supplementaries on this subject. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.

November 2, 1973
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


INCREASED PRICES OF COPPER AND ZINC-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CONTROL-POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF EXPORT TAX
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It relates to the sharp increase in the prices of copper and zinc. There has been a 45 per cent increase in the prices of those two commodities over the last 11 months. In view of the serious effect the increase in the prices of these raw materials will have on the manufacturing industry, and since most of these increases are being reflected in the profits of the companies rather than arising from increased costs to them, can the minister say what action he intends to take to control the price of copper and zinc in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department has had a number of discussions with leaders of the producing companies in Canada to review the situation and ensure that there will be adequate supplies of copper and zinc for Canadian converters and manufacturers. I believe this to be the case. On the pricing point, I think it is perhaps worth reminding the hon. member that there is a double two-price system. The international markets are governed by the London Metal Exchange price which is significantly ahead of the North American price for copper. Canadian manufacturers are receiving their copper at the lower figure, the figure posted in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Members are seeking further supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge on a last supplementary followed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Then the Chair will see the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In spite of the minister's reassurance that there is a double two-price system in Canada, nevertheless the price has risen by 45 per cent in this country in less than a year. Can the minister say whether he intends to take the same commendable action in respect of copper and zinc as has been taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to oil and impose an export tax on copper in order to control the domestic price?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there are no plans to impose a tax on copper exports.


OIL-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OF SUPPLIES TO INDEPENDENT DEALERS IN EASTERN CANADA
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Will the minister take steps to ensure that independent suppliers of home heating fuels in eastern Canada are guaranteed suppliers for delivery to Canadian homes and that this is considered a

priority before exports are made from refineries located in eastern Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. lady that exports have been under control since June of last year, and it is precisely for the purpose of assuring these supplies that the measure was taken yesterday to enable price increases in the Ontario market.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is the
minister aware that there are independent operators in eastern Canada with empty storage tanks as a result of having been refused supplies by the majors, and will he undertake to see that this situation is corrected so that there will not be Canadian homes throughout the winter without adequate oil supplies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady wants to mention specific examples I am prepared to follow them up, but I would point out to her again that it is precisely for the purpose of assuring supplies to Ontario that we are enabling increases to take place in Ontario.
 * *


MANPOWER
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the desperate substandard conditions that exist in Indian off-reserve housing in Nova Scotia, and in view of a telegram that has been received from the chiefs of the 11 Indian bands of Nova Scotia in reference to a LIP application for housing repairs, can the minister advise if he is aware of such an application and whether it has been approved by the provincial co-ordinating committee and is now awaiting Ottawa approval? Would he do whatever is possible to have this project approved because it is a rather serious situation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I presume that this is with reference to LIP funds accompanying winter works grants from the Ministry of Urban Affairs. I have had consultations as recently as this morning with representatives of non-status Indians who have the same problem that exists with regard to treaty Indians. We are trying to work out arrangements under the more limited ceilings on LIP grants and the diffusion of those through the constituency advisory groups. I would hope all members would bring whatever influence they can to bear on the constituency advisory groups to remind them of the need for a sympathetic attitude toward those applications which must fit into the total structure.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. It is welcome in view of the fact that this application is from a province and no particular constituency advisory group is handling it. I wonder whether he would take that into consideration.
November 2, 1973


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I was just apprised of that this morning. I believe it was a request in total for something like $60,000 spread through many constituencies. I have got to work out the arrangements for that. I cannot give a final commitment on it except to say that my sympathy is in that direction.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair in the last few seconds will recognize the hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Charlevoix before calling orders of the day.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the motion unanimously passed by the House last Friday asking the government of Cuba to release Ronald Patrick Lippert on humanitarian grounds and permit him to return to Canada. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the government has communicated the contents of the motion to the government of Cuba and, if so, whether the government expects a reply will be forthcoming in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will have to inquire, Mr. Speaker, as to the precise answer to that. I do know that in the past very short while, I think in the past week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been talking to the Cuban ambassador, but I could not vouch for the contents of that conversation.

[ Transla tion]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the hen. Minister of Justice.
In view of certain representations made to him concerning the problem of involuntary sterilization in psychiatric hospitals and centres for mental patients, can the minister say whether the problem has been referred to the Law Reform Commission?
f English]


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe this specific question has been brought to their attention.
[ Transla tion]


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice.
Customs Act
Is he aware of recent representations that children aged 9, 10, and 11 have been so sterilized, and has he the intention of referring this question to the Law Reform Commission?
[ English]


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not been aware of that before. The Law Reform Commission has, of course, the whole question of Criminal Code changes before it, and it may well be that within the broad scope of that term of reference this matter may be considered as well. I will be glad to look into the matter further with the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe rises on a point of order.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to hold back my temper. I have been here for five and a half years and I have been very reasonable in letting everybody have a chance to ask questions, but I have a district of 84,000 people to represent, many of them poor, and I want to give them good representation. Other than the leaders of the parties, I expect my share to be the same as that of anybody else. I just pass that on.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue) moved: that: Bill C-189, an Act to amend the Customs Act, be read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. [English]
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Customs Act to permit more effective control over goods landed in Canada by ship, thus protecting the revenue. We need this to plug a leak that could be draining away as much as $1 million a year that rightfully belongs to the Canadian people-duties and taxes on goods smuggled by sea and pilfered on docks.
Section 11 of the Customs Act now requires the master of any vessel entering Canada to go immediately to customs and provide a written report on all particulars of the contents, origin and destination of his ship's cargo.
There is, however, no legislative instrument which permits holding the master of a vessel responsible for the accuracy of his report inwards, or accountable for duty and taxes owing on goods which are reported as having been landed in Canada and are later incapable of being produced for customs clearance, due to pilferage, irregular delivery, or for any other reason. The section at one time provided all that was required for the exercise of essential customs controls against smuggling by sea. Customs physically checked ship cargoes against the master's report inwards.

November 2, 1973
Customs Act
However, by early 1960, shipping concepts, equipment and techniques had developed to the extent that 12 hour "turnarounds" became quite commonplace. With increasing volume of sea traffic reaching Canadian shores, detailed checks of every ship became hopelessly impractical for customs and economically impossible for shipping companies. So customs discontinued cargo examinations against inward reports about a decade ago and began to accept the master's report inwards and his declaration as a true description of the goods which had been taken on at foreign ports and would be landed in Canada on payment of the duty and taxes applicable.
Since then, an increasing number of discrepancies have come to light between the quantities of goods reported inwards and those later presented for customs entry, the latter almost invariably being fewer than the former. That is, goods appear on the ship's inward report as having been taken on at a foreign port but do not appear on the dock or in the warehouse in Canada. All goods reported inwards are presumed to be imported, and whether so-called "short-landed" items are irregularly delivered to the consignee or others, or they are simply pilfered, they must, by law, be taken into account for revenue purposes.
Mounting evidence reached the department that increasing quantities of goods for which short-landed certificates had been filed by shipping companies were somehow finding their way into local commerce. In the face of this, customs issued instructions that demanded payment of duty and taxes by transportation companies on vessel cargo shortages, citing master's reports inwards of goods landed in Canada as the basis of our claim. Many shipping companies have been repeatedly successful in resisting these demands for payment because, without conducting physical checks of ships' cargoes being unladen; customs is unable to prove the goods recorded in the master's report were actually landed in Canada, and because the master cannot be held legally accountable to customs for the contents of his report.
The position of customs in regard to demands for duty payment on shortages ex-vessel was clarified in June, 1971 in an Exchequer Court of Canada decision by Mr. Justice Dumoulin, that the Customs Act does not make the master of a ship responsible for his declaration of goods entering the country. This decision prompted officials of my department to conduct a coast to coast investigation into all aspects of the matter at major seaports, which revealed that section 11 of the Customs Act is clearly inadequate as a legislative instrument to deal with today's fast paced, high volume shipping transport methods.
The proposed amendment is consistent with well established controls over the inward movement of goods by air, rail and highway, which place full responsibility on the carrier for his shipments until they are delivered to the customs sufference warehouse for later entry by the importer. As is the case with other modes of transport, it is proposed to require shipping companies to post performance bonds, equal to the average amount of duty and taxes paid on their shipments. This measure will not only ensure payment of outstanding duty and taxes on goods reported inwards, but will also enable the seagoing carriers to sail without delay.

Most international vessel carriers disclaim any involvement with cargoes carried after they have been reported to have landed in Canada, and they do not follow tracing procedures beyond the point of landing. This makes calculating the amount of customs revenue lost through shortages impossible over any given period for several reasons. For example, it quite often happens that parts of a shipment are "overlanded"-that is, not removed from the vessel until it reaches another foreign port, from whence they may well be redirected back into Canada on payment of duty by another mode of transport.
However, our studies did reveal that in one of the six customs regions demands for duty and taxes on goods reported short amounted to nearly $130,000 for the 1971-72 fiscal year, and outstanding claims in another region exceeded $200,000. With the reintroduction of effective customs controls through the proposed amendment, we aim to wipe out or at least dramatically reduce these revenue losses.
All possible alternatives to the proposal before the House today have been exhaustively explored. We have concluded that there are only three other options open to customs. First, customs could simply accept without question the statements of the ships masters or agents. Second, the provisions of section 8 of the Customs Act could be exercised by insisting that vessels remain at anchor until all cargo is duty paid. Third, physical checks of every cargo could be reinstituted, without regard to costs and consequences of the resulting delays. None of these would resolve satisfactorily the situation which I have described.
The amendment of the Customs Act which I am proposing is designed to discourage smuggling and pilferage, and to place the responsibility for the goods reported on the ship's manifest squarely upon the shoulders of the person making the declaration. It will restore to Canada Customs adequate means to carry out its responsibility, and restore to the Canadian people the duly collected revenue on which we depend for the benefit of all. For these reasons, I ask the House to approve this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as the minister has clearly indicated, this bill is introduced as a housekeeping amendment to the Customs Act. I may say also that it applies to the Excise Tax Act, because there is a very quiet phrase in the bill which provides that any of the goods which may be subject to the responsibility of the ship's master under the Customs Act shall also be deemed to have been imported and shall be subject to the excise sales tax. Let us not just tuck that away without raising some questions.
I do not share the minister's enthusiasm for the necessity of making the master of a ship absolutely responsible. His escape from responsibility is very, very difficult. From an administrative point of view I cannot justify the absolute liability of the master of a ship. The minister's proposal contains the phrase "notwithstanding pilferage on the dock or in the warehouse". It does not specify a bonded warehouse or otherwise, and I point out that if goods are in a bonded warehouse and customs duties have not been paid they will not have entered the stream of commerce of this country. The master of a ship is to be held liable
November 2, 1973

under those circumstances. All I say is that business has to be accomplished by the most effective means.
Why is it felt that the master of a ship unloading goods at some ports in Canada where pilferage has been notorious, due to the failure of people like the National Harbours Board in discharging their responsibility to provide an effective security system, should be held responsible for the customs duties and other dues on goods that are stolen? Is it simply because the Department of National Revenue says, "Oh, we lost maybe $200,000 out of the port of Montreal in one year in claims for refunds because of pilferage?" Making the master responsible for these goods will not eliminate the pilferage.
I ask the minister to get after the minister responsible for the National Harbours Board, and any other authority responsible for the security of harbours, to assume their responsibilities and help protect the right of the Queen, in the name of Canada, with respect to the customs duties. There has to be more to this than the minister's disclosures so far would indicate. He has been a little coy. He has been a little reticent in giving information on what type of loophole and smuggling this move is designed to meet.
If it is felt that there is some smuggling because of pilferage from the docks, how is it thought that the pilferage can be eliminated, or the smuggling eliminated, by making the master of a ship responsible for the customs duties? Are the government and the minister now giving to the master of a ship, who is being held financially responsible, the right to insist on what kind of security will apply in customs bonded warehouses or on the docks which are under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board or of any of the other harbour commissioners throughout Canada? Has this been contemplated, or has the Department of National Revenue just said, "This is somebody else's problem. We are going to insist on collecting the duty"? Is this the attempt that is being made to try to stop smuggling? After all, what is smuggling but the introduction of goods into a country without paying the just customs dues and other taxes that might be leviable against them.
Why doesn't the Minister of National Revenue go further back and say the responsibility shall be that of the shipper, the owner of the goods? Is the captain of an aircraft coming from abroad, a freighter aircraft or even a passenger aircraft carrying air express, in the same category as the master of a ship? The captain of an aircraft coming from abroad also has a customs manifest covering the goods that the aircraft is carrying. Is he now to be held responsible in the same way that the master of a ship will be held absolutely responsible to prove that the goods never came aboard his aircraft?
When cargo containers are loaded in Hamburg a document is made out saying that they contain such and such. But how does the master of a ship know? Containers may be landed in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, or in any other port that handles the containers, for transmittal to a customs bonded warehouse. Can the master of a ship assure the security of the goods within the containers? To secure relief against the customs dues that will now be imposed upon him, he must prove in writing that the goods were never landed. I do not know how the master of
Customs Act
a ship is going to ascertain that the goods did come aboard at the port of origin and disappeared between the dock and the customs bonded warehouse. Goods are landed at the warehouse, not at the dock, so who guarantees the security of those goods?
I am going to ask the minister to establish the liability. Is it merely a question of the Department of National Revenue saving that half a million dollars a year? If that is so, will the minister then consider the additional costs that will be imposed upon the importers, such as the additional costs of posting bonds which, incidentally, are all additional costs of shipping and are paid by the Canadian consumer.
Unless there is a better answer, I find it difficult to accept the administrative requirement of this decree of absolute liability on the part of the master of the vessel, be it a seagoing ship or an aircraft. Subject to the minister's explanation that to cover the possible loss of some half a million dollars or more of potential customs revenue, the Canadian consuming public is going to have to accept a much greater increase in the cost of goods imported by sea and possibly by air. What is the justification for that? Why ask the Canadian consuming public to do that? It is a very quiet, unassuming kind of bill.
The minister has stated that, as a result of the federal court decision, there did not seem to be any responsibility on the part of the master for customs duty. I cannot see justification for the amount of overkill that I think exists in this bill. I think there are better, more flexible ways of doing it. However, if the minister can point out the dangers in the existing practices, and that there is an open door to abuse, I might modify my opinion. However, on the basis of what has been given to us in this House, I suggest to the minister that his bill has considerable administrative overkill. If smuggling and pilferage are to be prevented, then let the minister convince his colleagues who are responsible for the security of the ports to take better measures; in other words, get off their duffs and eliminate pilferage particularly.
The situation in Montreal may have been cleaned up, and I hope so, but there was a time not so long ago when international shippers had an intense resistance to that port simply because of the breakdown in security. Pilferage was rampant and the newspapers were full of it. There was not such a loose system going anywhere else, and a good living was being made through pilferage in the ports by many people. I hope this has been cleared up, because I do not think Canadian ports should have the reputation of being dangerous to ship to. If we are going to establish a reputation for good business practices and make people desire to do business with Canada, the security of our ports is part and parcel of that reputation.
Bearing that in mind, I should like to hear much more from the minister in committee of the whole about why this particular step is being taken. I am quite prepared to accommodate the minister to keep this bill in the House and take it all the way through. That is why I make the suggestion that we should not have to send it to a House committee but could save a great deal of time by keeping

November 2, 1973
Customs Act
it in committee of the whole. However, I think the minister should come forward with more information.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has made a suggestion by way of a point of order that instead of the bill being referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs it should be dealt with in the committee of the whole House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I had made that suggestion informally, and since there was agreement on it, I assumed that the necessary disposition had been made. However, if it is required that I make a motion to amend for that purpose, I am quite prepared to do so; on the other hand, it could come from the government side. If the minister or someone on his behalf will make that motion, that the bill be read a second time and sent to the committee of the whole and dealt with this day, I will be glad to second it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the same point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make it clear that at least one of our members would like to speak to the bill while we are still on second reading. At the end of second reading, we will agree that the bill be referred to the committee of the whole.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) on the same point of order.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: That would be agreeable to the government, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather that it is the wish of the House that the order be amended by unanimous consent. Accordingly, when the motion is put the minister would move that the bill be read a second time and be referred to the committee of the whole. The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney).


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, after the very able and satisfactory introduction given to the bill by the minister I was tempted to stand up and say very simply "We agree". I say this despite the fact that our group has always hesitated to be caught agreeing with anybody, even with consenting adults. However, the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) perhaps raised more questions than they settled. For example, I am totally confounded, dumbfounded and unfounded-perhaps that is not the right word-by what he meant when he spoke of unnecessary smuggling. I have no idea what unnecessary smuggling is. I know what smuggling is, but under what definition of law there may be unnecessary smuggling I cannot tell. Therefore, I await the committee stage with bated breath.
I was going to quote some lines from Pope, but I think I had better not. Perhaps when we come to clause by clause inspection of the bill I can give verse-by-verse comment.

We think that this is a very necessary and appropriate amendment to the act. The one question which we wish to raise is simply this: will this measure make the customs service provided with respect to goods transported by sea consistent with the service provided with respect to goods transported by air, rail and truck? If it will, then, according to the minister's remarks, the act will become thoroughly consistent in its application.
Overwhelmed as we are, I will end by saying that although $1 million today is not worth what it was worth a number of years ago when a member on the government front benches said, "What's a million?", it still is a great deal of money. I do not think the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) will deny that. We at this end of the House agree to second reading.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
Robert Jardine McCleave: The House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-189, to amend the Customs Act. There is only one clause in the bill. Shall clause 1 carry?
On Clause 1-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, having put a number of questions to the minister during the second reading debate and having anticipated that he would provide some answers, we can hardly be expected to agree immediately to clause 1. While the minister's officials are coming into the chamber in order, perhaps, to supply some technical information, perhaps the minister would make some remarks of a general nature about matters which are within his ken. Hopefully, as well, we shall hear from the hon. member for Scarborough West. I wondered when he rose to speak noting that he had not been given sufficient advance warning to know even the number of the bill. I know that handling these customs matters is not his usual task. I was disappointed at the hon. member's not quoting us some lines. He is always delightful when he calls on his vast store of literary knowledge and makes a humourous and interesting speech. We were deprived of his humour in the debate on the preceding stage; perhaps at this stage he will do what he suggested.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not tempt him.


John Paul Harney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really did not intend to quote any verses. However, since I have been invited, I cannot resist. In listening to the hon. member for Edmonton West I was reminded of some lines from Pope which go like this:
Dullness is ever apt to magnify,
As things loom large which we through fog descry


Robert Jardine McCleave: I remind hon. members that the discussion is on Clause 1.
November 2, 1973


Mr. Startbury:: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the interest shown by the hon. members for Edmonton West and Scarborough West in this important bill. I share the concern of the hon. member for Scarborough West. No matter whether the amount involved is $200,000, $500,000 or $1 million, and it is difficult to tell how much is involved, the sum lost is lost to the Canadian taxpayer. I am sure the hon. member for Edmonton West will agree with me that it is important to attempt to recover that money, as it is the Canadian consumer who in the end pays for any loss of duly collectible revenue.
However, I sympathize with the concern of the hon. member for Edmonton West when he suggests that we might be putting an unreasonable burden either on the master of a ship or on a shipping company and, therefore, eventually on the consumer. I am advised, however, that the cost of the bonds is minimal. The cost to the consumer in the end might be less, in fact, as a result of the amendment proposed, because of the ability of consignees to obtain refunds in those cases in which they can establish the facts. Under the present system there is difficulty in establishing the fact.
Canada Customs has the responsibility under existing law for collecting revenue, but does not have in this case the means to collect that revenue. The decision of Mr. Justice Dumoulin removed what was formerly thought to be the responsibility of a master. Presumably, the act intended to impose that duty.
If I may answer the question of the hon. member for Edmonton West regarding the comparison between captains of aircraft, engineers of trains and so on-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It should be captains of aircraft and masters of ships.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Quite so. The answer, directly, is yes. This measure would impose on the master of a ship the same duty that is imposed under the Customs Act on the captain of an aircraft.
If I may reassure the hon. member for Scarborough West, the proposed procedure with respect to requiring a bond and ensuring that the master of a ship is responsible for statements he is making about the goods he is carrying will be entirely consistent with procedures followed with respect to other modes of transport. It was thought, of course, that existing arrangements were consistent. However, when Mr. Justice Dumoulin said that we could not hold the master of a ship responsible, we felt it was necessary to introduce this amendment, to make sure that that responsibility is made clear so that a similar situation would exist with respect to all modes of transport.
If there are other questions, I will try to answer them, with the help of my adviser.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might say for the information of the hon. member for Edmonton West, in view of the interest shown by the hon. member for Scarborough West in smuggling, necessary or unnecessary, that the hon. member for Scarborough West is not only the owner and manager, but master of a vessel now. If the hon. member for Edmonton West was surprised at the hon. member's newfound interest, that fact may provide a useful bit of background information.
Customs Act
I suggest that anyone who listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West on second reading might gather the impression that this bill imposes new and awesome burdens on the master of a vessel. I am not a master of a vessel, but I live in a part of the world where we see goods moving in by vessel fairly frequently.
My initial reading of the bill was some time ago. I gained the impression that this bill would clarify and define what in my view has always been the well defined responsibility of the master of a vessel for practically everything that happened in connection with that vessel, not only in respect of navigation, but whether it was complying with the shipping regulations or creating pollution by oil. We had a recent example in British Columbia where the master was charged and fined because of actions taken which resulted in pollution by oil.
From a rather casual observation, it seems for a good many years there has been a rather grey area in defining the responsibility of what from time to time are rather mysterious disappearances of portions of cargoes from ships' manifests. Of course, there is the other side of the coin. On occasion there is the problem of goods coming into the country which do not appear on the ships manifests. Perhaps that is the smuggling to which reference has been made.
With regard to the minister's comments about this bill bringing the responsibility in line with the generally accepted concept of responsibility of the captain of an airliner or a person in charge of any other mode of transport, if this bill is reasonably administered and the regulations under it are proper and clear, the bill may help to protect the master. We are all aware that, in connection with any piece of legislation that comes before this House, one has to accept that it will be reasonably administered. If it is not administered well, it is our responsibility, as members of this House, to bring that to the attention of the government.
If this bill receives passage, becomes law and is administered in such a way as to cause undue hardship to masters of vessels carrying goods entering Canada, I will be the first to object. Generally speaking, however, I have not found too much foundation for complaint in substance about the way customs officers in our ports, particularly ports on our seacoasts, carry out their duties. If that same approach is carried forward under the regulations to be enacted under this bill, the fears expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the new responsibilities being placed upon a master are too great are groundless.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the minister with regard to the explanation he gave on the points I raised at the previous stage, there is no doubt in my mind from reading this bill that, if the master can prove the goods were not taken on board, in other words that there was pilferage at the port of origin between the time the manifest was made and the goods were put into containers, the master can escape liability. However, there is no provision whatsoever to protect the master from pilferage on the dock of a Canadian port between the

November 2, 1973
Customs Act
point of the ship being docked and the goods being entered into a customs warehouse.
Perhaps I went a little too far on the previous occasion, but if one looks at the bill, he will see what is to be the new subsection (4) of section 11. It lists the exemptions to the liability. They are very clear. The first is, and I quote:
(a)	destroyed or lost at sea due to stress of weather or casualty on board the vessel,
That is something that is readily ascertainable and can be proven by the master. The next is:
(b)	not laden on board the vessel at the foreign port of exportation,
In many cases that is impossible to prove.
(c)	destroyed after landing but before being formally entered into a customs warehouse or delivered to a bonded carrier,
That is a case of goods destroyed by being dropped into the water, fire or something of that nature. There should be a flexible administration of the Customs Act for goods that are stolen at the dock before going into a customs warehouse or delivered to a bonded carrier where the pilferage is in fact the destruction of the goods.
In the case of wines and spirits, one could readily assume the goods were the equivalent of destroyed because it would not take long for the consumption to take place. I understand that is one of the areas in which there is the greatest degree of concern. I refer to the removal or stealing on the dock of liquor, wines and readily consumable goods of that nature.
The minister spoke about the overlanding and re-export to Canada. I may say that I still think there is some overkill here, but like the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni, I will wait to see what it is like. If there are complaints, only the department can complain. My recommendation to the minister is to get after his colleagues who are responsible for the security of ports and let us get some real action in that regard so the minister will not have that work.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been discussions and the next order of business has been changed to order No. 40 in respect of the Co-operative Credit Associations Act.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-183, to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. On behalf of Mr. Comtois, Mr. Clermont, seconded by Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean), moved:
That Bill C-183, An Act to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, be amended by striking out line 23 of the French version at page 21 and substituting the following:
"representants de membres constitues en corporation en"-Mr. Comtois.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the unanimous consent of the House should be sought to introduce this amendment of which I should like to take cognizance. I was not provided with a copy of it; this may very well stem from a technical difference between the English and French versions. There may very well be no discussion, but we might be provided with a copy of this bill. In fact, it might be indicated for you to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the amendment at this time, because it could not be listed on the order paper. If this rule applies to ordinary members of this House, it should apply also to the government under these circumstances.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. If I may, I would like to remind the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that the amendment now before us appears on today's order paper, at page XVI.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my words. I had been told that the government had not been able to put its amendment on the order paper in time, but if it has been put before six o'clock last night, I have no more reason to object.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that Bill C-183, to amend the Co-operative Credit Associations Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Now by leave?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would simply state that in the absence of a statement from the minister, we have been able to study the bill in committee. Under such circumstances, when a favourable report has been presented by the committee about a bill and when we have heard outside witnesses, it is necessary in my opinion that the minister or his parliamentary secretary comments on what happened since the second reading of the bill.
We have received representations from officials of cooperative credit companies or associations related to the Canadian Federation of Financial Co-operative Companies; moreover we have heard evidence from Mr. Humphrey, the Superintendent of Insurance, in charge of monitoring co-operative credit societies to the extent that they are involved in federal legislation.
However, I must say that I am more and more convinced that more than ever the Canadian Federation of Financial Co-operative Companies is requesting investment powers of a similar nature as the trust companies, life insurance companies and other Canadian financial institutions which, through their members' activities, are supplying banking services in Canada, and which are currently competing not against the whole of their services but in certain areas of banking services supplied by Canadian chartered banks or major trust companies and which are not under the control of the inspection department of our bank and financial system.
I am not criticizing the monitoring services of the Superintendent of Insurance, on the contrary. He is not responsible for bank services but a different philosophy of the Canadian monetary and bank system should exist.
And I refer to the argument I already put forward when we proceeded to a review of the Bank Act. Here, in Canada, we have drafted a new banking legislation, wider than the previous one, that sets up the powers and provides for a new incorporation charter of our commercial banks. As a matter of fact, we see that the act is outmoded since one of the clauses at the end of the bill specifies that the Canada Bank Act includes an appendix with the charter of every bank.
But I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) shares my view that because of his many duties as Minister of Finance, responsible for the control and manage-
Co-operative Credit Associations Act ment of financial institutions of this country, a whole sector is beyond his control. We have trust companies that are incorporated under provincial legislation, and one must admit, therefore, that supervision standards and conditions vary from province to province. Some of these standards, however, cannot be approved. Others lead to abuse and fraud on the public.
I believe that the Minister of Finance will agree with me to say that we should have in Canada a legislation for institutions that provide banking services. The provisions would mostly concern chartered banks, the banking services and trust companies incorporated under a provincial or federal charter. The constitution gives the federal government exclusive authority over currency and bank matters. I would say that at the present time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has no control or influence over 40 or 50 per cent of all banking operations. Considering the assets of the Desjardins Caisses Populaires in Quebec which, if I am not mistaken, amount to nearly $7 billion, we realize that the finance minister has very little control over them. There may be other assets under this law, Mr. Speaker I am willing to get back to my subject. Those could be assets of another billion dollars.
There may be supervision a little remote from the Superintendent of Insurance, but not inspired by the same philosophy that a superintendent of insurance could show for banks. I am also referring here to the lack of control under the Bank Act, for after all we have a bank superintendent, an associate and two secretaries. It could be that the secretaries look after social correspondence, but as for the rest, the bank superintendent has no staff to control and check banking activities.
However, the Superintendent of Insurance has an active staff. Why could control over insurance companies, trusts under federal government responsibility, finance companies and certain co-operative institutions not be exercised in a better way? I am saying that without any ill-feeling toward the bank superintendent or the Superintendent of Insurance. After all, at the beginning of 1975, we will have to consider the government proposals; whether it is a Liberal administration or, as I hope, a Progressive Conservative one, the Bank Act will have to be changed not later than the beginning of 1975; we will have to consider the government's great proposals concerning amendments to the legislation. I remember well that the first act on the renewal of commercial banking charters was to be passed in 1964 but events were such that we had to wait until January 1, 1967 before passing the new legislation. Since then, events happened very quickly. I certainly agree with the finance minister about one thing. Whatever government may be in power, it should get ready to bring forward changes to the Bank Act in early 1975. If we want amendments to the legislation, not only in the government sector but also in the private sector, representations will have to be made and the government will also have to reflect upon it in order to introduce a bill liable to be passed in time and come into force before January 1, 1977.
It could be I missed out by about six months or perhaps more. It would be preferable to consider June 30, 1974. The minister must get moving immediately to come up with guidelines on desirable changes. I urge him to determine

November 2, 1973
Co-operative Credit Associations Act
what the guidelines on the proposed amendments to the Bank Act will be. But we should also pass legislation to monitor our banking institutions. If no corporation, whether provincial, federal or cooperative, is set up let it come under the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. I was forgetting the Superintendant of Insurance-he also monitors the activity of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. And we have here all sorts of cooperative societies, trust companies whether they be provincial or federal, or banks, of course; I am told that there were many service volunteers in the institutions which report on their monitoring activity to the Superintendant of Insurance. What I mean by service volunteers is simply this; the provincial administration says: Listen, you are going to participate, and you are going to submit. Their participation is voluntary. At least, the law says it is, but it is still somewhat compulsory.
In conclusion, I should like to say that Canada should modernize its banking system. We need not only the chartered banks, but also the merchant banking institutions in order to set up a financial market in Canada. The Montreal Stock Exchange is not a financial market, and neither is the Toronto Stock Exchange. I am a strong partisan of nationalism; why should Canadians have to go to the financial markets of New York, London, Paris or Frankfurt? Because they do not have the necessary institutions. There are some under a disguised form, but they suffer from a certain handicap. We cannot... My friend, the President of the Treasury Board is whispering "the Canadian Development Corporation", but this is not a banking institution at all. I could tell him many things about that.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I agree with the bill and I hope that it will be passed quickly after the interventions of my colleagues.
Now, I hope that the Minister of Finance who is listening will take this opportunity to revise the legislation governing our financial institutions and to establish new standards so that the Minister of Finance may be responsible for their direction and inspection.
[ English]


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. C-183, with which we are presently dealing, is one which my party supports wholeheartedly, and we would like to see it dealt with expeditiously. As a matter of fact, we would have liked to have had it passed months ago. The credit unions, particularly those in my province, would also have liked that.
The bill provides for a number of things that the credit union movement wants. In terms of larger membership it gives greater opportunities to credit unions. It broadens the investment powers available to them. It allows the Co-operative Credit Society, and its provincial credit union members, to have access to a lender of last resort through the Canadian Insurance Deposit Corporation. All of these things will be of great assistance to the credit union movement and the various co-operative credit societies.
Saskatchewan is perhaps the heartland of the co-operative and credit union movement in Canada, which began

there in the 1930's during the great depression when many of the chartered banks, because of financial restrictions, had to pull out of the area. The credit union movement went into small towns throughout the province, and today it is an organization that has assets of over $700 million in Saskatchewan alone, which I think is quite significant for an organization that is really a near bank, or near banking institution.
The philosophy behind the movement is one my party supports wholeheartedly. It grew up pretty well simultaneously with the evolution of my party's ideals and principles. The credit unions are controlled by the members they serve. The credit unions are founded on the principle of one member, one vote. It is a democratic type of organization owned by the people and controlled by the people. It merits the consideration and assistance of members of this House.
The credit union serves its own members. Over the years it has done much to assist regions like rural Saskatchewan. It has been a community organization, helping communities in many ways, providing opportunities for different groups to do things financially that otherwise they would not be able to do if they had to rely on private banking institutions, loan companies, insurance and trust companies.
As I say, this is a good bill. It is one that is certainly welcomed by the Saskatchewan co-operative and credit union movement. It is one that should be enacted immediately. I am not going to talk about all the other financial problems that might be related indirectly to this bill. There are many things members of this party could say in reply to the comments of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) with respect to banking and financial institutions and the ways in which they should be controlled to work on behalf of the Canadian people.
I see no reason why the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should not be amending the Bank Act to bring about lower interest rates. I would like him to establish a Crown-owned bank to supplement the chartered banks. Such a bank would provide loans for socially necessary items, for farmers, fishermen and small business, and loans at low interest for house mortgages, housing being one of the basic necessities of life. Through that type of Crown bank, the government could channel all kinds of its revenues, such as its pension funds. The revenues of various provincial and municipal governments could also be channeled through it, thus creating a financial institution that would provide loans for necessary social things at interest rates much lower than the rates charged today. This would be an effective way of controlling the financial and banking system. It would force the financial system to be much more competitive. Indeed, that is what credit unions have done in their own way all across the country for the last 30, 35 or 40 years.
For all these reasons I urge the House to deal expeditiously with this bill, and place it on the statute books to help the credit unions and various co-operatives from coast to coast.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (for Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill S-9, to enable Canada to comply with a Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that those who were applauding were applauding you and not me. I am sure that is because you are doing a marvellous job on a Friday afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, the Aircraft Registry Act is a simple and practical measure aimed at reducing legal complexities and difficulties for those involved in buying, selling and financing aircraft in Canada. Before reviewing specific provisions of this act, I think I should delve briefly into some of the general background involved so as to place the act in some perspective.
Under the Aeronautics Act we have had a central register of aircraft in Canada for many, many years. However, we have never had a central registry of the various types of financial interest that creditors might have against aircraft. This bill will create such a central registry for Canada and eliminate the current very cumbersome situation where financial interests in an aircraft, in order to be protected, must be registered in all the various districts of all provinces and all countries to which the aircraft may be flown.
This leads me to another dimension of this new act, the international dimension. On June 19, 1948, a convention was signed in Geneva, a convention which Canada, for various reasons, did not sign and has not since adhered to. This was the Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. The new Aircraft Registry Act will give legislative effect in Canada to the principles of the 1948 international convention, enabling Canada to adhere to the convention, joining 33 other nations which have already either indicated adherence or ratified it.
[ Translation]
This legislation will also enable Canadian aircraft manufacturers and those who have financial interests in such aircraft, to submit their claims against aircraft sold abroad or leaving Canada. New provisions prove more and more essential in this area with the advent of larger and more expensive aircraft which travel regularly from one territorial jurisdiction to another. The existing acts proved inadequate and difficult to implement.
This bill covers other aspects and for the purpose of my explanation, I have considered in this bill eight general provisions.
First, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for a central aircraft registry where notices of interest can be registered. These notices can relate to interest, or lease for at least six
Aircraft Registry Act
months, security for the payment of a debt and security for equipment or services provided to the aircraft. In order to avoid complications, the bill will authorize notices of interest on property for the component parts and avionics of the aircraft other that the spare parts. This first provision of the bill puts an end to the present obligation to have a security or retention right registered on an aircraft in all the counties or districts in each province where the aircraft can be operated, which makes the financing of the aircraft easier for Canadian air carriers and simplifies the difficult problems buyers of aircraft have to face to obtain ownership titles.
A second provision establishes a priority order for claims according to the registration date of the notice of interest in an aircraft. A transitional provision precludes any change, through this provision, to the order of priority of claims registered under an act of parliament or of any province before the implementation of this bill.
Third, this bill provides that a creditor cannot sell an aircraft in which he has an interest without an order from a superior court providing a six-week notice with mention of time and place of the sale and the distribution of the proceeds, a notification being given one month in advance to the persons in whose name a notice of interest is recorded in the registry. In this way we will avoid an embarrassing situation for the owner of an aircraft when one of his creditors suddenly decides to redeem his claim by means of a sale.
Fourth, and this is an important point, this new system remains optional. However any one who does not have a notice of interest in an aircraft duly recorded in his name in the registry can no longer legally enforce his rights to the aircraft. He does not get protection from the law concerning the priority of claim and cannot obtain the seizure of the aircraft from other buyers.

Fifth, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides for the consent of each person who has registered a notice of interest in an aircraft before the registration can be cancelled for purposes of export. This gives much greater security to the creditor or financier. But a qualifying point which should be understood here is that the central aircraft registry is strictly an information system in so far as it does not legally establish or guarantee clear title to an aircraft.
A sixth provision of the act brings some comfort to air passengers. The act prohibits the seizure of a domestic or international flight of a Canadian scheduled commercial passenger aircraft once that aircraft has embarked on its journey. Thus the aircraft and its fare-paying passengers are assured an uninterrupted preplanned journey without the aircraft Registry Act being invoked in a manner that would ground the aircraft en route. Where someone seeks to seize an aircraft in this category, he must make his application to the federal court of Canada which can fix a time and place for that aircraft to be surrendered, but only after the completion of a particular scheduled flight, wherever the flight may take the aircraft in Canada or elsewhere.
[ Translation]
Seven, the law provides that, if there is no cancellation or application to extend, a notice of interest shall be deemed to have ceased five years from the day of record-
7490

Aircraft Registry Act
ing; the bill provides also for regulations concerning the manner, form and content of notices of interest, as well as the procedure to be followed, the nature of required rights, the provision of copies, etc. It also provides for penalties in the event of false information.
The eighth and last main provision of this bill is that it gives the required legal base for Canadian adherence to the Geneva Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft. To this day, 33 countries have ratified the convention or have made application, particularly the United States, France, West Germany, Italy and the Scandinavian countries. The United Kingdom, one of the ratifying states, has recently adopted measures similar to ours, under its Mortgage of Aircraft Order of 1972.
Finally, the Aeronautics Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association has studied and encouraged for many years the establishment of a central aircraft registry. Representatives from the Canadian Bar Association have reviewed and approved these provisions and a number of their suggestions have been retained. The bill has the support of Canadian aircraft builders, Canadian financial institutions, and the Canadian'Air Transport Association.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, listened with considerable interest to the parliamentary secretary explaining the various provisions of this legislation. It seems to me that this is a bill of considerable merit. The preamble to the bill indicates that Canada can hardly be accused of acting with undue haste in associating itself with the provisions of the convention which was signed at Geneva in 1948. That convention had to do with the international recognition of rights in aircraft. It is only legitimate to ask why such a piece of legislation of such obvious merit has been so long delayed.
This is a constructive piece of legislation and, certainly, we on this side of the House do not wish to impede unduly its passage. We welcome its introduction and, after making some comments on it, will not stand in the way of its orderly process through the House.
The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of the other place considered the various ramifications of the legislation and looked at many of the practical considerations which are involved. This bill, as the parliamentary secretary said, is designed to protect, to regulate in an orderly fashion, the registration of aircraft, and to deal with the rights and interests of those who deal in many ways with aircraft. This includes their purchase, sale, maintenance and repair.
It has been suggested that, possibly, one reason for delay in bringing this bill forward has been the lack of pressure exerted by aircraft owners, operators and others in the aircraft industry. I doubt that. Nevertheless, the fact that such a suggestion has been made is an indictment of this government's policies.
An officer of the Department of Transport, testifying before the committee of the other place about the lack of pressure being responsible for the delay in bringing for-
(Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).]
ward this legislation said, as reported at page 2:6 of the proceedings of that committee of June 27, 1973:
I do not think it was a case of mature reflection: I think it was a case of pressure not being exerted by any aircraft operators or financial interests that there was any advantage to implementing the convention. Where Canada is now getting into the manufacture of aircraft itself, and trying to sell these aircraft in other countries, the rights in these aircraft must necessarily be recognized. . .
That, certainly, is a proposition which makes sense. The witness went on to say:
Then, too, there is the large amount of money involved in purchasing aircraft from other countries-and they are getting more expensive now-and it is difficult to find out what is actually against an aircraft. It is more difficult now than it has been. This legislation has actually been in process for about five years, but this is as far as it has ever got, and we hope that it will continue.
We want to see this legislation implemented. It has considerable potential in its application both domestically and, as the parliamentary secretary said, internationally.
Some provisions of this legislation are of interest to those who are concerned about constitutional problems, as they impinge to some extent on provincial jurisdiction. Perhaps some of my colleagues will say something about that later. I hope that in the establishment of the registry system, as set out in the legislation, there will be a maximum of co-operation by provinces. I believe that this will be the case.
The legislation will have a great deal of practical effect. Of course, its utility will depend on the regulations and the procedures which will be implemented. Uniform procedures must be implemented across the country. The same holds true to some extent with respect to the international ramifications of the bill. Hopefully, the various provinces will co-operate and assist in the public advertising and in the various procedures which will need to be developed.
I hope that someone, on behalf of the minister, will explain the meaning of clause 8, which reads:
A person in whose name a notice of interest in an aircraft registered in Canada is not recorded in the registry (a) has no claim in respect of that interest against any other person who, without actual notice of that interest, subsequently purchases or otherwise acquires an interest in the aircraft; and-
Now comes the part which interests me:
-(b) may not seize or take any action to obtain seizure of the aircraft.
I assume that this provision will apply if the person does not take advantage of the various provisions of the central registry. I further assume that it will not affect the existing rights of any person who does not want to utilize this registry system, provided nobody else is ahead of him in coming under the regulations which will be implicit in the setting up of this system. That seems to be the interpretation put forward before the standing committee of the other place concerning this particular aspect of the legislation.
Answering a question put by a Senator, a legal officer said before the committee of the other place, "Whatever rights they have under existing laws remain." He was referring to the categories of persons to which I referred. I assume that that is correct. It is none too clear. I hope that
November 2, 1973

this matter will be taken into account when the regulations are drafted and when they are being enforced.
The parliamentary secretary, of course, has made it clear that this registry does not in any way guarantee title. He also made it clear that it establishes a strict priority system. The government's policy in protecting the rights of those involved in the air line industry and of owners and pilots of smaller aircraft has not been as constructive as it might have been.
I was happy to note, although this is strictly not germane to this legislation, that there was an overhaul of provisions governing air service fees and increases in landing fees. What was done was good. I think this bill will provide encouragement to those engaged in the aircraft industry at a time when they need some encouragement.
Let me say one more thing. Clause 19 says, "this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation." I hope the actions of the past will not serve a precedent and I hope that there will not be a delay of 25 years in bringing the provisions of this bill into effect.
I hope the government will not bury the bill but will proceed with it in a simple, effective, expedient manner and enact it into law in the not too distant future. The regulations will be the whole key to how well this legislation works, particularly on the domestic scene. Unless the regulations, the court procedures and the jurisprudence developed as a result of the bill are clear, inexpensive, convenient, well publicized and universally used, this legislation will not be nearly as useful as it might otherwise be.
In conclusion, I welcome this piece of legislation and hope it will be dealt with in an expedient manner. We look forward to considering it at a later stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the opening remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) when he said that this bill was aimed at removing legal complexities. After listening to his speech and looking at the bill, I wonder which is more complex, the present situation or the situation as it will be after the bill has been passed. On the other hand, when I learned, both from looking at the bill and listening to the parliamentary secretary, that one of the main purposes of this bill is to replace what we now have, namely a central aircraft register, with what will be known as a central aircraft registry, I realized that this is a very important piece of legislation.
All that aside, I join the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) in making the inescapable comment that this government does not rush into things. After all, this bill arises out of an international convention that was adopted on June 19, 1948. Twenty-five years later, something is being done about that international convention. However, as the hon. member for Central Nova and others know, there are other international conventions, notably some of those passed at the International Labour Organization, which have been around much longer than 25 years and to which Canada has not yet agreed.
Aircraft Registry Act
In any case, we recognize the need for this kind of legislation so that problems connected with the ownership of aircraft, operating as they do among the various countries of the world, can be settled on a basis that is covered by an international agreement. For that reason we are pleased to see this legislation before us and we see no reason why it should take an undue length of time to deal with it in this House. Since this bill deals only with the narrow subject of the ownership of aircraft we are prohibited from getting into other matters we would like to discuss, such as bilateral agreements between this country and the United States, and so on. I simply make the statement that we cannot do that at this time but must limit ourselves to what is before us.
It was comforting to learn from the parliamentary secretary that the rights of seizure of aircraft which are provided for in this legislation will not apply to an aircraft in flight. I am sure the next time he and I are flying together between here and our favourite province of Manitoba, we will be able to console ourselves with the fact that we passed this bill so no one can seize the aircraft while we are in flight.
This bill is exactly what the parliamentary secretary said, something dealing with legal complexities relating almost exclusively to the ownership of aircraft. Because there is an international convention to which Canada should have adhered long ago, we are glad to give our support to this bill so that Canada can now give its adherence to that convention.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) and the previous speaker in expressing support for this measure which is long overdue. It will give protection to people who have a financial interest or otherwise in aircraft. As the parliamentary secretary said, the legislation is long overdue in light of the growing transportation industry and the building of aircraft in Canada for sale within this country and for export.
As our transportation industry grows and we find a rationalization for a system of either centralization or decentralization, we will not only need this type of legislation but I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware that we will need legislation in a number of other areas. Canada has the potential of achieving very considerable progress in the area of construction and sale of aircraft in the western world. This will come about when confidence in the industry is demonstrated by measures such as this.
As the hon. member for Central Nova stated, we have little or no quarrel with this bill. However, there are one or two aspects of it about which we might wonder. A distinguished gentleman in the place to which some of us might aspire considered many of the pertinent questions with regard to what we might expect in terms of regulations under this bill. On a number of occasions in this chamber we have voiced concern with regard to legislation and the form regulations might take, their impact and consequences, as opposed to a statement of policy which this bill is in fact.
One area of concern involves framework or authority of the Federal Court. Why are other levels of court authority excluded from hearing applications under the legislation?
7492

Aircraft Registry Act
Why was it not considered useful to extend to other superior courts the authority to grant applications or certificates upon application, in accordance with certain procedures set out in this bill? The owner of a private aircraft may wish to dispose of the aircraft and continue to register his interest in it in the event of default, an accident or for some other reason. He should not have to go to the trouble of seeking counsel in British Columbia or in his own locale and sending him to Ottawa at his own expense simply to make application in order to exercise his will. The parliamentary secretary might think about that problem as we move through the various stages of this measure.
I suggest that a simple amendment might correct this situation. The point may seem to be unimportant, but there is nevertheless a shortcoming in the bill. Such an amendment would not impair the bill, but it seems to me it would be much more convenient and of no major concern to Air Canada, CP Air and any substantial regional feeder service. However, so far as the owner of a small, light aircraft is concerned, it seems a little inconvenient that he should have to come to Ottawa to make application and receive the authority to protect his own interests, which in fact is what this bill intends to do.
There is one other matter concerning clause 6 which is perhaps minor but which I should like to draw briefly to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. This is the clause which attempts to describe a deemed interest in an aircraft. It provides:
For greater certainty, a person shall, for the purpose of this act, be deemed to have an interest in an aircraft where he is
(a) the lessee of the aircraft and the term of the lease is not less
than six months-
There are other subclauses, but it seems to me that "interest" is not fully defined. Utilization may be involved, but if there is a wet lease rather than a dry lease based on the number of hours flown, used and certain other things, this would make a difference. There is a restriction in the period prescribed of a certain number of days or weeks which, again, overlooks the fact that aircraft are sometimes leased for short periods with an extensive amount of flying time involved, whereas there may not be any flying time involved in a period of six months. There is an anomaly here and this question might be considered at some stage.
We need measures such as this as Canada moves toward the development of an internationally recognized aircraft industry. I am almost tempted to take advantage of this opportunity to speak about other aspects of the aircraft industry in Canada, wondering out loud, or hoping, if you will, that the government will not take 25 years to move toward a separation from the Ministry of Transport of the responsibility for investigating those accidents over which the department has regulatory control. It is true that these matters are correlated, and if that were not the case I would urge the minister to give serious consideration to such suggested separation.
Only when we take steps of this kind do we obtain the confidence of the national and international air community. We cannot grow in the area of aviation without full

international confidence. We are in the process this afternoon of taking a small step. I only wish it had been a bigger step and that this measure could be taken as an indication that the government is prepared to move in other areas to further strengthen the confidence of the national and international community in our aircraft industry.
As the hon. member for Central Nova has indicated, this bill calls for the legislation to come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation. Because I cannot read between the lines, I assume that is to allow an interim period during which liens on chattels can be transferred from existing provincial jurisdictions to the proposed central registry. It would seem to be useful to the industry to indicate the nature of the bill and the consequences of not adhering to it because, while it may not seem to be mandatory on the surface, it would be expensive for anyone who failed to follow it. It would be interesting to us in the chamber to have an indication of the length of the interim period which the industry, those associated with the industry or who have interest in a particular piece of equipment, will have to register an interest in order to obtain the protection this legislation will provide.
This type of housekeeping bill is useful, and I suggest similar legislation would be useful in many other areas. Let us now move on to deal with the conflict of interest and investigate aspects of Canada's air industry.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I trust the House will forgive me if I exhibit again what seems to be the characteristic of being highly dubious of certain legislation. The bill before us states in the preamble, as indicated by the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), that in certain respects it fulfils an obligation undertaken by Canada regarding an international convention on the registration of aircraft. That is all very good, but I point out to hon. members some very grave doubts I entertain as to the constitutional ground on which part of this proposed act would rely. This measure not only sets out to do that but it refers to every aircraft in Canada. The international convention deals primarily with the regulation and control in Canada of seizures of aircraft of international airlines on scheduled passenger operations.
We all remember what gave rise to the international convention. Let me give an example. An aircraft of country "A" involved in international flights destined to one or more countries abroad was always subject to potential seizure by the owner of an accord obtained on behalf of country "B" where the aircraft had landed. We all know the legal complexities and disorganization which resulted. This bill purports to put into being an international accord which was signed many years ago. I fully agree with that, but I suggest that the bill goes much further. It sets up a central registry for obligations and interests in all aircraft in Canada. On what grounds? The Government of Canada has not one iota of jurisdiction over property and civil rights.
In reading through Bill S-9 I came across some rather interesting provisions about the registration of encumbrances against a particular aircraft, about the rights of
November 2, 1973

the holder of encumbrances to enforce them, the courts they had to proceed under, how execution could be levied against aircraft, and the remedies of any person who might be prejudiced or otherwise. Suddenly it struck me that this is completely contrary to the provisions introduced into legislation, say in the province of Alberta, when I was practising law. In that province there is the Seizures Act which lays down the procedure for the seizure of all personal property if need be.
I have before me the Bills of Sale Act which lays down the procedure for the registration of bills of sale, chattel mortgages and other encumbrances against personal property. If the minister thinks that the Alberta act does not touch aircraft, he might look at the Alberta Bills of Sale Act, subsection 8 of section 2 which provides that itinerant machine means vehicles, aircraft, trailers or drilling equipment. So we have legislation in the province of Alberta, the province of Ontario, no doubt the province of Quebec under its civil law, and any other province which provides how to deal with an aircraft or the encumbrances against it both as to registration and the priority of creditors, acts of registration or non-registration, enforcement or default under the encumbrances and enforcement of any judgment under the encumbrances, seizures or disposition of the aircraft.
Then we have what I consider to be this so-called "little softy" bill which was started in the other place and tells us that notice of interest is to be recorded, that the deemed interest in the aircraft is to be established and then, with the greatest disrespect for property rights, talks about priority of claims against any aircraft. I just simply ask, who in the blazes do they think they are? Where a notice of interest is not recorded, this legislation purports to set up different priorities notwithstanding the compliance within a province with the requisite legislation dealing with aircraft, and the registration of encumbrances against them and how the interest will be set up. This bill, on its own little hook says, that where there is no notice of interest recorded in the central registry of Canada, all the rights of that person are wiped out. On whose authority? Does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) contend for one moment that a bill of this kind will override the provincial law which has been in existence for years?


Otto Emil Lang: I contend it is valid.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister say that the provincial law is a nullity? Did I hear him correctly in that regard?


Otto Emil Lang: I said that this one is valid.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In other words, the other side of the coin is that the others are invalid.


Otto Emil Lang: Not necessarily.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister please tell the House, when in due course he speaks again, the position of an individual with a chattel mortgage on an aircraft or a bill of sale duly recorded under a provincial act? I will tell the minister the title of the act in the province of Alberta; it is the Chattel Security Registration Act. That is the one with which I was familiar. It is the
Aircraft Registry Act
central registry for all chattel encumbrances against all personal property.
Within the province of Alberta, that is the only act other than the Bank Act which sets out the priorities under property and civil rights for the determination of creditors' and owners' rights. I am astounded that now this latter day apostle of new interpretative legislation should come forward and say that this bill is particularly valid. The heading of clause 9 is "Seizure and sale of aircraft". We are told that there shall be proceedings in the superior court of a province. If my memory serves me correctly, in the province of Alberta proceedings under the Procedures Act and the Bills of Sale Act in these particular instances are through the district court. I can foresee the collision that will occur if this bill should ever have the misfortune of being passed with these provisions.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that the intention of the government to put into effect, after I don't know how many years, countless years, the international convention with regard to passenger carrying scheduled aircraft of international ownership-


Otto Emil Lang: Twenty-five years.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says it is 25 years. Fine. But when they talk about aircraft in this country I say no, because there is no way the government of Canada can set its authority against that of the provinces which have had undisputed authority for years over all mobile equipment, automobiles, aircraft, and whatever may be determined to be personal property. Yet we are told that this legislation, notwithstanding any other act, shall have priority.
This bill will go to committee and we will certainly hear the reasoning of the government as to why it should take steps to set up these countervailing provisions. I can see citizens of one or more provinces involved in disputing priorities over an encumbrance or the rights of interest in an aircraft. We know that private aircraft can cost now up to $2 million or $3 million. This gives lots of scope for quarrelling.
We have this act, and we have the acts of one or more provinces which have their own priorities, established by registration in their own registries, of encumbrances against aircraft. Where will this lead to? Why does the federal government have to step into this determination with regard to any and all aircraft? It would have been preferable if the government of Canada had said: We are setting up a registry dealing with the aircraft that are referred to in section so-and-so, regularly scheduled passenger carrying aircraft whether of a national or an international nature, and certain steps will have to be taken before the establishment of a claim so as not to detain an aircraft under some sort of pressure as we have seen in the past.
We know about the old business of having to post a bond in a banana republic. But that is not so under this bill. This bill refers to any and all aircraft and sets up provisions counter to the well known jurisdiction of the provinces regarding personal property and mobile equipment. I could go through this bill and I am sure I could find some

November 2, 1973
National Parks Act
glaring inconsistencies with the Alberta act which I mentioned, the chattel securities registry act. Why have we got this? This bill can go to committee, and if I am not able to be there all the time I hope my colleagues will become aware of some of the doubts I have regarding the bill. I hope they will examine the bill and question the Minister of Justice and his officials most closely as to just what the government is trying to do in the bill concerning a matter over which they have absolutely no jurisdiction. The government should keep out of an area in which the provinces have been able to administer property and civil rights to the satisfaction of the Canadian public.


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from the riding where Canada's second and third largest domestic and international air carriers are located, I felt I had to say a few words on this bill. CP Air, Canada's second national airline, and Pacific Western Airlines, which is the regional and international carrier of British Columbia and Alberta, both have head offices in my riding. I contacted them when I knew this bill was coming up, to see what their feelings were about it. They seemed to be very similar to those of most hon. members who have spoken today, namely, that it should be passed and that it is needed.
Therefore, I just wanted to rise in the House today to say that I support the bill because of the study I have done, and I appreciate the work of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) in finally getting this bill before the House 25 years after the agreement was made. It surprised me to see that the Senate had to bring it in, but I suppose the hard work of the hon. member finally convinced the government that this bill should be placed before the House. I will resume my seat because I want the bill to be referred to the committee. I just wanted to say that it has my support.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.

Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill S-4, to amend the National Parks Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will have noted that Bill S-4,

before the House for second reading today, does not incorporate any major policy change in the National Parks Act. The chief purpose of this bill is to bring Kejimkujik and Forillon national parks into the schedule of national parks, and to authorize the governor in council to set aside by proclamation as national parks the lands comprising Kluane, Nahanni, Baffin Island, Pacific Rim, Pukaskwa, La Mauricie, Kouchibouguac, and Gros Morne.
The second important purpose of the bill is to allow future additions to existing national parks to be achieved by proclamation, thus avoiding the necessity of having to introduce new legislation for each such change. The other clauses amending the National Parks Act are basically administrative and updating.
The most important aspect of the bill, the provision of appropriate procedures for the establishment of ten new national parks, imparts significant and lasting benefits for all Canadians. But first I would like to bring the other provisions of this bill to Your Honour's attention. Clause 1 is an amendment to the definition of "public lands", necessary because the power of the government of Canada to dispose of lands in some of the national parks is limited by the terms of agreement between the government of Canada and the provinces in which the lands are situated.
The governor in council, by clause 2, is authorized *o add to an existing national park, by proclamation, lands owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada with the agreement of the province concerned and, most importantly, provided that public notice has been given in the Canada Gazette at least 90 days before proclamation day. In its broad concept, clause 2 provides a procedural simplification for dealing with park boundary adjustments. Let me assure the House, however, that clause 2 does not authorize any deletions, however small, from parks. I should also like to emphasize that no new park can be established without the approval of parliament.
Clauses 3 and 4 will clarify the authority of the governor in council to make regulations to control traffic on highways in the national parks. They also permit the modernization of traffic control within the parks by providing for the voluntary payment of traffic fines in line with the practice of most provinces. At present a violator, if summoned, must appear before a magistrate. The proposed amendment also removes the present anomaly of a $500 maximum fine for violation of any provision of the act or regulations without regard to the nature of the offence, by authorizing lower maximum fines to be fixed by specific regulations.
Clauses 5 and 7(1) delete from the schedule of the act the descriptions of Fort Beausejour historic park and Fort Anne historic park so that they will no longer be included among the national parks of Canada and may be set apart by the governor in council as national historic parks.
By clause 6 the name of Prince Edward national park is changed to Prince Edward Island national park, the name in common usage, and 12 acres are added to that park. Clause 8 repeals the description of Terra Nova national park as set out in part IX of the schedule to the act, and substitutes therefor the description confirmed by the Surveyor General of Canada.
November 2, 1973

To bring the major implications of this bill into proper focus I now turn to its main purpose, the provision of appropriate procedures for the establishment of ten new national parks. I refer hon. members to clauses 7(2), 9, 10 and 11. I want today to pay tribute to those provincial and territorial governments with which the minister has worked toward the establishment of these parks: Newfoundland, for Gros Morne; Nova Scotia, for Kejimkujik; New Brunswick, for Kouchibouguac; Quebec, for Forillon and La Mauricie; Ontario, for Pukaskwa; British Columbia, for Pacific Rim; the Yukon Territory, for Kluane; and the Northwest Territories, for Nahanni and Baffin Island.
For the first time we will have three parks above the sixtieth parallel. To speak of Baffin Island and the Nahanni national parks in the Northwest Territories and Kluane in the Yukon is to speak in superlatives. Baffin Island is characterized as having the largest permanent ice cap in Canada, probably the second largest in the world. The Nahanni is legendary for its hot springs, caves, Virginia Falls, which are twice as high as Niagara, and a river which runs through canyon walls, some topping 4,000 feet. Kluane has the highest mountains in Canada, extensive ice fields and glaciers.
Bill S-4 is a milestone. We will have a national park in every province and in both territories. Bill S-4 really concerns the enrichment of Canadian society and heritage by providing the procedures for bringing the total number of parks to 28. The minister's hope is that this bill will be followed by others so that by the year 2000 we will have 60 national parks. Hon. members have heard the minister state this goal on many occasions.
Canadians are in the enviable position of being able to enlarge and improve upon what already is internationally recognized as a superior national parks system. We have a relatively young culture, yet within it an abundance of ageless natural masterpieces in our national parks, wilderness works of art if you like, worthy of preservation and protection, demanding of care and attention and insistent upon expansion just as long as time remains our ally. The reward now and in perpetuity cannot be measured.
In the past few years there has been an increase in the number of visitors from this continent, from Europe and the Orient. This is evidence enough for me that our northern hemisphere parks also are appreciated as a rare experience by visitors from abroad. Just as many Canadians enjoy visiting the lands of their ancestral origins, so do visitors enjoy a country where natural scenic beauty is protected as a cultural heritage.
Here is an indication of how our national parks have grown in popularity and usage. In 1952 we had some 2 Vi million visitors, by 1962 this figure had grown to almost 7 VS: million, and in 1972 we had more than 14 million. If the present trend continues, we can expect the number of visitors from home and abroad to increase, with accompanying economic advantages for our tourist industry. But without an increase in parkland and proper management of such land, we face the disadvantages of over-use of our existing parks.
There is another urgency for meeting the goal of 60 parks by the year 2000. Although Canada has more land committed to national parks than any country in the
National Parks Act
world, by the year 2000 we will be hard pressed to meet demands for outdoor recreational land. It must be recognized that the availability of open spaces for citizens is not as great as imagined. On a national average, national parks represent only 1.3 per cent of Canada's land mass, 11 per cent is in private ownership, 7 per cent in agricultural development and 35 per cent in forestry and mining to which the public has limited or no access. Open spaces now are more abundant in the territories where sheer distance and higher costs are limiting factors on accessibility.
This brings us to the immediate and future needs of Canadians living in cities and growing urban centres who want and need easy and quick access to recreational land. The byways and special places program announced last October opens a new era of diversified land use for outdoor recreation. To review the situation briefly, in addition to national parks we have added eight historical canals and three new categories: national marine parks, national landmarks and national wild rivers. As well, the program envisages national networks of historic lakes and rivers and land trails for canoeing, hiking, riding or cycling, and low-speed scenic parkways for driving to be developed with the help of citizens, local associations, municipalities and provincial governments. I am confident that the co-operation demonstrated by the provinces in establishing new national parks will be an incentive for both public and private participation in the byways and special places program.
Canadians, and a national parks system which represents their interests, have two mandates where parks are concerned. The first is to preserve the most representative scenery in Canada and the second is to permit wise use by the people who go there. I feel we can pioneer in this area. Generally, the amendments proposed by Bill S-4 to which I referred earlier will help us to preserve what we have and are likely to have. In the past, because of the nature of the parks and lower park attendance, care was custodial. But with an increased public appreciation for these special places, the focus in the past few years has been on scientific management.
The broad approach is one of natural succession, fixed by the constraints of zoned park use. This preservation philosophy is based upon a comprehensive natural resource inventory being made in all our national parks. The inventory is being used to help planners pinpoint which areas in a park need maximum protection and which areas can tolerate different levels of visitors' use. Such is the basis of the parks five-class zoning system. This system ranges from wilderness areas to camp sites, waterways, roadways and high-density areas such as townsites.
A further change in the approach to park management should be noted. At the turn of the century, when the west was opened to settlers, and later during the depression, permanent townsites were developed within a number of our western national parks. In the 1970s, in keeping with a more ecologically sensitive society, the emphasis when developing new parks is to encourage certain tourist and service industries to locate outside the parks.
In the future hon. members can also expect to see further experiments with public transit systems in the

November 2, 1973
National Parks Act
national parks. This will allow for more effective channelling of visitors, at the same time limiting the destruction of land for road construction. This already has been done with success at Point Pelee and will be done at Kluane to enable visitors to reach look-out points over the glaciers. Another step toward improved management practices was taken in May of this year. So that regions can be represented more closely by staff in the area, the number of our regional offices was increased from three to five. We now have offices in Calgary, Winnipeg, Cornwall, Quebec City and Halifax.
The philosophy of the National Parks Act is that of conservation and recreation. Conservation takes priority, as it must if Canada is to have special places to recreate. Bill S-4 does not alter this basic concept. I ask hon. members for their unanimous support in approving this bill.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, members of my party share the view of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand). We would like to get this bill into committee where we could take a fairly detailed look at some of its provisions and also make some proposals to fill the gaps where the provisions are not adequate.
I think we can accept and agree with the statement by the parliamentary secretary that no new policy is incorporated in this proposal. That, indeed, is part of the difficulty with the bill because there is a clear unhappiness in many parts of the country about the present practices, if ntt the policy, of the parks division of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We want the chance to recommend in committee some changes that will meet these problems. Because these matters are so widespread and cause such concern across the country, a number of members on this side want to comment on existing parks policy and practice at this time.
First, I wish to pay tribute to and draw the attention of members of this House to the very extensive and useful discussion which occurred in the other place. I think the record of the debates there would be informative to any member of this House and anyone interested in national parks generally. It is important, also, to bear in mind that the discussion in the other place resulted in an amendment which is now incorporated in Bill S-4. It did not go as far as the proponents would have wished. There is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, a different minority-majority situation in the other place, for reasons that do not need to be gone into, and I think the person seeking the amendment wisely settled for as much as the minister would accept.
The amendment in the other place was one to democratize the system of establishing national parks in Canada and the system of adding to or taking from the territory of our national parks. There was a desire expressed, therefore, for public hearings. Because of the attitude of the minister as expressed through the Director of Parks Canada, there was a movement back from the request for public hearings, and a settlement for a requirement in the bill that there be 90 days' advance notice published in the Canada Gazette of any proposed changes in the boundaries of national parks. That is not as strong a dose of

democracy as was wanted, nor is it as strong a dose of democracy as will be wanted by members of this House in committee, but it was the most the minister would settle for. Members of the other place, being realists, recognize that the government is not as amenable to changes there as they might be to changes made by a committee of our House.
I think it is important to establish the principle that whenever there are significant changes to national parks in Canada, we must ensure the right of public hearing; there must be an opportunity for everyone to comment, not an opportunity merely for that eccentric minority that whiles away its time reading the Canada Gazette. The government claims that it has a commitment to public hearings concerning national parks, but it is significant, in evaluating that claim, to recognize that a provision for public hearings has been kept out of this bill even though there was an opportunity to adopt an amendment which would achieve that end.
It is significant, also, to recall that the government declined to call public hearings in the community of Jasper, a townsite within a national park, when there was a very serious proposal put forward by the minister relative to the removal of railway facilities which would have affected 1,200 individuals living there. There has been difficulty with public hearings and public participation in the establishment of the Ship Harbour park in Nova Scotia, a park which is not referred to in this legislation because there is still outstanding disagreement about that provision. There has also been reluctance on the part of the government to hold public hearings regarding other aspects of parks policy in the country.
The director of Parks Canada, speaking in the committee of the other place, suggested there was no need for public hearings because there was an opportunity for persons who had points to raise to make them before committees of this House or of the other place. That clearly is an impractical suggestion. Not only are the committees of this House, in particular, and of the other place overburdened with work already, but we operate at too great a distance from the people who have important points to make about the establishment of or the diminution of our national parks. He also suggested that the minister would keep an eye upon the public service in case they proposed something extravagant. I think no one who has had experience with the administration of national parks in the country will accept that the minister can act in the stead of the public when he is dealing with senior public servants, in particular, who have been involved at the centre of that department for far too long.
May I call it four o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motion, and private bills.
November 2, 1973



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: that Bill C-44, to amend the Canada Labour Code (severance pay), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since I first introduced this bill there have been a number of changes which have had an effect on the provision of construction pay to employees under the jurisdiction of the federal government. These changes have not necessarily been in the interests of the federal employees who might be affected or in the interests of providing separation pay for employees who are not eligible through their employment for either superannuation or pension.
Mr. Speaker, this measure mainly affects persons who are temporarily employed, and it affects a large category of people under federal jurisdiction who fall into the classification of prevailing wage employees, who may be employed in a government undertaking in a specific area or where the lifetime of the project may be limited. This often happens with carpenters, construction workers and others who are employed for a short period of time and do not become civil servants or permanent employees of an agency under the control of the federal government, but where the work undertaken is in that jurisdiction. This is the only field in which the Parliament of Canada can make objection, and therefore this proposal is limited to that fairly specialized category.
I indicated that there have been changes since this bill was originally introduced. These have made it necessary for myself and other members of parliament to introduce legislation concerning some of the changes that were made the last time we altered the Unemployment Insurance Act. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that we included in that legislation, as wages, any payments that were made subsequent to a lay-off for the purpose of providing a benefit whether the lay-off took place or not. This involved vacation pay, which in my opinion has not in any way been provided for by the unemployment insurance authorities.
When we made vacation pay available to prevailing wage rate and casual workers in industries coming under provincial and federal jurisdiction, we made it clear that vacation pay was for the specific purpose of enabling a person to take a holiday. We did this in such a way that originally, in the province of Ontario at least, a worker could not take his holidays before July 1, the reason being that the best time to take a holiday in Canada is in the summer.
The Unemployment Insurance Act was amended. It said, in so many words, that vacation pay, if accumulated, was wages and was to be included as wages in the calculation of benefits paid under unemployment insurance legislation. That provision, unfortunately, in many instances totally destroyed the original idea behind vacation pay.
Canada Labour Code
Through including severance pay with vacation pay we have done the same thing.
In cases where union contracts provide for severance pay, employment over any extended length of time will build up a sizeable amount of severance pay for workers. When we introduced provisions regarding severance pay, it seems to me we were saying that if a person worked on a job for a short time he ought to be paid something to tide him over until the next job. Take, for example, the construction worker. Let us assume that he has been working on the same project for 30 months. When he quits, he will be paid 30 months' severance pay. That amount should compensate him during the period he is moving from one job to another.
On the other hand, if the workman has worked on the same job for a period of years, it is obvious that his severance pay will be much greater and could serve a totally different purpose. Such a workman could move from one construction job which had been of long duration, to a second job. The point is that the severance pay will make easier his transfer from one job to another.
Unfortunately, the unemployment insurance authorities include severance pay in income. That means, of course, that if a person works for fairly good wages for any period, short or long-let us say it is ten months or two years-and then quits for whatever reason, his severance pay, paid in a lump sum will become income so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned. For instance, let us say the severance pay of a man who has been earning $1,000 per month on a construction site amounts to $2,000, which is paid as a lump sum. In the eyes of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, that amount represents two months' earnings on the job; consequently, he would lose two months' unemployment insurance benefits. In any event, the most he can hope to collect by way of unemployment insurance is slightly more than $100 per week. As well, you must make allowance for income tax. His benefits would amount probably to $700 for the two-month period in question, assuming he could collect benefits. As you can see, even when severance pay is considered as wages, such severance pay enables a workman more easily to make the transition from one job to another and to follow his own line of work.
What I have said applies, of course, to people who leave their jobs and people who are fired. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill would not apply to permanent employees who work, say, for the federal government and are eligible for superannuation by virtue of their employment. Such employees fit into the category of permanent civil servants or permanent employees and are not affected by this bill.
Many of us who have had experience in the labour field believe that severance pay enables the worker to deal with dislocations that arise periodically when he must move from one job to another. Severance pay, which is paid to many prevailing wage rate workers and to workers drawing isolation pay in various parts of Canada, is a major asset, especially to those who work under the aegis of the federal government or its agencies, in that it allows the labour force to be mobile. We believe that is the purpose of severance pay. It is also true that workers are being penalized. The worker who was paid two months' sever-
7498

November 2, 1973
Canada Labour Code
ance pay in the example I used would be penalized during the two months covered by his severance pay, inasmuch as unemployment insurance benefits would not be paid. In my opinion, such workers should also be entitled to these benefits.
While considering this subject I submit we should look at both vacation pay and severance pay, as both payments are made for a specific purpose. Severance pay and vacation pay are accumulated through contributions normally made by the employer and the employee: they form part of the employee's wage structure. Both payments are made to the employee to enable him to enjoy a better way of life in the occupation he is following. Vacation pay is paid for the specific purpose of allowing the worker to take a holiday with his family in the summer.
The unemployment insurance people do not take this into consideration. They think that vacation pay must be paid when a man leaves his job. Consequently, the position of the Unemployment Insurance Commission is that such payment constitutes income and must be calculated and included as income for the purposes of unemployment insurance. That is wrong. The principle being followed is bad. Several of my colleagues and I have tried to remedy this situation in previous private members' bills. We contend that severance pay and vacation pay should not have anything to do with the Unemployment Insurance Act and should not be included in the calculation of income.
The regulations at present do not work to the advantage of short-term employees working under the jurisdiction of the federal government, or for other people for that matter, as they can calculate the point at which a lump sum payment would work to their detriment. The unemployment insurance payment would be larger than the severance pay if it were calculated over a period of one week.
I believe there is a need for mobility of employment in this country. Severance pay is one way of accomplishing this. There are others. Not only is mobility established by severance pay but it compensates one who loses his employment. It is a provision which enables him to make the transition to a second job.
There are many other forms of protection which could be given to workers in this field. This is essential for government employees and others who come under the Labour Code. Severance pay assists in a small way, but something should be done about the problem of housing which often enters into the picture when changing jobs. This applies also to people who are moved to another city. In my area a radar station is being closed. Civil servants, casual employees and armed forces personnel are being asked to move to another area. They have been assured by the Department of National Defence that their jobs will be protected. In the area in which they now live, they pay rent of approximately $125, or can purchase a house for $7,000 or $8,000. Land costs are negligible. Services are almost totally lacking. Housing is a very reasonable proposition. If they move to another area, equivalent housing will cost three, four or possibly ten times as much: for a person now living in Matheson who moves to Toronto it will mean the difference between $7,000 and $70,000 for

equivalent housing. No allowance is made in that kind of transfer, and it is reasonable that we should consider this question.
When the Unemployment Insurance Commission opened a computer centre in Ontario several years ago, employees across Ontario were given the opportunity to move to a new centre in Toronto. There were so few applications to work in the Toronto computer centre that there were not enough employees to operate it. No one was stupid enough to move from a small town in Ontario to the city of Toronto for a job that would possibly pay an additional $1,000 a year. As a result, the computer centre was established in Belleville.
In this technical age there are many other forms of protection that should be given to employees who are transferred. A good example of this is James Bay. During the past several weeks the Quebec news broadcasts and election broadcasts have told the people about the wonderful opportunities in James Bay where 100,000 new jobs will be created. It is true there will be a number of new jobs in that area, but they will not be anywhere near 100,000. I doubt whether there will even be 50,000 new jobs created. However, when that job is complete, because of the high degree of technology we have developed it will not take more than 50 or 60 people to operate the major hydro project there. All the machines in the power plants will be automated; they will be run from a switching plant at Val d'Or, St. Jean or Montreal.
Not long ago a $40 million hydro project was built in my area. Several thousand people worked on that project. It now operates with 15 or 20 employees who come from 20 miles away. A crew goes there once a day, or, once every several days to see that the oiling and other maintenance jobs are being done properly by the machine set up to do that work. If we are to maintain reasonable mobility to move people in the government service and in the construction field under federal jurisdiction, we must provide whatever means are possible to carry out these transfers with ease. Severance pay is not the answer. It does not provide the benefits that must be provided to retain mobility of the labour force.
I suggest that if this bill is passed and severance pay is mandatory in those fields where there is not superannuation or pension-superannuation is paid to employees under our jurisdiction-we will find their opportunity for mobility is increased and dislocation and disruption of their economic pattern of life will be less severe.
t Translation]


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased of course to rise on Bill C-44, as I have always been most interested in labour questions.
Before coming to the heart of the matter, I should like to recall briefly certain parts of the bill. First, Bill C-44 is entitled an Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, and then the words "severance pay" in brackets. I think this is clearer, and I have always wondered why in the House of Commons the pieces of legislation had unintelligible titles. I think that as much as possible the titles used should describe the purpose of each bill.
November 2, 1973

The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), the sponsor of this bill, proposes that the Canada Labour Code contain much more generous provisions for the employee who is laid off unexpectedly.
He proposes specifically the inclusion of a provision following section 57 of the Canada Labour Code which reads as follows:
An employee who is declared redundant by his employer or who ceases to be employed by him as a result of circumstances beyond the employee's control shall thereupon be paid by his employer a sum, hereinafter called serverance pay,. ..
-which is the title of the bill-
.. . calculated under subsection (3).
And the mover of the bill specifically states, and I quote:
(2)	This section does not apply to
(a) an employee who has become entitled to receive a payment or payments under any superannuation or pension plan whether statutory or otherwise;
( b) an employee who dies while employed;
(c) an employee whose period of employment by the employer, and by any person from whom the employer has accepted a transfer of the contract of employment, extends for less than 12 months.
This clause clearly indicates that the hon. member for Timiskaming shows some goodwill; he proves once more that he is a reasonable man when it comes to considering matters as serious as this one.
Mr. Speaker, the calculation of the amount of the compensation proposed in this bill is rather simple, and I think that even an employer with little education could understand it. The hon. member for Timiskaming actually proposes, and I quote:
(3)	Severance pay is the higher of the following amounts:
(a) the average weekly earnings of the employee based upon the average of the last five years or lesser period of employment, multiplied by the number of years of his employment, and in addition where any part of such years falls between the employee's forty-fifth and sixtieth year, a further amount equal to such average earnings multiplied by such years of employment as fall between these ages; or
I made a brief calculation on the basis of average weekly wages of $100, multiplied by five years, which gives a total of $500. For example, if the employee concerned was, as proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming, between 45 and 60, one could multiply $500 by five years, which would make $2,500. That is how I understand the arithmetic formula proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
My attention was drawn to subsection 2 of his addition to the Canada Labour Code which reads as follows, and I quote:
"54. Parts I, II, III, IV and IV(A) of this Act shall come into force on the 1st day of July, 1970."
I think this should have been corrected or the present bill should have been updated. But he simply kept the same subsection which was in the bill he had introduced earlier. Therefore, I take it for granted that he would want his bill to come into force on the 1st day of July 1974, and if I am wrong, I stand to be corrected.
Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to do a bit of research before deciding to speak on this bill and I found in an analysis of 1804 collective agreements of recent date that out of 1,735,000 employees in all industrial sectors in
Canada Labour Code
Canada, only 43 per cent, and what is even more significant, that only 28.4 per cent of those affected by collective agreements were protected by a provision entitling them to severance pay.
Another analysis of 306 major collective agreements involving 447,700 employees in the manufacturing sector shows that 37.9 per cent of the agreements involving 58.7 per cent of employees, included provisions entitling them to severance pay. A 1967 investigation on labour conditions, the last of a series of investigations whose findings are apparently available has shown that only 17 per cent of employees in all industrial sectors of Canada subjected to a sampling were covered by a provision concerning severance pay compared to 35 per cent of employees covered in industries under federal jurisdiction.
Those statistics speak volumes and strengthen the arguments already put forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for the passage or at least a full study of his bill. It seems to me that while some progress may have been made since the publication of the last surveys available to me-I do not think, and this is my intuition- that conditions have materially improved in Canada.
I also had before me a recommendation of the 1963 International Labour Conference which advocated a form of income security for the dismissed worker, but it was suggested at the same time that it might be done through unemployment benefits plus severance pay.
The hon. member for Timiskaming commented on the protection available under the unemployment insurance scheme in Canada. I will not discuss that, but I think there are gaps that should be filled.
As I already said, this is not, of course, the first attempt on the part of the sponsor of this bill to have his bill passed. I think he introduced it for the first time in 1969, and he indicated a while ago that he had to amend it in recent years so as to take into account certain amendments that we introduced, among other things, with respect to the unemployment insurance scheme.
I wanted to do it at the beginning of my remarks, but I should like at this point to commend the hon. member for his initiative and his well-known perseverance, and I want to assure him that he can count on my support for the detailed study of his bill. It seems to me that we could very well refer that bill to the committee.
The hon. member for Timiskaming, as most other hon. members, is concerned about the plight of the Canadian worker because he probably comes from the working class as most of us do. I am not an expert on the Canada Labour Code and I have no legal training nor any union background and at times those questions seem a bit unfamiliar to me. Still I think it is important for all members to expose the abuses that can happen occasionally and are brought to our attention.
No one ever doubted that the employee often is discriminated against by the employer and this especially in areas where there are no unions or where employers openly work against trade unionism.
Mr. Speaker, I should not like anyone to deduce from this last comment that I am a socialist like the hon.
26635-44)

Canada Labour Code
member of Timiskaming. These are questions of basic importance and a member of parliament, should not be accused of being a socialist or of having socialist tendencies or of being a communist because he believes in elementary social justice.
Mr. Speaker, there are also abuses in some areas of this country where workmen do not know the extent of the protection available to them under the Canada Labour Code and the provincial labour codes in spite of the sometimes praiseworthy efforts of governments, civil servants and unions to inform the Canadian workman of his rights.
It is quite interesting, Mr. Speaker,-and I would like to mention this-that during the 1972 federal election that was held on October 30, I defeated a Progressive Conservative opponent who had a peculiar concept of the right to strike, among other things. His views were strongly rejected, and this is why I am here in the House of Commons today. I do not fool myself, Mr. Speaker, I know I was elected to work in the Canadian worker's best interests, and I publicly undertake, once more, to continue to do so.
The Canada Labour Code under its present form includes a few protective measures for the employee who suddenly finds himself unemployed because his employer has decided that he would be replaced by a machine, for instance. The legislation also bestowed on cabinet the authority to prepare technical regulations and to set up procedures to secure proper enforcement of the legislation. I will not deal with that since it was already referred to in the previous debates, when this bill was considered.
I did admit that I am not an expert in this area, even though I am very much interested in this matter. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I wish we could interview government officials and public servants in committee, for instance, during the Christmas recess, on the way the existing legislation is enforced, in order to later determine the impact of the measure advocated by the hon. member for Timiskaming.
I suggested the lengthy Christmas recess which they seem to consider giving us, because the government often finds excuses for not referring these bills to the committee, such as this one for instance: "We are already overwhelmed with work". Then, Mr. Speaker, I take advantage of this opportunity, today, to suggest that standing committees of the House of Commons be allowed to sit during Christmas, Easter and summer recesses, to consider these bills. However I should like to see the devotion of members sitting on these committees taken into account and that a special allowance be granted to them.
I had before me, a few minutes ago, a notebook that I lent to one of my colleagues who intends to speak of this matter-


An hon. Member:: You only have one supporter.


Eymard G. Corbin: On the contrary, I think that there are a lot more.
As I was saying I had before me, a few moments ago, a note book containing an analysis and various studies on the legislative concept of the severance pay recognized in some countries. I have but little time to consider it in detail but I would like the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Timiskaming, to be referred to the com-

mittee so that we might spend more time on the various aspects of the matter and consider at the same time what is the practice in other countries.
It is important that we continue our studies on this matter, that the federal and provincial Departments of Labour continue their analysis of the existing practice in the field of severance pay and that they make the findings of these studies and analysis available to members. We must also listen carefully to the views of labour unions.
If some hon. members are seriously in doubt about the usefulness of this bill, although I do not think that such is the case, I suggest that they look around them anyway the next time they visit their respective ridings.
Let them go and meet the employees of the manufacturing industry or those of the pulp and paper industry. Let them put on the shoes of a 55 or 60 year old workman who is being laid off because it has been decided that a machine should replace him. Let them go out and meet a man who has a number of children at home to support, who has mortgage payments to make, who has often bought his car on credit through a finance company and who has all sorts of other family and financial obligations to meet.
How would we react if we were in this individual's circumstances, Mr. Speaker? This man who is working today may receive tomorrow a two-month advance notice that he will be laid off. He has no choice because technological progress rules everything nowadays. When he reaches age 60, this man is no longer accepted or even acceptable.
If he succeeds in finding another job, it is sometimes at a much lower salary. And this is far from being funny. You might say that governments will provide for the worker and that they do so to a large extent in the case of a worker in the type of situation which we are studying today, but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it is always a humiliating experience for a man who has worked for a living to depend on welfare or on the generosity of governments for financial help or support.
Of course, the government has acted wisely in bringing about this legislation, but whatever might be said, the work ethic still exists in Canada. There still are people who want to earn the money they receive. I believe that as long as this is the case, we should give them all the support that we can, and enact legislation in order to ensure that they receive the best possible social justice.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to give other members a chance to speak. I wish to repeat what I said earlier in my remarks; the hon. member for Timiskaming has my support and I agree that this excellent bill be referred to the committee for further study.


Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reserve that I am taking part in this debate today on Bill C-44. I would very much like the hon. member to know that I am neither for nor against this bill, but some of its provisions are not very clear to me and it is on this basis that I would like to speak.

The bill introduced by the hon. member among other things, provides for the following:
An employee who is declared redundant by his employer .. .
There may be so many cases where an employee may be laid off without being redundant. This is not quite clear. And here again it says:
... or who ceases to be employed by him as a result of circumstances beyond the employee's control. . .
Here again, many cases may be found where employees are laid off for reasons beyond their will. This is quite ambiguous and before supporting this bill, I would have liked the hon. member to give further particulars.
I would have preferred a further narrowing down of the category of employees to whom he would like this bill to apply; it certainly contains good things but then they should have been explained at greater length.
Clause (2) reads as follows and I quote:
This section does not apply to
(a) an employee who has become entitled to receive a payment
or payments under any superannuation or pension plan whether
statutory or otherwise;
Then, if I understand properly, this excludes all employees who are eligible to a pension plan of any kind and particularly in this case to the Quebec Pension Plan and also all employees who are eligible for unemployment benefits; other classes of employees are also excluded and this should also have been explained.
Subsection (b) reads as follows, and I quote: an employee who dies while employed;
I think that this category of employees who die while employed should have been covered by the legislation and here I have in mind the wife of a man who dies while employed by a corporation and suddenly sees herself without any income. She may have several accounts to pay and have no income. If her husband was insured she should receive insurance benefits, I agree, but it takes months and months before insurance companies make that payment.


An hon. Member:: Is this not covered by the pension plan?


Albanie Morin: Yes, these would be excluded. I wonder why the hon. member rejects employees who die. I really think that the spouse had a right to that benefit.
I repeat that I am not opposed to this bill. It has many good things, but there are some vague points that should have been explained further.
Paragraph (c) of the bill reads as follows, and I quote:
(c) an employee whose period of employment by the employer .. . extends for less than 12 months.
Again, a class of people who need help have been excluded. I am referring to seasonal employees, lumberjacks who work in camps for five or six months in winter. Well, they are excluded from any benefits by this bill, yet they are the ones who most need our help.
I still have in mind seasonal workers in tobacco, fruit or vegetable harvesting. If their period of employment extends for less than 12 months, they would also be
Canada Labour Code
excluded. I wonder why the hon. member excluded those categories of people.
I repeat that there are good things in the bill, but why was it not better explained?
In addition, I had the honour as councillor of the town of Sillery, to take part in the drafting of several collective agreements and let me say, Mr. Speaker, that collective agreements often clearly stipulate that the employee shall be entitled to severance pay should he leave his job. Many collective agreements so provide. I also have in mind the small businesses having three or four employees.
The bill specifies that severance pay should be of such or such an amount as provided in section 3 and that it should not exceed $1,000. It seems to me that small businesses would have their hands tied. Some employers can pay a small severance pay but if a certain amount is stipulated by law, it seems that this would be a disservice to small companies. I think that this would lead them to bankruptcy. Here again I blame the hon. member for failing to think of the small employers.
For all these reasons, I think that Bill C-44 contains several good things. However, it includes some very unintelligible provisions that will not facilitate the work of certain employers.
Once again I am not against the bill but I would like the hon. member to improve it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker. I wish to close the debate.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the bill which we are discussing proposes to provide to employees who lose their employment through redundancy a form of income, or severance pay. In looking at the existing programs of this government in the administration of Canada I think it is quite clear that in many cases this kind of severance pay is not required.
It seems to me that what is required for a worker who loses his job through no fault of his own, where his job is made redundant, is not a sum of money no matter how generous but, rather, retraining in order to acquire skills necessary to obtain a new job among those which are evolving, and also the possibility of finding out where new jobs are which call for the level of skill he now has or might acquire; and, thirdly, some method to get him to the location where the job may be if there is none in his own locality.
Whether or not one receives severance pay from a former job seems to me irrelevant to the point when trying to find a place in the work force for the person who has been hit by redundancy. Therefore, I believe we must look, in discussing this bill, at the adequacy of the measures that have been developed by the Department of Manpower and by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in respect of retraining programs which are in operation today, or possibilities for employment.

November 2, 1973
Canada Labour Code
The dilemma we face is trying to move people around from one economic area to another, and how best we can do this. Most important of all are the mechanisms by which we must attempt to find a job for the person who has been declared redundant. I think it is safe to say that one of the important issues in the recent rail strike which this House had to in part settle was that of job security for various classes of railway workers.
An understanding of the kind of process that is taking place, particularly in the secondary manufacturing sector, is associated with the concerns the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) has put forward. He has one way of looking at the problem and potential solutions, and I have another way of looking at the problem and the potential solutions.
Mr. Speaker, in the rural areas of Canada in particular from which the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself come, one of the things that has been happening has been a tremendous amount of capital investment going into traditionally labour-intensive industries. Mining and forestry, for example, no longer employ the same number of people, yet produce tremendous amounts of material, more than they ever used to. They are becoming capitalintensive industries.
When we have people who are made redundant because of that kind of transformation in our economic system, it seems to me we are looking at the provision of additional jobs in areas where those jobs were eliminated. Our aim is not only to provide unemployed person with the means of moving from one region of Canada to another where there might be jobs, but also of ensuring sufficient growth in those isolated areas in order to provide an expanding number of jobs for both the existing work force and the young people in those communities.
In the Atlantic provinces, I note that some progress is being made. This is evident from the latest statistics which have been published. This is an indication that perhaps after five years the policies followed by DREE are taking hold. So as I see the problem, it involves not just the question of legislating for severance pay through the Canada Labour Code, but it involves paying far more attention to the operation of a department like DREE, trying to find out what the mechanism is to bring some kind of economic growth to such isolated regions, and to re-examine the operations of the Department of Manpower and Immigration which in many cases has brought forward programs with which we are not satisfied. I and, I think, other hon. members feel that that department has not been able to find a way to accomplish the goals that we set for it in the legislation establishing the department.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The problem is that in many cases, when we have been able to define the goals that we want the departments to follow, we have not been able to find the mechanisms for achieving these goals. The programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, for example, taken by themselves, seem to be reasonable and sensible approaches to solving these problems. But in point of fact, in their actual operations and in the way in which the
department has been put together, they have not been successful; and certainly they have not been as successful as we all would have wished.
We are now faced with the ridiculous situation such as is indicated by the government's job survey, which indicates that there are a substantial number of jobs that are unfilled. Not only are they unfilled for short periods of time, but they are unfilled for lengthy periods. Manpower has not been able to find out about these jobs, take the lists of the unemployed from the Unemployment Insurance Commission and put the two together. I am not saying that unemployment would disappear if that were done. Obviously, the number of jobs available in any given period is going to decrease and they are not always going to be in the places where the unemployed are. A decrease in jobs is due, to a large extent to changes and to the process of turnover. But the point is that there does not seem to have been a realization on the part of Manpower that this problem exists, and even though there are mechanisms in place they do not seem to have worked out to the satisfaction of either the workers concerned, the department or the minister.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) tells me not to blame public servants. I am not blaming public servants. I am saying that what we have done in the case of the Department of Manpower and Immigration is to develop a mechanism to do certain things. In large part it has not succeeded because we do not understand all we should about the operations of the job market, the economic systems and manpower mobility in terms of workers' preparedness to move from one community to another. We have not been able to cope with what have been called changes in the work ethic. Some jobs which used to be sought after, no longer are and we now have jobs which cannot be filled at any price.
It is not a matter of the public servants or a matter of the government; it is a question of looking at a changing society, trying to find out where that society is moving and attempting to devise policies on the fly that will meet the very real challenges that exist. To say that is not to blame anybody, but to point out that not only does the administration, the cabinet, the government, and the Liberal Party have a responsibility to attempt to make these judgments, but so do my friends opposite.
I realize what a strain it would be for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton if he and his party had to put forward in the House reasoned, sensible policy proposals to meet these problems. One of the reasons they are sitting on the benches opposite and not over here is that they have no policies to offer on this or any other subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, may I ask if it is still definite that on Monday we will be dealing with the foreign investment legislation?


John Mercer Reid: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour set aside for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The House will resume at two o'clock Monday afternoon.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 5, 1973