1973-02-15

Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will have observed that the Canadian flag is being displayed in the chamber today for the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will recall, the terms of the resolution adopted yesterday authorized the Speaker of the House to display the Canadian flag in the House of Commons in such location as he chooses. Acting under the authority of that resolution the present location has been temporarily selected, but it seems to me it would be desirable for the Chair to consider the wishes of hon. members. It may be that a more appropriate position could be found or that as a matter of balance in the chamber consideration might be given to displaying more than one flag or two flags, one on each side, and perhaps not exactly in the place which has been chosen temporarily.
I am suggesting to hon. members that the Chair does not like to take decisions of this importance and run the risk that the decision taken might be against the wishes of hon. members. I have taken upon myself to give effect to the order passed by the House yesterday and, I hope, of course that what I have done will prove satisfactory. However, if it is not I will be very pleased to give effect to the wishes of hon. members.

As I already said, I will be very pleased to give effect to the wishes of hon. members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Motions.
['That is why I suggest that his prayer should be kept in abeyance and considered later this afternoon.']
Mr. Howard:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take the liberty of rising on a point of order at the very commencement of item "motions". My point of order is necessitated as a result of having inquired at the office of the leader of this party to determine whether or not advance notification had been given of an intention on the part of the government to make a statement today in respect of the announcement of the Prime Minister yesterday concerning recognition of the native title to lands of a specific
group of Indian people thereby possibly reducing the number of questions on the subject later. I thought the opportunity should be given to the Prime Minister to rise and tell the House whether he intends to make a statement on motions.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, my only statement at this point would be that the hon. member, as usual, obviously misinterpreted what I said.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out it is most appropriate that on this day when the Canadian flag is displayed in this chamber for the first time we have in the gallery Mrs. Lester B. Pearson. I think this is particularly appropriate and her presence honours this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, as well as to pursuant to your pleasant invitation, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact one of Canada's flags was given recognition and a place in this chamber yesterday, I would hope that the same consent would be given to the following motion:
That this House authorize Mr. Speaker to instal in a location deemed suitable by him, as soon as possible, the Union Jack, as symbol of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth and reverence for the monarchy as our system of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Palliser. This motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Mr. Diefenbaker:: The Liberal members are all against it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 15, 1973
Canada Flag Day CANADA FLAG DAY


PRECEDENCE FOR BILL C-136-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I also desire to seek the agreement of the House under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the desire, I am sure, of all hon. members today, to express themselves about the Canadian flag. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That, at five o'clock this day, notwithstanding the order of business set down for that time, the House proceed to consider Bill C-136, an act respecting Canada flag day standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: If there were any noes, they were very faint and I did not hear them. Unless I hear them loudly and clearly now, I believe I will have to say that there is unanimity to allow the Chair to put the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask leave to put the following motion.
In view of rights of hon. members to control government expenditures, of the very serious doubts entertained by some hon. members concerning partisanship aspects of the Local Initiatives Program as well as false criteria applied for acceptance or rejection of projects, and in view of the urgent character of the matter, since some projects have not yet been accepted, I solicit unanimous consent of the House to move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe):
That an investigation be ordered and carried out as early as possible, under control of the House of Commons, in order to check on the very serious doubts hon. members of this House entertain as to the integrity of Local Initiatives Program as concerns criteria for acceptance or rejection of projects.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is proposing that the House deal with this motion under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The motion therefore cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this morning Dr. Rene Anillo, the Cuban First Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is in the diplomatic gallery, and I signed an agreement on hijacking of aircraft and vessels and other offences. I am now tabling this agreement.
As affirmed in this agreement the governments of the Republic of Cuba and Canada share a common commitment to eliminate the menace to lives posed by resort to hijacking of aircraft and vessels. This agreement is an impressive example of what two countries enjoying friendly relations can do in the common good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, our eloquent and esteemed spokesman on external affairs, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), is unable to be here today because of disruption of air schedules from Montreal.


An hon. Member:: Is he hijacked?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: No, I do not believe there has been any hijacking. I am very happy to hear the announcement by the minister in reference to the longstanding and vexatious problem of hijacking. I believe, Sir, that any move that makes it easier for the people of different countries to traverse paths of commerce and social exchange together should be welcomed.
I have always been very proud of the fact that some years ago the government of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), against a great deal of pressure from certain countries in the world, decided that this country, regardless of its views of the ideological construction of the government of Cuba, would retain diplomatic and commercial relations with that country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I believe that decision was right and proper, as indeed were most decisions taken by that right hon. gentleman's government in those difficult years. I am happy that upon a basis of continuing consultation we have moved forward to a situation today which I salute and commend.
I am also happy to say that I had the honour of being in the Republic of Cuba for a couple of weeks before Christmas, where I was treated with every courtesy and every kindness. I bear for the people of that fine country, and especially for their distinguished ambassador in this country, the highest regard.
I look forward to the day when, upon the basis of the understanding reached today, we shall have direct air communication between Canada and Cuba, and I suggest that that carrier be Eastern Pacific Airways-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 15, 1973

Atlantic Region Economic Expansion


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I mean, of course, Eastern Provincial To my mind, that agreement between those two govern-Airways. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, in referring to	ments will encourage negotiations with other governcommon carriers I am getting carried away. It is an East- ments. ern Provincial Airways service from Halifax to Havana that I foresee. This kind of contact can only strengthen relations between our two countries irrespective of forms of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, this is an important matter and it is this kind of organizing in the development of such agreements that a country like Canada and this assembly of serious parliamentarians here gathered should welcome. I do welcome this agreement and I commend the minister for the success attending his efforts. I expect good things to follow in the development of commercial and economic ties between our two countries.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have been instructed by my colleagues not to attempt to emulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). I want to say, however, that I too am very happy with the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp).
There are two aspects that I welcome particularly. First, the agreement represents international action to deal with the problem of hijacking which has caused grave concern and is typical of the violence of our age. It is high time that governments dealt with the problem and I am very happy that the governments of Canada, Cuba and the United States have agreed to at least start to deal with it. The second aspect that pleases me is that this is the first treaty Canada has had with the Republic of Cuba since the revolution. I believe it is a symbol of the real opportunities that exist for the development of friendly and mutually beneficial relations with the Republic of Cuba.
I travelled to Cuba recently with the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). We were received with great hospitality and were also shown admirable opportunities for the mutually beneficial expansion of trade and relations with that country. I think this present treaty will be a milestone on the road to closer collaboration. For that reason I warmly welcome it.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the news that an agreement has been signed between the Canadian government and that of Cuba with regard to air and sea hijackings.
We had reached the point where we dreaded to see planes leave, fearing they might not reach their destination. Something had to be done to prevent acts of violence. Cuba was probably one of the busiest countries in that regard as it often welcomed the unwanted as a result of planes having been hijacked.
I feel the minister deserves our congratulations for having concluded that agreement and thereby given air travellers more security in their travels.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. I. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. As the acute and urgent need for a massive investment in infrastructure programs in Atlantic Canada has been recently demonstrated by the inability of the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, to hold the Volkswagen contract, the inability of Halifax to expand industrially because of an inadequate water supply system, and the failure to harness the tides of Fundy for power development, I would move, seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That the question of massive infrastructure programs be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion for detailed study and recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Sunbury has proposed for the consideration of the House a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 requiring unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard, as did the Chair, that there is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put at this time.


MANPOWER
[Stage Direction]
Mr. jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent necessity, specifically undue political influences concerning the Local Initiatives Program, so that our fellow citizens be not victims of injustice in the criteria for the acceptance or rejection of their projects.
Consequently, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe):
That the House request the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the politicized Local Initiatives Program, to make a statement on that matter and that he reassure the House about the honest administration of the said program, and
[Stage Direction]
February 15, 1973
Main Estimates, 1973-74
that he define the role of the Minister of Transport in the publication for the province of Quebec of the accepted projects.
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF LOCAL INITIATIVES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of local initiatives projects for promoters and regions concerned and in view of the political criteria which led the authorities of the program to accept or reject the said projects, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That the entire question of local initiatives projects, its administration, its acceptance or refusal process, be referred to the appropriate standing committee and that this parliamentary committee consider not less restrictively the political influences exerted at the constituency level, the influence of the Quebec liberal caucus in that connection and the reasons on which were based the rejection of some worthwhile projects urgently requested by the area population.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse will recognize, as I do, that a substantially similar motion has just been introduced. I doubt very much whether it would be possible in the course of the same sitting to ask the consent of the House two or three times on a motion which is essentially the same. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member for Bellechasse. I will ask for unanimous consent, but I feel that this is a clear abuse of the Standing Orders and I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse will agree with me.
In any event, I am asking the House whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the question cannot be put.


MAIN ESTIMATES. 1973-74 ANNOUNCEMENT OF DATE OF TABLING
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of the House in the date, it is the intention of the government to table the main estimates for 1973-74 next Tuesday.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: It would be better if they could be tabled tomorrow.


Mr. Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order for the removal of a public bill. As you know, Mr. Speaker, for the past few years there has been a bill standing in my name to place our national flag in the chamber. I am overjoyed that we are able to have our beloved flag here from now on. Therefore I request unanimous consent to have my bill, C-50, removed from the order paper as it is now redundant.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


PROPOSED DISPLAY OF PROVINCIAL AND TERRITORIAL FLAGS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact the Canadian flag is now displayed in this chamber it would seem appropriate, in order to show the unity and greatness of this country, to display the flags of the provinces and the territories as well at a time deemed to be appropriate by Your Honour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher):
That on an appropriate day flags of the provinces and territories of Canada be displayed in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca proposes for the consideration of the House a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. It requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an extremely important subject, following the new regulations of the Unemployment Insur-

ance Commission as proposed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and which are unfair to the lumber industry workers who are subject to cutbacks three weeks after having applied.
Considering that 90 per cent of lumberjacks are disqualified and penalized and that the officials of the Unemployment Insurance Commission are applying the new legislation before it is passed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration take measures to correct these inequities.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion moved by the hon. member requires, once again, the unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, apparently at least, and this motion cannot be put to the House under Standing Order 43.


RURAL AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEES BILL
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
February 9-Mr. Howard-Bill intituled: "An Act to provide for the establishment of Rural Airport Development Advisory Committees".
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some surgery has taken place. However, I have not yet seen the revised bill and I wonder whether it could stand until I do.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-144, to amend the Regional Development Incentives Act (report on administration).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the present situation which does not oblige the government to keep the public informed by publishing monthly reports on the Department of Regional Economic Expansion when parliament is not in session, as was the case for so many months last year. This bill will require the government to keep the public advised on a monthly basis, to give an accounting, as it were, of DREE in the same way that monthly reports are made available with
Aboriginal Rights
regard to the consumer price index and unemployment statistics.


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

Frank Howard: Mr-. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 26 to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-I do not want to impinge upon his eggshell sensitivity but I think this is accurate-that his government is prepared to negotiate the matter of aboriginal and/or land claims with a specific group of Indian people, and the effect this will have upon all Indian and Eskimo people in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Due notice of the hon. member's intention to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 26 has been received by the Chair. As was stated on February 8 last, the Chair recognizes the special circumstances relating to the question of aboriginal rights. Obviously this is a problem which is of continuing concern to hon. members. This was further shown yesterday, not only during the question period but also by the fact that a motion in the same area was proposed by the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald).
Hon. members are quite familiar with the terms of Standing Order 26 and with the fact that there are a number of factors to be considered by the Chair in determining whether the government business called for the day should be set aside to discuss a matter by virtue of Standing Order 26. I would think that both the Standing Order and the precedents would require that the Chair take into account the fact that by unanimous decision of the House the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been referred to the standing committee for the very purpose of considering aboriginal rights. I hasten to say at the same time that this in itself is not sufficient to reach the decision that a debate should not take place under Standing Order 26.
Another relevant aspect is the opportunity for debate in the near future. I have been of the opinion that, in view of the deep concern of all members about this important and urgent matter of national interest, there should be provided an opportunity for debate either by agreement between members or by a motion under Standing Order 43, under the terms of Standing Order 58, or under the provisions of Standing Order 26.
As the Chair suggested on February 8 when a similar motion was put forward by the hon. member for Athabasca and the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands, the door should not be closed on the possibility of an emer-

February 15, 1973
Northern Oil Pipeline Route
gency debate. The situation has not changed and I am still hopeful that a debate in one form or another can take place very soon. Perhaps the Chair might be allowed to leave the door open for the possible consideration later of a similar motion under Standing Order 26. For the moment, however, and particularly in view of the decision which was given yesterday, I would hesitate very much to agree that a debate take place at this time under the terms of Standing Order 26.


UNITED STATES PREFERENCE FOR ALASKA RATHER THAN MACKENZIE VALLEY OIL PIPELINE ROUTE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 26 to move a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement made by the President of the United States today that he prefers the Alaska route to the Canadian route for an oil pipeline from Prudhoe Bay, and because of a statement made yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that the Canadian government does not plan any further representations to the American government on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The notice required by the Standing Order was given to the Chair by the hon. member for Vancouver South just a brief moment before the opening of the House at two o'clock. The notice given was proper and in order as provided by the Standing Order, in view of the special circumstances alluded to by the hon. member for Vancouver South. However, the fact that notice was given just before the opening of this afternoon's session makes it very difficult for the Chair to reach a decision and make a ruling on whether a debate should be had on this very important and urgent matter. At this time I wish to take advantage of the provision of the Standing Order to delay the decision on the motion and later this afternoon give a ruling on the hon. member's proposed motion.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If Your Honour finds some difficulty with regard to the notice, I wonder whether you would consider asking for the unanimous consent of the House to waive the usual notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I have just said that the hon. member was within the ambit of the rules. There is no question at all about that. The rule is clear. If the motion relates to a matter which comes up at the last moment it is sufficient for notice to be given just before the opening of the House. The hon. member for Vancouver South will admit, I am sure, that he was pretty close to the line, somewhere between the first prayer and the second prayer I believe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That is why I suggest that his prayer should be kept in abeyance and considered later this afternoon.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion but in his absence-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I apologize for interrupting the hon. minister but I would like to ask him a question or two if I may. In light of the fact that unemployment in the entire Atlantic region today has risen by 20 per cent since DREE was first instituted, is the minister preparing an over-all review of the economic policies of his department bearing in mind that other economic indices are also worsening? If so, will he be making it public in the near future?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The short answer is yes, Mr. Speaker. I think that during the discussion that will take place when my estimates are before the committee we shall be in a better position to reveal our proposals in detail. However, I can say to the House that the record in terms of our experience of industrial incentives is such as to indicate a necessity to go out and try to induce entrepreneurs to come into the area instead of waiting and simply responding to their initiatives.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I should now like to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. In light of the apparent continuing isolation of regional development priorities from the over-all economic policy of the Department of Finance, has the government formulated employment and capital targets for the Atlantic region that will discipline and co-ordinate the over-all economic policies of the government? When will such targets be made available to the public who are very concerned, particularly in the whole Atlantic region where we are not in very good shape economically?


An hon. Member:: That is the repercussion of heavy water.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the government discusses budgetary matters and the subject of regional economic expansion it does take those factors into account.
*


DEPARTMENTAL PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER POTENTIAL
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of reports that DREE may be involved in the James Bay development plan and the Upper Yukon River water diversion scheme, will the minister indicate what further action, if any, is contemplated by his department for the development of power potential in the Bay of Fundy? Is there liaison between his department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in this regard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The answer to the last part of the question is yes. As to the other two projects the hon. member mentioned, to my knowledge there has been no direct approach by either the provincial government of Quebec or by the governing council of the Yukon with regard to DREE representation. Indeed, at the moment, DREE is specifically excluded from participation in territories' activities and the hon. member directly concerned has made representations to me to see that they are included.


METHOD OF ATTRACTING INDUSTRIES TO CERTAIN AREAS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising from the minister's indication that his department intends to make arrangements to go out and attract industries into the relatively underdeveloped areas of Canada. Is it proposed that the department shall do the selling job, does the hon. gentleman propose to set up some new federal agency, or does he propose to set up some kind of joint federal-provincial agency?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: think it is probable that it will be a combination of all three.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We would hope, primarily, that it would be on the basis of joint federal-provincial co-operation and through agencies such as the Magie project which takes in Halifax-Dartmouth and which is designed to have this kind of initiating capability.


SUGGESTED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ACCORDING TO REGIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT-POSSIBLE OBTAINING OF SHARES BY GOVERNMENT FOR GRANTS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Bearing in mind the high unemployment levels already referred to in the Atlantic provinces, would the minister assure the House that, unlike the way in which funds were allocated by the former minister, DREE funds will in future be allocated to the various regions of Canada according to the percentage of unemployment existing in those regions.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it were possible to devise a mathematical formula of that kind I would be more than pleased to be
Oral Questions
able to work it out, but I think one would have to add another part to the equation, that is, to put in the same degree entrepreneurship in all the regions or, to put it in another way, the number of applicants from the regions would be proportionate as well and that is not always the case. But the principle is good.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the findings of the Canadian scholar, Dr. Springate, last spring that a very high percentage of the grants given to large corporations constituted a windfall profit for them, would the minister inform the House whether he will be changing the policy in relation to DREE grants and making grants conditional upon shares being owned by the government or a form of equity being acquired by the government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I hope I am permitted the same kind of preamble as the hon. member used to say that I do not agree entirely, or even largely, with the findings of Dr. Springate. However, as to the substantive part of the question, the project I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, the Halifax-Dartmouth complex, for instance, envisages precisely the kind of thing to which the hon. member has referred, that is, the taking of equity when this appears to be the most desirable and effective means of participating.


ENCOURAGEMENT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF ENTERPRISES IN CAPE BRETON
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: In the minister's reply to my hon. friend from Central Nova he referred to the question of inducing entrepreneurs to come into the area. Is he not aware that an agency already exists on Cape Breton Island charged, among other things, with inducing people to come into the area and create industry? Is he also aware that this work has stopped since the new president, Mr. Kent, took over? Would he be good enough to contact the new president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation and try to induce him to encourage entrepreneurs to come into the area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I, of course, am doing this constantly but I do not think it is necessary in this case. I think part of the problem in the area referred to, and in several other areas, lies in identifying what might be described as good economic opportunities. In other words, you have to determine what it is you have to sell before you can find an appropriate buyer. It is putting these two factors together that I am working on.


ATLANTIC REGION-MEETINGS WITH PREMIERS TO DEVISE NEW STRATEGY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact that existing DREE programs have had little or no effect with regard to reducing unemployment in the Atlantic region is the minister now prepared to agree to meet with the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces to devise a new strategy of development and a program to change the present unsuccessful industrial structure with a view to creating jobs in the region?

February 15, 1973
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As to the argumentative aspect of the question, I may say I have heard at least three premiers from the Atlantic provinces concede there have been substantial benefits from DREE. But setting this aside, I shall be meeting with Premier Hatfield next week; my anticipation is that I shall be having a fourth meeting with Premier Moores this weekend and be seeing the other two within the next two weeks to do exactly what the hon. member has suggested.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East, try to complete the first round of questioning, and then return to this subject later.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister agree to stepping up the plan of the government to meet with the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces on the subject of freight rates and their impact on development and the cost of living in the region, and would he use this occasion to discuss a new strategy for the area as has been recommended by the Atlantic Development Council and the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council?
Mr. jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the matter of freight rates in isolation, and I concede they cannot be considered in isolation, I believe that my colleague the Minister of Transport has initiated such talks. I have also been discussing transportation as it relates to regional economic expansion. The ultimate conclusions that will be drawn I think will involve both incentives and some form of change in transportation subsidies and the like, so the two do go together, yes.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I do so because we invariably get straight answers from him. As a result of the statements, whatever they were, that he and the Prime Minister made yesterday, I should like to ask whether the minister would be prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which is currently examining the annual report, and lay out there in great detail the decision and the position of the government in respect of negotiating the question of land claims, aboriginal claims, native rights claims and the like?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very happy to appear before my committee whenever I am called to be there.
(Mr. McGrath.]


Frank Howard: That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to explain to the committee the position of the government in respect of negotiating the claims by the Nishga tribal council?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, every member of the House knows that I am like an open book when I am before the committee.


Mr. Hees:: Sometimes too open, Jean.


Frank Howard: It may well be that he is like an open book, Mr. Speaker, but probably one filled with blank pages. I apologize now for prefacing my original question by saying we usually get straight answers from the minister. I should have known better. He has been influenced too much by the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: That will teach you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the hon. member has a supplementary question, but if he has he might ask it now.


Frank Howard: Yes, I have, Mr. Speaker. In view of all the generosity displayed by the minister, I wonder whether he would be prepared to outline the government's position in respect of negotiating with the various Indian and Eskimo people their aboriginal rights and land claims specifically from the point of view of guaranteeing that whatever position the government has taken regarding the Indians of the Yukon will not be the basis of a settlement to be crammed down the throats of the rest of these people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question asked by the hon. member at the committee.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-ESTABLISHMENT OF NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Since the committee passed a unanimous resolution this morning that will be reported to the House calling for the setting up of a negotiating committee as recommended by the brief of the Yukon Native Brotherhood presented yesterday, which the Prime Minister endorsed in principle, can he give us any idea when it is his intention to set up that committee since the standing committee recommended this be done before March 31?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any specific date today but I will move as quickly as possible.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

Has the Gendron Commission on the situation of the French language in Quebec consulted with the federal government during its term or at least before tabling its final report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, may I ask whether the government intends to intervene if the recommendations of this report are found contrary to the constitution or at least contrary to the Official Languages Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a rather hypothetical question, but I think the answer is self-evident. If the recommendations are contrary to the constitution, they will not be applicable.


QUEBEC-POSSIBILITY THAT GENDRON COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RUN COUNTER TO LAW- GOVERNMENT POSITION-STATEMENT FROM PRIME MINISTER REQUESTED
Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary. Will the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he is prepared to make a statement on the recommendations of the Gendron Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to wait first, like all other members, for the publication of the report.


Mr. lohn Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the right hon. Prime Minister, if I may.
Could he enlighten us on his interpretation of the word "national" as used by the Gendron Commission in the expression "a national language"?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question can be put as formulated. The hon. member is asking the right hon. Prime Minister to give an opinion on the meaning of a word.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Prime Minister. In light of the national crisis now affecting housing units because of cost, shortage and the economy of the country, what do the government and the Prime Minister intend to do to assist in the negotiations for a settlement of the lengthy strike of elevator construction workers which is affecting the economy of Canada in all its facets? This strike has reached the level of a crisis in respect of shortages in housing and the general health and well-being of the Canadian people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would expect the hon. member would want me to defer to the Minister of Labour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: By all means.


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apparently he does not want me to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: If the Prime Minister does not want to answer this question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -I will put it to the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: He won't or cannot answer it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In light of the Prime Minister's refusal to answer, and in light of the fact that the strike has been going on for months without any intervention on the part of the federal government, will he take leadership and intervene?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Explain.


George Harris Hees: There is nothing personal, John.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Will the minister consult with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State responsible for housing in an endeavour to settle this strike which is affecting the economy of the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Calgary North appreciates that a question asked of the Minister of Finance in those terms is not in order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put it to the Minister of Labour?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It is about time.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


An hon. Member:: No answer; non-government.


Erik Nielsen: Take this to your leader.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact the federal government has done nothing to intervene in respect of this strike which is costing $250,000 a day in taxpayers' money, will the Minister of Labour now meet with the parties involved or with the various premiers of the provinces to bring to an end this strike which is not only affecting the economy but the health and welfare of the people of Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, it is not correct to say that we have done nothing. The fact is that we as the federal government have absolutely no jurisdiction to intervene in this particular strike.


An hon. Member:: Tell us another one.


John Carr Munro: It is exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction. In spite of that fact, I did contact the Ontario government to indicate the serious implica-

February 15, 1973
Oral Questions
tions this prolonged strike was having, and to indicate our interest. Of course, this would automatically leave the impression that if that government felt we could be of any help, in spite of the fact the matter is within its jurisdiction, it could contact us, but it has not done so.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the Minister of Labour has shunned his responsibility in this case and tried to pass this off as a constitutional question, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he would investigate and take into account the big drain on the unemployment insurance fund of Canada as a result of thousands of construction workers put out of work because this government will not take action?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No leadership.


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


ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE-REASON FOR ONTARIO GOVERNMENT NOT INTERVENING
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he has ascertained the reason the Prime Minister and government of the province of Ontario have refused to intervene in this dispute although the premier of another province has done so?


John Carr Munro: No, I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, I cannot go into the motivations one way or another of the politicians in the Ontario provincial government. The fact is that I do know that the Ontario Department of Labour has had its personnel available in their mediation role but despite their efforts the talks have broken down. From what I read I take it there is pressure on that government to intervene and take constructive action, but I have had no further report.


ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTORS' STRIKE-SUGGESTED FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN INDUSTRIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact Nova Scotia has called for an industrial inquiry commission in order to look into this five month old strike and in light of the concern of the minister, would the minister communicate with the parties involved to see if this government can be either a party to the commission or at least be there as an observer. I hope the minister can take this under advisement.


John Carr Munro: I think it is obvious that even the parties to this dispute are prepared to acknowledge that the federal government has no jurisdiction and that the provinces involved, particularly Ontario, are prepared to accept their exclusive jurisdiction and not call upon the federal government to help. There is absolutely no leverage for the federal govern-

ment to make a constructive contribution in this matter at all.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact the minister has had some conversations with at least the authorities of the province of Ontario and therefore did set the tone, does the minister not now think this is the proper time for him to become involved once again in order to see whether his department can be of assistance in this matter?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in view of the obvious serious implications here, of course we would try to render whatever assistance we could. If the hon. member and other hon. members opposite view this in the light they have expressed now, they are in a better position than I to approach their political counterparts in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will have to seek the cooperation of hon. members very soon. We are still on the second or third question. There are a number of members seeking to ask questions. We have had quite a few supple-mentaries on two or three questions. At this point I will recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. Since this comes within the jurisdiction of his department, I should like to ask the minister whether he will take some action concerning the elevators within this building as well as other government buildings in Ottawa, and at least see that they are repaired?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the observations of the Minister of Labour still apply. If hon. members on the other side have any influence with their provincial counterparts, they should ask them to move.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the answer given to me by the minister is quite out of line with the facts. There is no doubt about the fact that the Minister of Public Works is responsible for government buildings in this area, and it is time he got off his butt and did something about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, there are members seeking to ask supplementaries on this question. I hope hon. members will not feel hurt if I try to go on to the next subject. I shall recognize the hon. member for Prince Albert who probably has a non-controversial question to ask.


SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF RAILWAY FROM NORTH WITH TERMINUS IN SASKATCHEWAN TO TRANSPORT OIL AND GAS-REQUEST FOR ESTIMATE OF COST
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my questions are always modest and only attempt to obtain information. In view of the fact that one of the
February 15, 1973

most important economic matters facing our country today is the question of the transport of oil, gas and so on from the Yukon and Alaska I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether there is a task force now operating to the end that problems of environmental difficulty and so on will not come into being should the suggestion be accepted to build a railway from the north having its initial terminus in Saskatchewan which, with objectivity and great personal restraint, I suggest should be in Prince Albert?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman knows, so far as oil and gas are concerned they come under the authority of my colleagues the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. So far as other highways or railways in the north are concerned, we are negotiating with the British Columbia and Alberta governments.
I met with Mr. Peacock, the minister of industry and commerce, to see how we could develop highways to the north, including the Mackenzie highway, and how we can relate the British Columbia Railway to the CNR so that we can move farther into the north. Of course, this is all related to the resources that can be exploited, and we will have to wait a little longer to see what is discovered by the companies that exist now and by the department of energy.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister very much for his full answer. He mentioned Alberta and British Columbia. I should like to ask him whether or not the most appropriate route would not be through Saskatchewan, and what is the estimate today of the cost of such a railway through British Columbia and Alberta with the terminus I mentioned in Saskatchewan. Have any such estimates been made?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I have met with the minister of industry and commerce from Alberta and with the premier of British Columbia. I have not yet met with the premier of Saskatchewan. I intend to do so. I think we will have to study the whole question of transportation in the north in consultation with the provinces. Whenever those studies are complete I will be happy to make a report to the hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Has any estimate of the cost been made by these several task forces which have been set up apparently to look into this matter?


Jean Marchand: Yes. Some have been estimated and others have not been estimated yet.


PROPOSED ALASKA OIL PIPELINE-REPRESENTATIONS TO THE UNITED STATES
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the minister say he was in consultation with members of the governments of British Columbia and Alberta. I was most disappointed not to hear him say that he was in consultation with the elected representatives of the people of the north concerning these matters. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and
Oral Questions
Resources. In view of the report that President Nixon has indicated that legislation will be introduced in the United States which will have the effect of voiding the decision of the court in respect of the construction of the Alyeska line, and in view of the fact that President Nixon apparently stated his preference for the sea route, has the minister himself or has the Secretary of State for External Affairs renewed the protest Canada sent to the United States some time ago?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to the hon. member for Calgary North yesterday, we made representations some 11 months ago to the United States administration leading to the construction of an oil pipeline down the Mackenzie corridor rather than through the Alyeska route. The United States administration decided then, and apparently has renewed the decision, to proceed by way of the Alyeska route, although I think it is fair to point out that this question will have to go back to the court of first instance. Mr. Justice Hart will now have to evaluate the possibility of a Canadian route, so it may be some years before there is a full judgment on this question. I would expect that the studies done in Canada will be very germane to that judgment.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. This question does come under federal jurisdiction. In view of the threat of a strike to take effect at midnight tonight by the B.C. Coast Pilots Association, and in view of the representations telegraphed to him by the premier of Saskatchewan, could the minister tell us what action he has taken to have negotiations resumed immediately'


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the parties are meeting right now. However, I should emphasize that this is a very peculiar situation because both the pilots' organization and the employers' organization are companies registered under British Columbia laws. They are not unions as defined in the Canada Labour Code.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In view of the fact the B.C. Pacific Pilotage Authority reports to the Minister of Transport and that most of the proposals of the British Columbia Coast Pilots Association call for improvements in the working conditions, safety procedures and safety equipment, will the minister instruct the B.C. Pacific Pilotage Authority to resume negotiations? Will he also assure the authority that there will be adequate funds to meet the proposals of the pilots regarding safety procedures and working conditions?


Jean Marchand: I do not intend to instruct the pilotage authority, and I wonder whether I have this authority under the law. Negotiations are proceeding
25789-H

February 15, 1973
Oral Questions
right now and I certainly do not wish to intervene. I think that everyone should be very careful in this situation because the pilots on the west coast, as well as other pilots, are not wage earners making $2,000 or $3,000 a year but have an average salary of probably $25,000 or $30,000 a year. This does not mean they have no rights. They have some rights, and they are negotiating. I think it would be preferable if the hon. gentleman would wait until the negotiations are completed.


RAILWAY ACCIDENT AT SAINT-GERMAIN-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION BY MINISTER
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport concerning an unfortunate accident which took place on December 9. It has to do with the railroad accident at Saint-Germain in the riding of Drummond where two persons were killed, implicating nine dependents. Early in December, the coroner's inquest had not been held yet. Does the minister intend to intervene in that sad matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will get more information because I do not know enough about it to give a satisfactory answer.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since the January figures for unemployment indicate that we are now into the fifth year in a row in which the unemployment crisis is most acute among Canadians under the age of 24, and since the Prime Minister indicated last year, as recorded at page 3081 of Hansard, that he would review the progress of the interdepartmental committee which was established to look at youth employment policies, I wonder whether the Prime Minister has activated that committee again or created a new one? In any event, when will he be in a position to announce to the House and to the country a comprehensive new program to find jobs for the 300,000 young Canadians who are now out of work?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as regards the latter part of the question, we expect that the budget will present Canadians with an economic statement which will help all sections of the economy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister's answer indicates that there has been no change in the government's lack of policy in this respect, I wonder whether I might ask the Secretary of State a supplementary question. Has he received a copy of the report of that interdepartmental committee, and will he

either table it in the House or at least indicate when the government intends to introduce new programs to reduce the high rate of unemployment among young people which has been a feature of Canadian life ever since this government was elected?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not in order.


AIRPORTS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the great concern in Vancouver about the proposed expansion of the airport, a concern that arises from the fact a number of major questions have not been answered relating to noise and the effect on land values. I should like to ask the minister again whether he is prepared to provide some kind of a moratorium there so that the people concerned can get answers to the questions that are concerning them so seriously.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered the question already. A hearing is now taking place under the Expropriation Act. Nothing will be done before the completion of this hearing, the date of which I believe is March 4. After the public meeting took place a public information kit was distributed very widely in Vancouver to all those who are interested in the problem. It contains all the answers, and I will be happy to send a copy of it to the hon. gentleman.


Mr. Reynolds:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, the minister stated yesterday that the questions were answered. He has a telegram or the Prime Minister has a telegram from the greater Vancouver regional board which states that 15 major questions have not yet been answered. My point of order is that either the Minister of Transport is misinforming the House or he does not know what his own department is doing in Vancouver.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Are negotiations going on at present between the federal government and the Manitoba government to transfer responsibility for the Deer Lodge Veterans Hospital to the province?
February 15, 1973


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


A. Daniel McKenzie: What measures are being taken to ensure that medical standards and the job security of hospital staff will be maintained by the province?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this precaution is taken. Before the hospital is transferred to the other party we will certainly have this assurance.


MANPOWER
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it is very important to the people in my riding. Would the minister indicate whether or not he has considered installing a toll free telephone service to the Canada Manpower Centres, especially in such areas as the Hastings riding where some employers are 100 miles away from the Canada Manpower Centre?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will give the hon. member's representation due consideration.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State when he intends to meet with the Canadian Teachers Federation to discuss that body's brief opposing the granting of rights to the CBC film and videotape library to a private distribution company?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I have an invitation to attend the meeting but I cannot remember that we agreed to a date. I will report to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be allowed a supplementary question and then I will recognize the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand.


Mark Willson Rose: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since there have been a great number of objections from school districts and teachers organizations to granting to a private distribution company the right to rent films and tapes that were paid for out of public funds, has the minister given any consideration to setting up a Crown distribution corporation or, alternatively, having the films distributed through provincial audio-visual services.


James Hugh Faulkner: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.
25789-11)
Oral Questions FLOODS


DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIGH WATER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION
Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the substance of my question relates to several departments of the government, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the abnormally high water levels on the Great Lakes have caused flooding and erosion of catastrophic proportions resulting in the loss of farmland, dwellings and harbour installations, what steps is the government prepared to take to compensate financially those individuals and municipalities who have suffered such a grievous loss?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, without getting into the question of compensation, because that is a matter to be discussed and established, I would say that the government is making a real effort to co-ordinate the actions of the various departments involved. A minister has been appointed in the person of the Minister of the Environment to co-ordinate these policies and to respond.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are only two or three minutes left before the end of the question period. We could use them for supplementary questions but my thought is that perhaps we should allow a few hon. members on the back benches to ask questions.


Mr. Nesbitt:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this flooding is a matter of great urgency to hon. members and also to the province of Ontario. I know that a number of hon. members have supplementaries to ask, and I hope Your Honour will see some of the other hon. members who are involved in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair could be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


LOW FINAL PAYMENTS-POSSIBLE LOSS TO FARMERS RESULTING FROM WHEAT BOARD'S DEALINGS IN STERLING
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is not a supplementary question. In view of the surprisingly low final payment announced yesterday on wheat and oats, with no payment on barley, can the minister tell the House if western farmers have had to absorb the loss resulting from the Canadian Wheat Board's unhedged and unprotected sterling balance when Great Britain devalued her currency during that pool year? Knowledgeable people in the trade have estimated that this has cost the farmers many millions of dollars.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, let me say fairly simply but directly that the suggestion is

February 15, 1973
Oral Questions
quite wrong. For rather obvious reasons, I do not want to get into the business of commenting on the day-to-day operations of the Canadian Wheat Board in connection with its currency holdings, but I can assure hon. members that the Canadian Wheat Board uses extremely good advice, does use hedging operations, and in fact came out very well indeed in the case of these particular currency holdings.


PROSECUTIONS UNDER WHEAT BOARD ACT-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Due to the fact that a number of farmers in central Alberta are being charged in court under the Canadian Wheat Board Act, can the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, who is also the minister in charge of justice, assure this House that he will undertake a review of the act to ensure that it is formulated in such a manner as to be in the best interests of the grain producers?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated previously in the House, I have had discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board about the problem of charges in certain cases such as the ones to which the hon. member refers, and about the Wheat Board's requirement to take action in certain circumstances to protect its position. I will, therefore, take very seriously the hon. member's suggestion that we consider, at an early opportunity, whether additional provisions should be put into the Wheat Board Act to deal with special positions like that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt for a question, and then perhaps we might have two or three supplementaries on the question which was of interest to the hon. member for Oxford.


HOUSING
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Keeping in mind last year's 250,000 housing starts and the prediction by CMHC that there will be several thousand more housing starts across Canada this year than last year, and also considering the imminently grave shortage of 10,000 to 25,000 skilled workers in the housing and building trades next summer, what steps is the minister taking to avoid such a shortage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply briefly, but normally this information should be given by way of a statement on motions.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department and I have met with the executive members of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada for the purpose of devising measures to combat this situation, although there is at present quite a discrepancy between the estimated shortage of skilled workers reported by the hon. member and, as a matter of fact, reported by the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada, and our own records. We are attempting to reconcile this now and are developing programs to alleviate the situation.


John R. Rodriguez: Can the minister tell the House whether there were any discussions in terms of opening immigration avenues to solve this problem?


Robert Knight Andras: There has been an allusion to the question of immigration. I am not sure that is a bad solution, but we certainly have to examine the situation a great deal more deeply before I give a positive response in terms of opening up immigration for that purpose.


REQUEST FOR ACTION TO PREVENT FURTHER DAMAGE BY HIGH LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the question posed earlier by the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand. While all of us appreciate that the government is giving consideration to compensation and other matters because of the very high lake levels in southern Ontario, can the Prime Minister tell us what he plans to do in collaboration with several of his ministers, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of the Environment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and others, to prevent further damage, which will most certainly take place in the immediate future if something is not done? I draw your Honour's attention to the imminent spring breakup which when it takes place in Lake Erie, will cause damage of enormous proportions to houses and other property.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think my previous answer indicated that we do realize it is a serious problem, and that is why the government has set up this group under the Minister of the Environment to bring attention to it. Of course, meanwhile if the hon. member has specific suggestions to bring forth I am sure the minister would be pleased to hear them.


POSSIBLE ACTION BY INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION TO LOWER LEVELS OF GREAT LAKES
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the city of Toronto executive committee yesterday requested the federal government to make immediate and urgent representations to the International Joint Commission with a view to lowering the dangerous high water levels of Lake Ontario and of the other Great Lakes, what steps has the government taken, and has the IJC been contacted?

February 15, 1973


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the IJC has been contacted in this regard. I might also say that the engineering staff supplied to the IJC on the Canadian side is in fact staff from the water management service of the Department of the Environment. It is possible, within narrow limits, to regulate the water levels in Lake Ontario, and we are doing our best.



POST OFFICE


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the time honoured science of agriculture, in conjunction with the Ontario Agricultural College, will be celebrating their centennial next year, is it the intention of the Postmaster General to issue a commemorative stamp to honour this great science and this outstanding agricultural college?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.



REQUEST FOR COMMEMORATIVE STAMP TO HONOUR INVENTION OF TELEPHONE

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In connection with the celebration of the invention of the telephone in the city of Brantford, Ontario, is the minister considering striking a special stamp in commemoration of that event?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I shall before long announce next year's commemorative stamp program. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to exercise a little patience.



FINANCE


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the federal government announced the establishment of the $350 million winter projects capital fund back on December 6 last and two and a half months have subsequently gone by and the province of Ontario has not made available even application forms to municipalities-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!
Oral Questions


Norman Augustine Cafik: -to take advantage of this program to reduce unemployment in the province during the winter months, would the minister take some immediate action to encourage the province of Ontario to play its role in reducing winter unemployment?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, not only is that a very good suggestion but I would encourage the opposition in the House to pass the appropriation bill in order to make it all possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have really gone beyond the end of the question period, but perhaps the Chair might be allowed to call two other hon. members, without supplementaries, first the hon. member for Halton, then the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and then call orders of the day.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr.   Terry@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. With respect to the anticipated awarding of reciprocal landing rights with Alitalia in Milan to a Canadian air carrier, is the minister yet in a position to advise the House when this award will be made and to whom it will be granted?


Jean Marchand: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I did not hear the first part of the question. Would the hon. member mind repeating it?


Mr. O'Connor:: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the anticipated awarding of reciprocal landing rights with Alitalia in Milan to a Canadian air carrier, is the minister yet in a position to advise when this award will be made and to whom it will be granted?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as Alitalia is concerned the decision has been made. Alitalia can land in Montreal and Toronto. As far as Milan is concerned, this has not been attributed yet to a Canadian carrier but it will be eventually.



COMBINES


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, if this question is a little longer than usual it is because I cannot have a supplementary. The question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of a formal complaint made yesterday by the Consumers Association of Canada alleging collusion among the various oil companies in the recent price increases in gasoline and fuel oil and requesting an inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act, can the minister

February 15, 1973
Oral Questions
assure us that he will do his best to see that this investigation gets top priority?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, actually the formal request was received by the Director of Combines Investigations, I am informed, not yesterday but the day before. I am sure he is carrying out his statutory responsibilities but I will continue to be in touch with him for that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair definitely will call orders of the day after the hon. member for Vegre-ville has been heard.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and arises out of a question posed by the hon. member for Halton. In light of the declared aviation policy defined in 1965 which in effect would place Milan in an area to be served by Canadian Pacific Airlines, and in view of the government's slowness in awarding the landing rights for the city of Milan, can the minister indicate to the House whether the government is now considering a deviation from that policy as defined in 1965?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker, we try to have a rational policy and I hope it will be known by the House shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate rises on a point of order.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, this is a point of order which affects all members of the House of Commons and, indeed, the Canadian nation. I trust that in hearing my point of order Your Honour will not interpret it as resulting from selfish motives. There is nobody in this House of Commons who has less reason to raise this point of order than I. If one looks back over the past five years one will find I have had my fair share of questions and comments in the House. My point arises from the fact that I look around every day and see about 20 or 25 members rise in the House at question time trying to ask questions.
Earlier today a question was raised about regional development, one which had serious implications not only for economic development but for national unity. Out of a sense of justice to all members, Your Honour was required to bypass this subject after several questions. I quite understood this and I think other hon. members did as well. However, there are other questions just as fundamental, and if hon. members cannot raise them in the House of Commons it is my contention, as a rookie in the House, that this will manifest itself throughout the country. A lot of the frustration that we have results from the fact we cannot get things resolved through the debating forum in the House of Commons. This frustration is going
to build up in the country and result in a lot of unnecessary bad feeling.
Mr. Speaker, I am no relation at all to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but I feel that if you go back to Magna Carta you will find that the fundamental rights of members of the House of Commons are the right to be heard and the right to speak. I can quote from several sections of the 1958 version of Beauchesne, particularly where it says that a great deal of latitude must be allowed in the House of Commons which is a forum where every phase of public affairs can be discussed and where every member has the right to be heard, even if in doing so sometimes the rigidity of procedure is disregarded.
I remember reading Hansard back in 1961 and 1962 when I was interested in one day becoming a member of the House. A few hon. members, amongst whom was J. W. Pickersgill who represented my district, raised hundreds of questions in the House of Commons day after day, questions which affected the people for whom they were speaking. We are getting to the point today, because of the 40 minute question period and because the opposition is larger than the government, where many members are not given the right to raise questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, we spend hours of debate on subjects such as agriculture, manpower, fisheries and many other subjects which are boring and of interest only to one lonely member, unwatched from the press gallery and unobserved by people in the general gallery. This gives us hundreds of hours of debate which are meaningless, which are not reported and which do not give the country a chance for-I do not know what the word would be if I were using a medical term-catharsis', it does not give the catharsis which the country needs.
I would strongly recommend to Your Honour that while hon. members have a little bit of patience left the House leaders take this question a little more seriously than just hearing what I have to say today. I think that we should lift the ceiling on the question period on one day a week or even on two days a week. I think that the good, common sense of hon. members would not encourage them to go beyond responsible behaviour. If we cannot agree to have one or two days a week when we ignore the length of the question period, then consideration should be given immediately to extending it to at least an hour.
I get my share of questions because I do not ask the initial question but usually supplementaries related to questions asked by other hon. members. However, today I stood up and I was beginning to get concerned when I was not recognized, but as I looked around there were 40 or 50 other members standing up. Some of them sat down again and others walked out in disgust. Mr. Speaker, they are here to talk about issues as fundamental to their regions as regional development is to my region. I know that I am speaking for all Canadians when I say the question period is one time when we, as Members of Parliament, can bring forward issues that are of monumental importance in a forum in which they can be properly aired. The cutting off of questions at the end of 40 minutes is encouraging

February 15, 1973

the build-up of negative attitudes in this country, and we cannot afford that.
Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the way you handle the question period. I do not think anybody in the House could exercise more wisdom, more patience or more fairness, but I suggest that if the question period is to be meaningful, action should be taken in the next few days, even if that requires a reference from parliament, to alleviate the problem by extending the period twice or three times a week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface has the floor on a point of order and is entitled to be recognized.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will give me half the length of time the previous speaker had. I, too am not happy with the use of Standing Orders 43 and 26 by the opposition. There was a good example of that today. Many members used those Standing Orders today, knowing full well that they really did not have a particular point to bring to your attention. They make use of these rules every day, and lately we have been losing about 40 minutes on these motions before we even start the question period.
I should like to agree with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) that the question period should be made longer. However, I feel that if the members of the various parties used the question period to bring only pertinent matters before the House, better use could be made of that time for further important matters, to the benefit of all Canadians. Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter for co-operation. Perhaps the House leaders could speak to the members of their own parties in an effort to make sure that the time of the House is not taken up with irrelevant motions made under Standing Order 43 or Standing Order 26, which often waste an hour before the question period starts.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been wanting to speak on the same subject on a point of order. However, I would disagree with the hon. member who raised this point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the oral question period has become a mockery and has been abused. It will be said that members from the back benches cannot ask questions; I would remind them that members of the Social Credit party, which is an integral part of this House, have asked two questions today and this for the simple reason that the official opposition does ask too many supplementaries. If the members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition would understand how important it is for them and for others to give a chance to other members to ask a question, I do not doubt, knowing the tact, finesse and competence of the Chair, that all hon. members want-
Oral Questions
ing to ask a question would be able to do so in their turn. But as long as the official opposition will abuse by raising five, six, eight or ten supplementaries from the beginning of the question period, which delays the first question of the New Democratic party leader for 15 minutes and that of the Social Credit party leader for 15 minutes more, finally some day the question period will be over and members from the back benches from both sides of the House will have no time left to ask their questions.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that we are supporting you and that we disagree with the critics of the hon. member and we urge you to see that those people refrain from abusing the question period by asking supplementaries so as to grant the same privilege to hon. members from the other parties.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, although I do not support any suggestion that the Official Opposition is utilizing a disproportionate amount of the question period, I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay): If he will speak to his group, I will consult with mine, to see if we can make any constructive suggestion to Your Honour that might be helpful.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, may I add this: I think there is general agreement that the question period has been badly abused. One can blame the leadership of the various parties and the neglect of party leaders with respect to the individual problems of backbenchers. I suggest that the House leaders be asked to meet with the procedure committee in order that we may change the rules governing the question period. The problem, which Your Honour cannot cope with because of existing circumstances, arises from the fact that the first question leads to a mini-debate, followed possibly by 10 or 12 supplementary questions. Then, another question is asked, which also turns into a mini-debate as several other supplementaries are asked.
The backbenchers in all parts of the House really do not participate, except by bottlegging related questions in the question period, or questions on other topics. If we are to avoid calamity in the question period I strongly urge Your Honour, as a member of that procedure committee, to bring the House leaders together for the purpose of revising the rules. Unless our rules are changed, the question period will become a shambles. All members in this minority parliament ought to be equal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: There should be, at least, partial equality of opportunity to ask questions, and there is not. But for Your Honour's kindness and guidance, many members could not ask any questions. This holds true for those members who are classed as independent as well for all those who sit in the back rows of this chamber. Perhaps Your Honour could use your good offices in such a way that we could split the question period into a leaders' hour which would be followed by a question period for backbenchers. The leaders' hour could be devoted to questions asked by members of the front benches and to supplementaries, and the rest of the question period should be so arranged as to allow an individual member

Oral Questions
to present the problems of his individual riding and perhaps other parts of the country as well.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I sympathize with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). Certainly, a number of backbenchers wish to ask important questions, and they would like more time in which to ask them. I wish to make a point which is sometimes heard in the house but does not seem to receive too much attention, namely, that government members also would like to ask questions but they do not seem to have the opportunity in the question period to do so.


An hon. Member:: Raise that in caucus.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I understand that the attitude of some hon. members is that as we, on this side, are supporters of the government, we should be in accord with everything the government does. That is not the point. Some of us may question policies being carried out by the cabinet and we, as backbenchers, want to know about these things.


An hon. Member:: Ask in caucus.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Therefore, we have the right, as Members of Parliament and as supporters of the government to ask such questions in the House.
There is another point which is not well understood. In addition to the several opposition parties in the House, we must face an even stronger opposition, that of the fourth estate, which is powerful in this country. The backbenchers of the Liberal party have just as much right to the forum provided by this House for the purposes of asking questions and seeing their views expressed in the press as the other backbenchers of other parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: It seems to me that the present practice should be changed so that backbenchers on the government side may have an opportunity to put forth their views in the same proportion as members on the other side of the House. I welcome what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) said, namely, that he will speak to his people, if the House leader on my side of the House will speak to the people on this side. Certainly, a number of questions asked in this House are not necessarily questions of national interest. Of course, we are all political beings; we all want to be given publicity in our ridings. At the same time, a question about a bridge over a little river in a certain riding is not a question of national importance. Many such questions are asked in this House during the question period. I suggest that if hon. members bear in mind that we are concerned about national matters in this House, we could perhaps solve part of our difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, for the third time in about a week a point of order has been raised at the end of the question period to do with the question period. This indicates not only that many

hon. members have not had a chance to ask questions but the magnitude of the problem as well. I will not repeat what has been said, although I should like to add this: When the 40-minute limitation was established in the previous parliament, that parliament was constituted differently from the present one. Although we tried to devise rules that would find application in more than one parliament, to a certain degree the rules that we introduced in the previous parliament were surrounded by considerable controversy. Those rules reflected the fact that there were more than 150 members on the government side and slightly more than 100 in opposition. Today, the reverse is true. There are a few more than 100 on the government side and more than 150 in opposition. If individual members are to be allowed to ask their questions, the rules governing the question period in this parliament will need to be reconsidered. Under a simple rule of thumb we might extend the question period by 50 per cent, in recognition of the number of members who now sit on opposition benches.
Another practical suggestion is this: Perhaps the government House leader, in view of comments which reflect frustrations, might convene the standing committee on procedure, perhaps by unanimous consent. The government House leader could present a motion, either later today or tomorrow, so that this committee could immediately attend to this important question. I think that is important, in view of the nature of this parliament, and this question should not be allowed to drag on for weeks. I urge the government House leader to bring forward a straightforward motion so that the standing committee on procedure could convene early next week, say, consider this problem and present an interim report as to what action can be taken on this question.
I realize that in dealing with a question originally raised by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate we are dealing with a matter that goes beyond Your Honour's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, I think it is important for us to hear an expression of Your Honour's views so that the members of the House, through the instrumentality of this committee, may resolve this difficult question.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a few items that have not been mentioned during the course of this discussion. There may be a sense of urgency on the part of many members in this minority situation. Under normal circumstances, the pressure on each individual member may not be as great, that is if we were to assume that parliament would be here for four or five years. In that situation, members can expect to be recognized. There is not such a sense of urgency.
Another point is that which I raised yesterday in connection with questions being asked and notice being taken of them. Perhaps there could be an allocation of a few minutes time, either before or after the question period, at which time only those questions of which notice has been taken could be answered. In that way a member who has been jumping up and down like a yoyo for two weeks will not have to repeat his question. It is incumbent upon a minister to meet a commitment which he makes to this House and the country. It is not only the members of the press who read Hansard. It is read by people all across

this country. There are people who wait for these answers. Perhaps that extra few minutes will not be necessary on every occasion.
There is another point that arises. There are limitations on debates in the House. In addition, restrictions are imposed on members in committees in the sense that in some committees members are not permitted to ask questions which they were unable to ask in the House. In some committees, there is a rule that unless you are a member of the committee, you cannot ask a question until the questions of committee members have been exhausted. Some members are practical jokers. They continually ask questions and thereby frustrate other members. If you cannot ask a question in the House or in committee within a certain time, the question may become unnecessary. After a month has elapsed, there is no point in asking the question. It is no longer urgent. That is an added frustration for many members.
With regard to starred questions, I think there should be a limit of three or four days or a week in which they must be answered. I think that would facilitate their use. At the same time, possibly one supplementary question should be allowed when a starred question is answered. This is not always necessary, but it would be very useful on certain occasions.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) upon demonstrating the courage to raise this problem which concerns all members in the back benches. Your Honour will notice that there are a lot of questions on the order paper. I think there are nearly 1,000. These are being answered at the rate of 20 a week. A lot of questions asked during the oral question period do not really pass the test of relevancy or urgency, although Your Honour generously allows us to ask them. If there were more efficiency and promptness in answering questions on the order paper, there would be a lot less questions asked in the question period.
If we are going to be a good opposition, we need information in order to deal effectively with the budget debate that will commence next week. Many of our speeches will contain irrelevancies because we have not been given accurate information quickly enough by the government. I am not saying this is by design, but some questions have been on the order paper since January 4. A good opposition cannot tolerate that kind of thing and, therefore, it is necessary for us to ask questions during the oral question period. Some members have been forced to resort to other methods because they cannot get recognized during the question period. Because they cannot get recognized, they rise daily under Standing Order 43 and Standing Order 26.
I hope that as a result of Your Honour's long experience here, and the great respect we all hold for you, that you can give some guidance to us as to how we can solve this problem. Our purpose is to be good members and to represent our constituents well. We find we are having difficulty doing this.


Mr. Wise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not rise to continue the lecture. However, I am one of the backbenchers who was overlooked during the question
Oral Questions
period. My concern arises from the fact that I did not have the opportunity to lend some support to my colleagues, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles), who pointed out to the government, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), members of the cabinet and other members of the government the very serious erosion situation on the north shore of Lake Erie.
I see that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) has left the chamber. I am happy to see that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is here. Perhaps Your Honour will allow me to say that I hope the Minister of the Environment, in keeping with his past record, will show interest and leadership in this problem and will ask for the participation of the provincial authorities to at least commission a study as to the course of action most suitable to correct this situation. I want to go on record as pointing out the necessity of solving this great problem and supporting my two colleagues, the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I could not resist the temptation and shall say a few words on the opinions expressed. I know that all political parties have put forward their arguments. I believe that there remains an important point which was not dealt with. The hon. members active within their parties have been mentioned, but not those who had enough courage to seek election outside the framework of a political party. Mr. Speaker, you know, indeed, to what I am now referring.
Nevertheless, I should like to note that whatever amendments might be brought in, in my opinion, a great wisdom accompanied those remarks, and since I shall definitely not be invited to the committee on procedure and organization to discuss the matter, I should like to indicate to hon. members from the various parties that should they introduce a measure requiring unanimous consent of the House, I would deem it important that they send me a copy of the draft. I shall certainly not agree to any measure without previous consultation.
In any event, and as usual, I feel confident that Your Honour will continue to keep me in mind during the oral question period, because I aim at a positive contribution in the House.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to ask the government House leader what business he proposes to place before parliament tomorrow, Monday afternoon and Tuesday, on the assumption that the House will have dealt with the supply bill.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), following the completion of the appropriation bill, I would like the House to return to the debate on the amendments to the Criminal Code, Bill C-2. If this is not completed, we can probably
1320

Business of the House
continue with it on Monday afternoon and Tuesday, if necessary.
As we are aware, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has already indicated his intention of making a budget presentation on Monday evening. It is proposed that the budget debate will begin on Wednesday and will continue through the end of the week. In order to permit the delivery of the budget, I take this opportunity in accordance with Standing Order 60(2) to request you to designate an order of the day. I also suggest, in keeping with past practice, the House might make it an order that debate on whatever government business is before us at 5 p.m. on Monday be adjourned at that time so that the Minister of Finance may commence his speech when the House resumes at 8 p.m.


James Aloysius McGrath: A question to the government House leader. I feel the hon. member has a good deal of responsibility which he does not seem to wish to accept in relation to the discussion which took place in this chamber prior to the question directed by my hon. friend from Mal-peque. I should like to ask the hon. member whether it is his intention, in the light of that discussion and the continuing concern of members of all parties who took part in the debate, to accede to the request of the hon. member for Egmont to call an organization committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization immediately. The committee has been struck, but obviously someone has to take the initiative in calling the committee together so that it can elect a chairman and get down to studying the serious questions raised by hon. members today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In answer to this question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can say it is my intention at a very early date to initiate a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. That committee has a number of urgent matters to consider and I would certainly give my support to it considering the matters which have been raised with respect to the question period.
I shall resist the temptation to give my own views on the operation of the question period. I am sure each one of us has his own observations to make on this subject and it would probably be more productive to allow the committee to wrestle with the matter because there are real difficulties attached to it. I imagine that more than an extension in the time period would be required in order to overcome them. I believe you have been very generous in extending, by consent, the time allotted to the question period. Usually, I believe, it goes beyond the normal 40 minutes, and I doubt whether another 20 minutes, if we were to approve such an extension, would enable us to resolve the difficulty which the House now faces in dealing with this matter. Perhaps the committee should begin an examination of the question and perhaps we ought to arrange for a more extended discussion of the subject some time soon.
You have an unhappy responsibility in deciding every day which members are to be recognized among the very large number who rise in their places to ask questions. We on this side of the House have never pressed forward a claim that each hon. member should be seen by the Chair.

We have accepted the tradition which has long been understood and practised that the question period is primarily, though certainly not exclusively, an opportunity for members of the opposition to interrogate the ministry. We do think, however, that from time to time hon. members on this side of the House should have an opportunity to put questions!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have no desire to upset the tradition you have observed, Mr. Speaker. But on this side of the House, as well, hon. members frequently impress upon me the necessity of having an opportunity to ask questions. Well, each of us is a member. Each of us has the same rights, and if we were, every day, to attempt to assert our individual rights there would be no end to the question period, and-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad you resisted the temptation to give your views!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -I would have to secure acceptance by the House of a much more strict observance of the rule of urgency attaching to questions.
The hon. member is concerned about the prospect that if parliament should end quickly some hon. members might not have had an opportunity to make their presence felt. This is a real concern on the part of every member. He does not want to go back, if we do go back, and admit to his constituents that having sat in the House of Commons for two or three months he has not been able to utter a single word, not even to ask a question. That is hardly a platform on which to seek acceptance. It is a real problem.
I sat in this House, I think, for six months before I even raised my head from the back benches. I was so far back I was almost outside the chamber. But members develop much more rapidly now, and they expect to catch the Speaker's eye the very first day. Well, we all cannot do that. I sympathize with hon. members in their problem. I do not think we want to snuff out the opportunity to ask questions. I think it could be done more rapidly, though. Maybe if we were to encourage the practice of giving notice it would help a bit. It is only by exception, today, that ministers receive notice of questions and despite the fact that we all try to take on the appearance of omniscience nobody has at his fingertips all the information which is required. If a minister is asked a question which involves gathering information, the matter is merely postponed until another day when another question might be asked.
As I say, we could perhaps benefit by adopting the British practice of making a greater use of notice. The Committee on Procedure examined this question a few years ago. It was as a result of a report from that committee and a decision of the House that a definite time limit for the question period was established. This was done in the belief that a shorter question period would make the question period brisker, and sharpen confrontation-that the intensity of the interrogation would be increased. Apparently, this has not happened. Anyway, I have not resisted the temptation to express my own views, but I extend an apology to you. I will co-operate in trying to get

the question examined by the Committee on Procedure and Organization.


J. Robert Howie: Would the minister permit a question? Would he care to comment on the length of time some of the written questions remain on the order paper? If we could speed up answers to questions on the order paper it might help matters during the oral question period.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have attempted to get answers as quickly as possible. Hon. members-and I am sure this is true in the case of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings-understand how slowly at times government departments respond to the necessity of supplying information. Every Monday I try to sit down with my parliamentary secretary and review the progress we are making in answering questions. There is no desire to withhold information. Some questions require a lot of digging. Others are difficult, and have to be considered by a minister. But the main job is extracting information quickly from government departments. I do not say this in any political way today, but I have examined the record of the last parliament and productivity, in terms of answering questions, has been very high. Mind you, the number of questions set down on the order paper is increasing. The number of notices of motion for production of papers is increasing rapidly. If I may say so, part of the reason is the fact that Members of Parliament now have research staffs which, it seems to me, develop their imaginations by thinking up questions to put on the order paper. In order to get rapid answers it would be sound if we kept the number of questions on the order paper to the absolute minimum; then, I think we would get better results.
At some future time I hope to have the opportunity to talk about the very vexing problem of notices of motions for the production of papers. We want to give as much information as possible, but if you look at the order paper you will see there is really an enormous demand for information. The more economical we are in asking for information, the more rapidly the answers will be forthcoming. In addition to that, much of the information that is requested in questions on the order paper is a matter of public record in any event. It is available in government documents and publications, but if one pointed that out he would be accused of withholding information needed by Members of Parliament.
I believe there are a lot of things we could do to improve the process. In respect of starred questions, we ought to, and we are trying, get the answers out as quickly as possible. Many of the questions that are starred are obviously of a highly political nature. Many of them are not put on the order paper for the purpose of soliciting information. Despite his disclaimer, my friend the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) usually has all the information he needs before he asks a question, but he asks questions to score political points. In part, the purpose of the question period is to score political points, and I think we ought to understand that.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I very briefly say just two things. First, in respect of the discussion we have now had for more than the length
Business of the House
of a question period, I trust that the government House leader will endeavour, perhaps by consultation with other House leaders and with Your Honour, to provide a term of reference that might be presented to the House very soon which would result in an early meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The other thing I should like to say relates to the inquiry by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) concerning the business of the House. As the government House leader knows, there have been some discussions about the possibility of passing Order No. 20, which has to do with a reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, without debate. I think we might find that either now or tomorrow that would be the case and it could be passed without debate. If we could do it now, at least we would have accomplished something today.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to say that this is agreeable to the Official Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: Before seeking the concurrence of the House, I should like to make one brief comment. I thank hon. members for their very valuable and generous suggestion for the consideration of the Chair.
I think the point has been made, and this has become apparent during the discussion, that the problem to which reference has been made is not one for the Chair to solve. The Chair is here entirely and exclusively, to the extent this can be done, to see that the rules adopted by this House are respected. It is not for the Chair to change the rules, to either shorten or prolong the question period, change the provisions of Standing Order 43 or speed the returns to the House.
My duty, and this is the commission I have from hon. members, is to see that the rules adopted by the House are as nearly as possible respected, taking into account the mood of the House and the particular circumstances. If it is the intention of hon. members that changes or amendments should be made in the Standing Orders, this can be done by the House, normally after consideration by the Committee on Procedure and Organization. I will certainly offer my full co-operation to see that the committee meets early.
The suggestion was made during the discussion that the Speaker is either the Chairman or a member of that committee. This is not so, of course. I am very pleased that the Speaker is not a member of that committee because he escapes the criticism that might attend recommendations which are made to the House following the discussions and considerations of the committee. I feel that the other problems to which reference has been made should be considered at an early date by the committee. It is my opinion that the committee is very useful and has worked well and efficiently in past years. I think it can be helpful in the days and weeks ahead in solving some of the difficulties to which hon. members have alluded, and I can assure them once again of my wholehearted and enthusiastic co-operation.
25789-12)

February 15, 1973
Supply
Is the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the Report of the Joint Study Group on Basic Rate of Pensions, tabled January 31, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, February 14, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening Vote 20a, Department of the Environment was under consideration.
On clause 2-Schedule.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to deal briefly and generally with the Department of the Environment. Some progress has certainly been made since the department was set up and some encouraging steps are being taken but, on the whole, the over-all accomplishment in the environmental field is rather disappointing. I should like to outline several areas where I feel fundamental weaknesses exist, and also suggest some changes which might help to eliminate these weaknesses. First, I should like to make a few general comments.
There has been major neglect of environmental problems in every part of Canada over the years. All levels of government, and the public generally, have allowed this environmental deterioration to continue. Those who did speak out were accused of standing in the path of progress or of trying to deliberately remove job opportunities from some specific local area. For the most part, in the past, the general public accepted with very little protest the right of industry to pollute our air and water, for employment and job opportunity was of paramount importance. The feeling was that pollution of our environment was a small price to pay if jobs were produced in the process. Few people realized that the real accounting

from pollution would have to come years later, and that the cost would be tremendous.
Years of neglect and lack of action by government at all levels has led to some major pollution problems, not only in Canada but in most of the industrialized nations of the world. In fact, the situation is becoming so serious the very existence of our civilization is threatened. The warning signs are to be found everywhere, yet many nations including our own are not giving real leadership in meeting this challenge. To a large extent, the real problem is being ignored, for governments of the day are not yet prepared to make those major changes in our society which are required to provide a clean, healthy and safe environment in which to live and work. This federal government is not prepared to take action or to give the leadership required in many important environmental fields, and as a result, Canadians in the future will be saddled with the unenviable task of trying to clear up environmental problems which can be prevented if adequate measures are taken in time.
This government has had the opportunity to give real leadership in the environmental field. It has failed to adequately meet the challenge. At a time when Canadians were looking for a national and a unified approach in the field of environment, this government has failed to act. At the very time that the United Nations was calling for a common international outlook and direction, and stressing the need for a unified approach on a global scale, we find the government of Canada deliberately fragmenting our national approach to the problem. We had an opportunity to set national standards when the Canada Water Act was by the last parliament, but instead the government opted for the right of each province, in effect, to set its own standards, and fragment the jurisdiction and control more than ever before. The result has been that the Canada Water Act, which was to be the main weapon in the fight against water pollution throughout Canada, has remained on the statute books, without being effectively used by the department.
I have said on other occasions that Canada needs an integrated environmental policy. This is essential, if we are to meet the many changes facing us in the environmental field today. Our earth has limited carrying capacity for human beings. The basic elements potentially supportive to life, were placed on earth eons ago, and through the agents of evolution, systems have been developed which constantly recirculate these basic elements. The interplay between organisms and this environment has given rise to complex life support systems, in which the air, water, nutrients and energy supplies for the inhabitants of earth are normally maintained by the function of the inhabitants themselves. Man is so utterly dependent on these natural processes that the policies he devises to govern his actions, must ensure their maintenance at all times. This is not being done and there is increasing evidence that some life support systems are being severely damaged. It is for this reason that work on our environmental problems is so important.
Most of the resources on earth are indefinitely renewable through natural cycles, but some of them are not. For example, the continuous provision of high grade mineral

supplies, are finite. We will have to devise artificial cycles for recovery and reuse of these minerals. Fossil fuels, such as coal and oil are exhaustible and will be in extremely short supply in less than 28 years from now, when we reach the year 2,000. We are developing alternative sources of energy to replace them, such as nuclear power, but here again we must take care that the byproducts of heat and radiation do not defeat our purposes by destroying the natural cycles not under our control. Other sources of non-polluting energy must be researched and perfected to serve mankind in the future.
An integrated environmental policy, whether it be national or international includes many things. One of the most important is population growth. The present growth rate means that our earth must provide every year the resources required to support 70 million new individuals. This is roughly three and a half times the current population in Canada. Every year we must provide new food, power, fuel, air, water, minerals, space, doctors, hospitals, teachers, schools, transportation, industrial plants and many other cultural resources for a population three and a half times that of the current population of Canada, just to maintain the present ratio. Twenty-eight years from now at the end of this century, the world's population could be double that which we find on earth today. The big question arises, do we have the resources to feed, clothe, and house these people adequately, and the answer is obviously "no", for even in this day and age, two out of every three human beings on the face of the earth go to bed hungry every night.
Another important problem, particularly in the more industrialized nations, is that of resource use. For example, in Canada, with a relatively small population of some 22 million people, our individual drain on resources is estimated to be about 26 times greater than that of a resident of India or China or Pakistan. It is 30 times greater than that of a Nigerian, and about 10 times greater than that of a Brazilian. This means that Canada's 22 million people make roughly the same demands on the resources of this earth as some 572 million Chinese living in Asia. We cannot ignore indefinitely the enormous per capita demands that the world's growing population makes on the world's limited resources, both inside and outside our borders. We cannot ignore the fact either that it is absolutely impossible for the people living in the underdeveloped nations of the world to ever reach the standard of living which we currently enjoy in Canada. The net resources of this earth just cannot provide that type of standard, even for those living in the world today. When we consider the likelihood of the world population being doubled within the next 28 years, it becomes obvious that hundreds of millions of human beings on the face of this earth can look forward to nothing but abject poverty, disease and pestilence on an unheard of scale. The escalating world population is a major environmental problem facing every nation in the world today. It must be placed high on the agenda of the United Nations for solution, as it obviously needs top priority attention.
There are many other serious environmental problems in the international field, including the severe and serious problem of our oceans. Agreements must be worked out among all nations to adequately protect our ocean environment. Tough international laws must be set and
Supply
enforced, for the very existence of mankind is threatened unless early action is taken. For far too long we have allowed the oceans to become dumping grounds for pollutants of all kinds.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal briefly with what I consider are some serious shortcomings in the present Department of the Environment. The chief weakness lies in the lack of the over-all authority required to do an effective job to protect our environment. This is becoming more obvious every day and legislative action should be taken this session to rectify the situation.
Let us look briefly at the Department of the Environment, and the job it is supposed to do .in protecting our environment from damage or unwise use. To begin with, I feel the minister cannot effectively administer the Fisheries and Forestry departments and at the same time handle the environmental problems affecting those same departments. There is bound to be a conflict of economic and environmental interests on many occasions. It seems to me that no minister should be placed in this position for it could lead to those half measures of compromise which never do a real job of cleaning up a situation. For this reason, I suggest that the Department of the Environment should not be combined with any other portfolio. It should have complete over-all authority in all federal areas and should be setting and enforcing the necessary regulations to bring and keep our environment in the proper state of balance.
It is nonsense for the Department of the Environment to not have complete control over environmental problems in our northern areas which are under federal jurisdiction. It does not make sense to have officials in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources with as much, if not more, power of decision making as far as environmental controls in the north are concerned. I saw this when the land use regulations were being laid down by this government only last year. I, personally, feel that to have other departments play the major role in setting the pollution standards for effluents in the north does not make sense from an ecological point of view. If the object is to fully protect our environment, then half measures are not good enough. Again, there would be the conflict of interest about which I spoke earlier. We cannot afford these compromise solutions when it comes to protecting the Canadian environment adequately. Firm and sensible regulations must be laid down without tremendous pressure coming from commercial interests to have these regulations watered down just so they can make some additional profits out of our natural resources.
Another major weakness in the Department of the Environment is its apparent lack of direction and action on several vital environmental problems which exist in Canada today. A good example of this is to be found in the James Bay area. It is obvious that the Department of the Environment is not playing the effective role in this major development which Canadians expect. The federal government has clear jurisdiction in several aspects of this project, but it has delayed taking action primarily because of political reasons. The minister himself stated that environmental impact studies should be carried out

Supply
well in advance of any project, such as the James Bay project, and that studies should be properly evaluated and assessed before any decision to proceed is made.
We have had an excellent example in British Columbia with the building of the Bennett Dam on the Peace River. Environmental impact studies were never carried out on how the dam would affect the lower reaches of the Peace River and the whole Mackenzie River system. As a result, immense ecological damage has been done to the Mackenzie River system, including the Mackenzie delta, Lake Athabasca, not to mention the ecological damage to the vast area behind the dam itself. The minister will tell us that environmental studies are under way on the James Bay project at this time, but the tragedy lies in the fact that this project started before surveys were made and evaluated. It is crystal clear that the tremendous cost of ecological damage in the James Bay area, the upheaval and dislocation of the way of life of several thousand Indians in the area, were not taken into consideration when the feasibility of the project was being studied. I am certain that if the immense costs of this ecological upheaval, including the loss of some 3,000 to 4,000 square miles of flooded timber, had been included, it would have put the cost of hydro power to be produced in such a high category that the entire plan would have had to be scrapped. It is obvious that the Quebec government has deliberately played down the costs of environmental damage to the general public so as to make the plan more acceptable.
The lack of action by the federal Department of the Environment and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the James Bay Project is an indication that the federal government is going to stand on the sidelines and will again allow some very undesirable and unnecessary environmental damage to take place. The department shelters behind the excuse that provincial jurisdiction is involved. When any government gets into trouble, it always tries to hide behind the constitution. This is not good enough in this day and age. Increasing numbers of Canadians are demanding action at all levels to ensure that our environment is not destroyed just because some exploiter wants to make a few fast dollars or some government wants to retain office for a short period by using a major public works scheme as bait for the electors. In any event, there will be much more said on the James Bay project in this session of parliament.
In the time remaining, there are one or two other points I would like to raise. For years our party has been suggesting to the minister that the government should set up an environmental council of Canada which would be completely divorced from politics and based along the lines of the Economic Council of Canada. We feel that an environmental council of this nature would be able to report not only to the government but to the Canadian people and to advise on an environmental policy for this country. It could point out those areas where immediate action should be taken, and it could be critical of the lack of government policy if the council felt that the government were not properly looking after the environment.
I am not sure that the department is receiving sufficient advice from outside the government. We need a council

the members of which would sit down with research staff and do a top notch job of advising and setting guidelines, so that all Canadians will be made aware of the direction in which we should be going in this respect. Again, I want to point out that this is a pretty important problem because, after all, the care that we take of the environment and the state in which we leave it after we pass away will determine whether civilization will continue to exist on this globe for any length of time.
There are several other problems that we have drawn to the attention of the government and on which we do not think enough action has been taken. I spoke earlier about the Canada Water Act. The government was going to set up water quality management areas under this act to deal with specific and grave pollution problems. Practically nothing has been done. There are some prime areas in Canada along some of our rivers and in practically every province where this type of action should be taken. There should be no further delay in dealing with these problems.
Then we come to the problem of sewage. Everyone knows that grants are made to municipalities and that a fund is available to municipalities for the setting up of sewage treatment plants, but not enough money is made available and this is one of the prime causes of pollution in a number of major rivers and streams throughout Canada. Let us take a look, for example, at the city of Montreal. Over 300 million gallons of untreated sewage flows into the St. Lawrence every day, which is over 90 per cent of the sewage coming from that great city. If it is a matter of money, I see no reason why there should not be a vast fund of low cost money made available so that municipalities could proceed with sewage treatment projects. I cannot think of a better method of helping to alleviate the unemployment situation in Canada than to make this type of money available. This grant would be repayable over a long period of time so that the municipalities could get on with the treatment of sewage.
Now, I should like to return to British Columbia again and to deal, in the few minutes remaining, with an issue that has been raised in the House. I raised it again last week in a motion, which I hoped would be unanimously supported in this House, on the oil tanker route.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time alloted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Chairman, I will not abuse the time extension granted by hon. members because I know there are others wanting to speak. May I deal very briefly with the oil tanker route. Since the court of appeal in the United States has stopped the building of the trans-Alaska pipeline for a time, I feel that if this parliament and Canadians generally are really interested in trying to stop this oil tanker route, we should make the U.S. government aware of that fact by passing a motion unanimously in the House that we are opposed to it.


John (Jack) Davis: This was done.


Randolph Harding: The minister indicates that we moved such a motion in the last parliament. This is a new parliament
February 15, 1973

and that is why I moved a motion last Monday that we have a unanimous vote by members of the House to indicate that the new parliament of Canada does not like the idea of this tanker route along the west coast of British Columbia. It is obvious that members of the opposition cannot get this motion through the House. I suggest to the minister that he can introduce such a motion. We will support it, and I am quite sure that he will obtain the unanimous support of all other parties here because we Eire all interested in trying to stop this tanker route along the west coast of British Columbia.
I will close on that note, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me this additional time.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to take up much of the time of the committee, but the first thing I wish to say pertaining to this debate on fisheries and environment is that it is very obvious that questions of the environment are uppermost in the minds of Canadians and of hon. members. This makes it extremely difficult for those engaged in commercial fishing to get their points of view before the House. It seems to me that the Department of Fisheries should have its own minister. Through no fault of the present minister, or of the policy initially intended, it is quite obvious that there is conflict between the two departments of Environment and Fisheries, inasmuch as the emphasis upon one puts the other almost into virtual oblivion.
The problem in the area which I represent, and in neighbouring areas, is one of very serious consequence to those who make their living from the sea. I grant that there are environmental problems involved. It is most unfortunate that some of the employment opportunities created by government emergency programs have not been directed to the correction of some of the environmental problems, because the cost of correcting these problems is beyond the financial means of the local communities and areas.
Fishing is restricted because of environmental problems in my area. This is something to which the government should give serious consideration. The most pressing question arises out of the restrictions placed on the taking of certain species of fish in the New Brunwick area, particularly the taking of salmon. Not only have fishermen been forced to abandon their fishing operations but they have encountered many problems in arriving at the final settlements to which they feel entitled. I would like to ask the minister if he would advise the House, preferably today, what the terms and conditions of the final settlements will be. The salmon fishermen understood that if they submitted an estimate of their income for a certain period of time they would forthwith receive cheques for half of the amounts they estimated. In general this has been done. However, it has been extremely difficult for the salmon fishermen to prevail on the responsible authorities and make them understand that the estimates they submitted as income were, in fact, their income. They are being asked to settle for less than they feel is just.
In the terms of settlement, I believe there must be a certain element of estimate allowed to the fishermen.
Supply
Since the earliest days of the industry, it has been habitual that people in the surrounding area buy some fish directly from the fishermen, and the balance of the catch is sold to the commercial trade. It is with respect to this local sales income that the fishermen are experiencing difficulty in receiving a fair sum on an annual basis. When it was agreed that there would be a settlement arrived at on the basis of income, regulations had to be laid down. That is understandable, but these regulations have created many hardships. I give one example. The father of a family passed away. The mother and sons retained all the fishing equipment which the father had owned, in anticipation of the day when one of the sons would be old enough to take up lobster fishing. Now, that equipment is aging and neither the eldest son nor the mother can get a licence to fish for salmon or lobster. Further, they are not entitled to compensation because for one year the father's licence was allowed to lapse. This is a serious hardship for them.
Now, I wish to mention the Kouchibouguac National Park on the east coast of New Brunswick. Here again there is a conflict. People are being told that they will be remunerated for giving up their fishing business on the basis of its value to them over the years. Does this mean that they will receive income comparable with their income from fishing? Does it mean they will be established as individuals in fishing somewhere else? If a man lives in the neighbourhood of the park and sells his salmon fishing privileges will he have an opportunity to take the five year settlement on an annual basis? The people concerned are confused. They anticipated that by the latest on Christmas Day they would receive cheques in lieu of their income from salmon fishing. This would have been as a final settlement. They have not received those cheques yet. The fishermen are deeply concerned.
Then, there is the question of building new wharves and repairing old ones. It is difficult, if not impossible, to get three departments of government to give approval. First, the Department of Fisheries has to estimate the income involved and determine the viability. Then, the Department of Transport has to appraise the proposal from its point of view. Finally, the Department of Public Works comes in to the picture. As I say, it is extremely difficult to get all three departments to agree that a particular wharf should be built or repaired. The obstacles to fishing, and to convenience in fishing, are immense and almost insurmountable.
One of the questions frequently asked is this: is there statistical evidence that additional lobster traps in the area where lobster fishing prevails would, in fact, deplete the resource? Is that information available? Are the salmon which are tagged in their ocean habitat returning to New Brunswick, to the east coast of New Brunswick, to Nova Scotia, to Newfoundland, or are they going elsewhere? Have we in fact, identified the ocean habitat of Atlantic salmon, or have we just identified the habitat of salmon, meaning salmon that may come from somewhere else? There are questions that must be studied and answered.
I understand the desire of the House to make progress with these estimates, so I will not take up any more time. But, Mr. Chairman, let us not underestimate the interest

February 15, 1973
Supply
of the thousands of people along the shorelines of the Atlantic area who make their living out of fishing and who, by virtue of regulations drawn up without consultation with the actual fishermen, are being put out of business, are being inconvenienced by one regulation after another emanating from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of the Environment. For them it is an intolerable and insurmountable problem. I maintain that there must be liaison between research and the fishermen, and here I do not mean the corporate fishermen. I mean the fisherman who puts on overalls and goes out to fish by himself. This is the man who must be consulted. Mr. Chairman, do you know that when a man buys a licence to fish he does not even get a copy of the regulations so that he may know what he can and cannot do? He pays whatever the stipend may be, but is not furnished with the regulations pertaining to his occupation.
My purpose in rising to speak was to emphasize the need for attention to be paid to the fishermen by the Department of Fisheries and by the minister. I hospitably invite the Minister of Fisheries to come with me, at his earliest convenience, and take a tour along the coast of New Brunswick, particularly in the county of Charlotte, to talk to the fishermen and to see what can be done for them. There has been a great deal of discussion about the lack of opportunity for the young people of Canada, but the young people are coming to me and saying that they would like to fish with their fathers. Some of them are now old enough, are married and have children and want a licence to fish but the regulation does not permit it. This is the case with the widow, who has kept her equipment. Her sons will never fish with it under present regulations and she will never be remunerated, in spite of the fact that her husband held a salmon fishing licence in that community for a longer period of time than any of the other salmon fishermen. When the civil servant responsible for settlements was invited to visit her home and discuss the problem, he visited the community and avoided her. Mr. Speaker, this is harsh treatment for poor fishing people who need the help of the department, and the understanding of the department, to make regulations which will enable them to make a living rather them be regulated out of a living. I appeal to the minister to give these people consideration at his earliest possible convenience on the question of settlement.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte, who raised several questions, as succinctly as I can. First of all, the individual case that he described today of a widow and her son who were not adequately compensated in respect of the loss of their salmon fishing privilege for the next few years is one of perhaps a dozen cases. This will make the thirteenth, submission that has been made directly to me.
We have an appeal committee in the area, and if people with legitimate complaints like this do not receive an appropriate hearing or indeed a decision that satisfies them, they can appeal, directly to me or through their local member. I will take cognizance of this particular case. If the circumstances are as described, I imagine they

would be recognized as having a valid licence and either their gear would be bought out or they would receive as many as five years' payments in lieu of income. These are individual cases and each has to be dealt with on its merits. However, we have only a dozen cases of that character pending which have been appealed to me personally. There are literally hundreds of cases which have been settled to the satisfaction of the fishermen.
On the question of lobster traps, I point out that the fishermen themselves in that area have voted overwhelmingly to reduce the number. It is essentially as a result of surveys and actual consultations with the fishermen that the numbers have been reduced. If it is their wish to increase them, they will be running counter to sound economics but we will consider it.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on researching Atlantic salmon over the years and a great deal of work has gone into the tagging of salmon. There is now a wealth of information on how the salmon move into the ocean from the rivers. Those in the Saint John River, I understand, essentially stay in the Bay of Fundy area while these in the Restigouche and the Miramichi Rivers, the large salmon, go to waters off Greenland. The smaller salmon do not go to Greenland, even if they originate in Newfoundland rivers. We know a great deal more than I have the time to relate today.
The hon. member for Kootenay West raised several points, and I will address myself to them. He frequently says in the House that no use has been made of the Canada Water Act. This is absolute nonsense, Mr. Chairman; the Canada Water Act made possible the agreement between Canada and the United States on the Great Lakes. It gave us parliamentary approval for a structure which was negotiated with Ontario and with the United States for the clean-up over half a dozen years of the lower lakes. The Canada Water Act has been used extensively to create water management areas in Lake Ontario, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair and so on. I wish he would name the instances in which he says it has not been used. There is also the Saint John River, New Brunswick where we are proceeding to a water quality management area agreement between the federal government and that provincial government. There are other instances, Mr. Chairman. Studies are proceeding on the Okanagan Lake in the context of the Canada Water Act and so on. There is a long list of applications of the Canada Water Act, such as the case of the lower lakes agreement, proceeding all the way to the establishment of a multilevel international federal-provincial agreement setting up water quality management areas.


Randolph Harding: Would the minister permit a question? Would he tell us how many water quality management areas have been set up?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I am simply naming three lakes for example, and interconnecting rivers from Sarnia right down to the Thousand Islands which are covered by a series of water management areas. They do not have to be spelled out in capital letters in an agreement to indicate that they are water quality management areas. The water quality targets are identified in agreements between Ottawa and the province of Ontario, and between Canada
February 15, 1973

and the United States. The means of reaching those water quality objectives have also been spelled out in the number of agreements, financial and otherwise. They are in every way water quality management areas.


Randolph Harding: Another question, Mr. Chairman. We spent a great deal of time on the Canada Water Act. Has machinery for operation within these water quality management areas been set up?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Chairman, all the machinery is in place for the execution to the letter of the Canada-Ontario agreement and the Canada-U.S. agreement in respect of the clean-up of the Great Lakes. As the hon. member knows, the final arbiter of the success of the performance is the International Joint Commission. It has to do the follow-up work to make sure that the water quality objectives are met.
We are exploring a number of areas. I should like Ottawa to have an agreement with the province of British Columbia for a water quality management area in the Strait of Georgia and, for example, the lower Fraser leading into the Strait of Georgia. If we had that, we could then go the Americans and say that we have been able to put our own house in order, so we should extend the program to the Puget Sound area as being something equivalent to the Great Lakes agreement on the west coast. I think we would then be a long step down the road toward dealing with the tanker problem in that particular inland sea between Vancouver Island and the mainland and international waters where an international agreement is essential to the proper control and operation of tankers.


Randolph Harding: A further question. In these water quality management areas provision was made for effluent fees. Can the minister inform the House if these are being paid by any industry in any of these water management areas?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Chairman, we do not regard effluent fees as a good idea. I realize that provision for effluent fees exists in the act, but our basic policy is that the polluter will pay. We do not simply want them to make some nominal payment to ease their conscience. The lower lakes agreement provides that the polluter shall pay for the clean-up and the parallel in the case of Ontario must be certain quality objectives stated in physical terms, but no funds are available from the federal or provincial governments to help with the clean-up.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. It being five o'clock it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again later this day.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.
Canada Flag Day



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-National Defence-Suggested redeployment of armed forces elements to Newfoundland to consolidate strategy and promote economic development; the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin)-Manpower-Inquiry as to efficiency of manpower centres; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Housing-Land assembly program-Reconsideration of investment of funds for proposed Gloucester Township project.
The Chair has received notice, under Standing Order 26, that the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), intends to move a motion for the adjournment of the House. It is the understanding of the Chair that it is agreeable that this matter be dealt with by Mr. Speaker at the commencement of tomorrow morning's sitting. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business. Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, the House will now proceed to the consideration of the order for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of Bill C-136, an act respecting Canada Flag Day.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour) moved: that Bill C-136, respecting Canada Flag Day, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-136 is to establish February 15 or the Monday following as a legal holiday, to be known as Canada flag day. I have sensed, sir, that there is general approval of the idea embodied in the bill and am grateful. I will, therefore, forgo the privilege of speaking at length and respectfully request that the bill be given second reading today, this February 15, and sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank hon. members for having unanimously

Canada Flag Day
agreed to the resolution I moved yesterday regarding the display of the Canadian flag in the House.
In the history of the Canadian flag, the dates of February 14 and 15, 1973 will be remembered. I want to stress the measures taken in the past by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) in order that the flag be displayed in a place of honour in the two houses of Parliament, and I thank him for having supported the motion I submitted yesterday.
Today we are studying Bill C-136 so that February 15 can be observed as "Canada Flag Day". I express my heart-felt congratulations to the hon. member for Burna-by-Seymour (Mr. Nelson) who has introduced this bill which I hope will be referred today to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The purpose of the bill is also to pay tribute to the Right Hon. Lester Bowles Pearson, the father of the Canadian flag, which is one of his many achievements.
On February 15, 1965, the first page of a new era in our nation's history was engraved in gold letters. This typically Canadian single leaf flag was first blessed by the chief chaplains to the Canadian armed forces and then raised at 12 o'clock noon on the main platform in front of the Peace Tower.
On that occasion, the Governor General His Excellency George Vanier called for unity, and I quote from his speech:
I urge all Canadians to give up any prejudice, narrow mindedness and intolerance that might exist and to develop a spirit of brotherly love and mutual confidence.
I hope that all Canadians will give an example of friendly co-existence and that our flag will symbolize for us and before the entire world unity in thought and determination to live up to the noble destiny to which we are called.
Mr. Speaker, the flag which has been waving for eight years in the Canadian sky, over our embassies, which identifies our ships that sail the seas of the world, which is carried by our athletes in Olympic stadiums, which is the flag of our armed forces, is an emblem of unity, of courage and strength for our nation. It inspires in our youth a deep feeling of patriotism and attachment to their native land.
This flag is displayed for the first time in the House of Commons. It proves that hon. members have forgotten the quarrels of the 1964 debate and that we are moving towards the unity of the various ethnic groups of the country.
Mr. Speaker, before leaving the floor to another member, I would like, if I may, quote a few lines of the speech delivered by the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson on the day the Canadian flag was inaugurated. I quote:
If, by God's grace, our nation should last a thousand years, this day, February 15, 1965, will always be commemorated as an important step in the realization of the national progress of Canada.
I find it impossible not to be deeply moved by such an occasion and to be indifferent to the honour and privilege of being a participant.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the bill the hon. member has brought forward in the House today. May our youth and all Canadians be proud to observe Canada flag day.


In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to salute the flag on your right in these words:

To my flag and to the country it represents, I pledge respect and loyalty.
Wave with pride from sea to sea and within your folds, keep us ever united.
Be for all a symbol of love, freedom and justice.
God keep our flag.
God protect our Canada.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I commend the mover of the bill for his initiative in bringing forward this suggested piece of legislation. I commend him, too, on the alacrity with which his bill has risen to the coveted spot that it now occupies, inasmuch as many important private members' bills languish many, many weeks and we often find that sessions expire before we are given a chance to place our deliberations before our colleagues.
It is hardly to be gainsaid that all members of the House honour the flag of the country, respect its place in the world and love, serve and cherish the country which it symbolizes. It need hardly be said that all members of the House and the people they represent honour the achievements of the great statesman named in the bill, cherish his memory, salute his achievements and feel proud to acclaim him as a fellow Canadian.
I am not sure, however, that I would have used the same technique as the hon. member used to honour a great Canadian, namely, that of attaching his name to an honoured symbol of our nation, the flag. There are many achievements of the late Right Hon. L. B. Pearson which will retain for him a lustrous place in the hall of honour of our nation, indeed, of the world. His involvement in the process leading to the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag is but one of his contributions to Canada and to the world. Yet, I would not like to think of the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson as merely a great Canadian. I think of him as a great Canadian certainly, one whom I was honoured to know and admire and for whom I had great affection. But he was, Sir, also a man of the world, a man whom Canada gave to the world, a man whose exertions on behalf of peace were humanitarian, whose actions and performance made us all a little better and who always, substantially, made us feel proud that he was one of us. Therefore, I would like to reflect a bit more on the suggestion that this great man's memorialization be confined only to one particular act in which he gave leadership within his own country.
It is a very important question that a nation faces as to what types of holidays it should set apart for national celebration. I believe our country should celebrate holidays and should allow for a symbolic expression of those things which make us a country and a nation. What are the great days in our historic past? Surely, the time when our political forefathers met together, beginning in Charlottetown and later in Quebec, to form a country out of regions and small communities was a great occasion. Therefore, I think that Dominion Day remains prime


among those days in which we honour our heritage and salute the people who brought about this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: An eminent historian, a great pillar of the Liberal party, although I sat in his classes many years and was much convinced by him, but never converted, A. R. M. Lower, once said that if Canada had an independence day like the great country to the south of us, it would be December 11, the day in which formal indication was given that this country and other members of the Commonwealth were declared to be free and autonomous communities, in no way subordinate one to the other.
The process whereby Canada obtained its independence was a most impressive process, led by a great man from Nova Scotia, Sir Robert Borden. He had asserted vigorously the great nationalization which was required to lead us from a colonial status to something more noble and challenging. He often said the great warriors were in fact the true warriors, the men of Vimy Ridge and many other horrible blood baths in Europe where Canadians made an impact in courage and bravery far beyond their numbers. Therefore, the day of the Statute of Westminster, which was the culmination of the process, would be an important day.
I was much moved in this House when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) produced what we so long wanted and needed, the Bill of Rights. I think the Bill of Rights is now seen to be greater even than it was then because of interpretations of the courts. That, too, was a milestone.
Some of my colleagues will not be surprised at my mentioning that the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald is something of significance. Many Americans celebrated Lincoln's birthday last week. All Americans will be celebrating Washington's birthday next week. The father of the country deserves at least passing recognition.
I am not sure that the linking of the homage to a great man and the movement toward a national holiday commends itself to my judgment. I am hardly against flags. I honour the flag. I wear it when I go abroad. I wear it in my lapel of course. I do not carry it on a staff. I am happy to be designated as a Canadian. Holidays are certainly a fine thing. Heaven knows, I would not be against the memory of Lester Pearson for whom I have the warmest recollections. He was a great man whose greatness became him. He walked with kings and kept the common touch. He was a man of genius, humour, compassion and comprehension. I would like to say that he was a typical Canadian, but in many ways, although he would be the last to declaim it-I trust I used the right word; I said declaim not disclaim-he was in many proportions greater than his fellows.
It is my thought on this particular measure, although I would be the last to criticize the hon. member or be critical of the amazing alacrity with which this particular bill got before us-this kind of speed is not typical of this House-I suggest that it is the kind of thing we should be thinking about but thinking more about. While a mid-February holiday is a delightful thing, in our anguish for one whom we loved and admired is very much upon our hearts, perhaps we should reflect upon it in a little broad-
Canada Flag Day
er perspective. I wonder whether we should think not only of more events in our past, such as some of those I have mentioned, but of other individuals in our past for whom we might properly, appropriately and with meaning pause and reflect upon for a national holiday.
I do not want to prolong the discussion, although if I start talking about Borden, Laurier and Macdonald, I will soon exhaust my time. I just wish to say that I believe it is a good idea to let us ponder this a little further because in a matter of hours, February 15 will have passed by for this year and perhaps by next year the fruition of our thoughts will come up with something even better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to passing this bill now before the House on second reading since in the last decade nobody has insisted more on the absolute necessity to bring back dignity and unity in this country than the members of our party. This is why I make only one wish, Mr. Speaker, in order not to delay the passing of this bill, that this symbol will not be only a symbol but an indication of true understanding and true unity, and heaven knows we have not reached that point yet.
The last election campaign has shown that unfortunately there is still many politicians who have not yet recognized the existence of French Canadians, the existence of the French language, in a very concrete way.
The fact that the government itself is postponing the issue regarding the implementation of all regulations respecting the official languages proves, Mr. Speaker, that we still have a long way to go if we really want the flag to be a true reflection of what exists in this country. I hope that all aspects of true national unity will materialize very vividly and concretly.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very brief. Today is, I believe, an historic day in the history of Canada and it is fitting that time should have been allowed for a short debate on the question of a flag day for Canada. Other countries set aside a day on which they honour their flag. Canada would do well to adopt the same practice. That it should be February 15 or the Monday following is also fitting, because of the anniversary we are celebrating today.
I am pleased that the Canadian flag is at last being displayed in this House, the centre of government. I have visited other countries and seen their flags in their respective legislative chambers. Yet visitors from abroad come here and wonder why the Canadian flag is not displayed here of all places. I congratulate the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson) for bringing forward this bill today. I want to thank the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) for proposing the motion in connection with which we have both worked so hard over the past six years.
The flag is one of those symbols which are so important to the patriotism of our youth. Canadians should grow up

Canada Flag Day
with a fervent love of their country and of their flag. I feel that the most fitting way in which I can end these remarks is by quoting a short statement uttered by the late Hon. Lester B. Pearson on the day the flag was inaugurated eight years ago.
As the symbol of a new chapter in our national story, our Maple Leaf Flag will become a symbol of that unity in our country without which one cannot grow in strength and purpose; the unity that encourages the equal partnership of two peoples on which this Confederation was founded; the unity also that recognizes the contributions and the cultures of many other races.
Under this flag may our youth find new inspiration for loyalty to Canada; for a patriotism based not on any mean or narrow nationalism, but on the deep and equal pride that all Canadians will feel in every part of this good land.
God bless our flag!
God bless Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, intend to be brief and I shall only say a few words on the subject because I wish this bill to be adopted. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when I was in the Canadian Air Force and we spent our evenings in the officer's mess, groups of men would often talk about the kind of Canada we would find when we returned, if we ever did, and the kind of country that was going to be built for us, after having helped other countries to fight against the assailant and to rebuild a united Europe like the one we know today. And at that time already, my friends, whether they came from Halifax, Vancouver, Toronto or Winnipeg, were as sorry as I was, that we did not have a real Canadian flag.
We wondered whether the Canadian people would ever be Canadian enough to have their own flag. Of course, we had colours which identified the members of Canadian Armed Forces, whether they belong to the Air Force, to the Army or to the Navy; but we felt a little like the head of a family who walks along with the picture of his neighbour's children in his pocket. Yet we had something to show that identified us, but it had nothing really Canadian, nothing peculiar, nothing that represented the Canadian unity.
This is why I am so proud today to see the Canadian flag displayed in this House, and I want to congratulate the mover and the seconder, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), for being responsible for what will surely be an outstanding event in the life of the Canadian parliament. And I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that my predecessor who is now our ambassador in Paris and who was vice-chairman of the committee on the Canadian flag must have really felt Canadian this morning in our embassy when he learned that for the first time and for ever, the flag of which he was one of the advocates, will be displayed in the House of Commons.
But it is not enough that our colours should be diplayed in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker; a day should also be set aside to honour them. Even more should be done; we must also ensure that our colours are on display in every classroom in the country, that the place of honour in every school, every province, every territory in the land is reserved for the flag. Indeed, parliament must take the steps required to ensure that everywhere in Canada, in

the east as well as in the west, we can unfurl that flag, symbol of the pride and unity of all Canadians.
I also think that there should be a law to punish those who show a lack of respect for our flag, who violate, tear or burn it. Those measures should be passed as soon as possible.
As I hope this bill will be passed, I shall conclude my remarks by saying how proud I am of this typical Canadian flag now unfurled in this House of Commons.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I don't want to miss the opportunity to say a few words on the bill setting apart a special day to commemorate the adoption of the Canadian flag.
One of the reasons I rise on this occasion is that, with the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), I am the only member to have had the privilege of sitting for six weeks on the special joint committee which in 1964 studied the thousands of models submitted and chose the single maple leaf design followed by a recommendation to the House in the fall of the same year. Those who were then in this House will remember for a long time, not to say all their life, all the debates which took place, the adoption of the project at the end of 1964 and the proclamation on February 15, 1965.
This day is most important to me and I am quite proud to have lived this period of 1964 when we chose this flag and I am all the more proud as I am among the 15 members who approved the design and recommended it to the House. Moreover, I always keep at home a picture signed by those 15 members, a picture which is so valuable to me that I would not part with it at any price. There are only 15 copies of this picture and only those 15 members have one and even today-eight years later-three or four members of this committee are deceased.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that at that time we listened to interesting debates and I am quite happy to see this flag now in the House of Commons thanks to the motion adopted by all hon. members and I can only approve the place chosen by the Chair for the flag, to the right of Mr. Speaker himself. I think it was not possible to make a more sensible choice.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon for certain bills to be introduced in this or any legislature, for that matter, which on their surface seem to be very attractive, indeed compelling, but which, when one looks into all their implications and their motivations, really say a lot more than hon. members, perhaps even the hon. member proposing the bill, would desire. It is in this category that I fear I must place the bill we are now discussing. On the surface it is very nice, very moving, very appropriate; and all the more so, I might add, Mr. Speaker, in view of certain events earlier today and yesterday. But for all of that, there is something missing.
As hon. members will remember, the flag debate aroused passions in this dominion seldom seen before or since. But when that flag was passed into law I believe all of us respected that decision and I know we all honour the flag as the flag of Canada. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I should
February 15, 1973

not have said "the flag", for there is another flag, just as Canadian, with even more history behind it; a flag which symbolizes much to many Canadians, so much in fact that parliament in its wisdom chose, immediately after adopting the maple leaf flag, to enshrine this flag too as a flag of Canada and specifically as a symbol of the Commonwealth and monarchy.
In the explanatory note to the bill under discussion, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson) says that his act is designed "to emphasize the unity of the Canadian nation," and the preamble to the bill speaks of "the Canadian nation strong and indivisible under one flag."
It is my contention, Sir, that our very strength lies in the fact that we are a big enough, strong enough, indivisible enough land, one dominion united from sea to sea, that we do have two national flags in essence and in reality. One is the product of a recent parliament and bears no less love and no less respect than the other, an ancient and storied emblem, symbol of past ties which some hon. members despise but of which I, for one, am not ashamed.
Let us remember how young a country we are and yet how strong, rich and prosperous we have become over the few years of our existence as a dominion, when compared to Great Britain, France or China. Then there are all the other reasons why we should not forget our antecedents. I always like to remember, Mr. Speaker, the words found in that noble collection of the English language, the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, where in the "Prayer for All Sorts and Conditions of Men" the great Cramner wrote:
Guard from forgetfulness of Thee all those who are strong and prosperous.
I often think some hon. members would be all too ready to do this, to throw overboard all our past, all our traditions; in some cases they would substitute nothing, in others a mess of pottage. I submit this is the precise defect in the hon. member's bill. He would establish a national flag day, but only to honour one flag.
In the first place, I invite hon. members to consider just how many "days" we want. One of our strengths as a dominion, I think, is our avoidance of the razzle-dazzle nonsense in which the Americans sometimes indulge. We avoid this, partly because of our national character and partly due to another factor I shall mention in a moment. But it seems to me unfortunate, when the post office calendar ignores Victoria Day and Dominion Day-and that is the correct name, for certain hon. members' information-that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour wants to set up another day.
What will be the cost of promoting it? Will children have another holiday? Will the mails cease to move, or move even more slowly than their accustomed snail's pace? Is this how the hon. member would honour our flag? Surely the honour due to a flag lies in its frequent display. No greater tribute can be paid to either of our two flags than the lump in the throat, the throbbing of the heart or the tear in the eye as we see them in the course of our normal rounds and duties and remember for what they stand and the brave men who died under them.
I know that certain hon. members of the NDP caucus, a party always ready to negate and yell down our cherished traditions in Canada-although I do not think their atti-
Canada Flag Day
tude was so obstreperous under the leadership of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)-think that the Union Jack means nothing to Canada, and the maple leaf flag everything. But I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that any flag, including the Red Ensign, as the poet put it "dipped in the blood of fearless men", under which generations of Canadians were proud to fight and die can lightly be dismissed from Canada's history or our consideration here today: for the Commonwealth and monarchy, which are but part of this history, are its chief testators today.
The Commonwealth of Nations, which the hon. member's bill ignores, is the great and free association of nations which share a common colonial past, a common free present, a common reverence for parliamentary institutions and, in most cases, an instinctive suspicion of the quasi-presidential type of government to which we have been treated over the last years in this House and dominion. It is a viable third force in a world increasingly bound up by alliances and power groups. Its most utilitarian phase, trade and commerce, may have passed, but perhaps that enables us even more to appreciate its ethereal qualities in the present.
The Union Jack flies freely over the member nations and, the current antics in Australia excepted, the countries and the citizens thereof are not as paranoid as certain members on my left who have a suspicion of anything older than yesterday, the writings of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky always excepted. I think that any bill which is to be passed by this House, if it must set up a day to honour our flags, cannot lightly omit the Union Jack for this reason alone.
There is another reason, Mr. Speaker, and it concerns the monarchy. This House in 1964 specifically designated the Union Jack as a Canadian flag which has special significance in a royal sense. I am very proud to be a member of a party which does not have members such as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who yesterday in this House called royal prerogatives and recommendations affronts to hon. members and the public.
If we want to set aside a holiday, how can we do so without honouring the flag which represents our head of state? For it is the fundamental genius of our system that the Crown, intangible yet personified perfectly by our gracious Queen, to whose visits this summer we all look forward, is the ultimate source of law, virtue and honour in this country, separate and distinct from the head of government who must necessarily be political at least part of the time.
The monarchy stands first and foremost in the hearts of Canadians, first in affection, first in their prayers and first in every good and decent act in this dominion. We do not depend on the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), on the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or even on the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) for our laws and liberties. They are enshrined and protected in that body so mystical and yet concrete, the Crown, and I could not vote for any flag bill which does not recognize the monarchy, the systemization of the Crown, by including the Union Jack in its provisions.

February 15, 1973
Canada Flag Day


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to let this historic moment pass without saying a few words to express my personal satisfaction about the bill now under consideration.
I have just heard my colleagues' comments and I agree with their suggestions.
It is obvious now that we have a Canadian flag that we must foster feelings of respect and pride for it, since it reminds Canadians of the memory of those who sacrificed their life in several ways to defend our rights.
When I refer to the defence of the Canadian people's rights I mean those who died on the battlefields and I also wish to think of those who, in others fields of public life, have devoted their energy and their efforts, either as parliamentarians or in another capacity, to make this country more tolerable, the government more easily controllable and the Canadian people happier.
If it is true, Mr. Speaker, that we respect and are proud of our flag, it is not because of what it is but rather of what it represents.
For us, our flag is a symbol. It is the symbol of Canadian unity. And I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that listening to the comments of my colleagues a while ago, I was a little sad. I wished those complimentary words intended for the flag could be renewed the year round in this country, and I was remembering some incidents showing that it was so easy for politicians, be it during election campaigns or in other instances, to forget that their duty was to ensure Canadian unity. I was also remembering, but with much sorrow, the unfounded charges that were uttered from right and left. I was also remembering some disparagement campaigns; I remembered how easily mud could be thrown at others during election campaigns or at other mements, and with what care division seemed to be nursed among the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I was reflecting that no doubt it is nice to hear members of Parliament today pay homage to the flag, speak with reverence of those who contributed to providing us with that symbol, but that it would be much more desirable that altogether, with no exception, on the occasion of this debate on the subject of the Canada flag day, we resolved to transpose into facts and in our daily life those noble feelings being expressed today. In such circumstances, Mr. Speaker, perhaps would we less often witness on the political scene those sad examples that are offered us, those deplorable sights which, unfortunately, endure, while apparently, hon. members bend their efforts much more on dividing the Canadian people than on uniting them.
In the same line of thought, Mr. Speaker, I do remember some words that were uttered not so long ago and which, unfortunately, among the people of Canada, contribute not only to reducing the importance and the influence that the Members of Parliament can enjoy, but also giving an erroneous notion of what we mean by Canadian unity.
Therefore, on this occasion, may I make the wish that every day, every member will read the flattering remarks made by all in the greatest spirit of cordiality. May those words come back to our mind every day and guide our

deeds because I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that we will be judged much more on our deeds than our words.
It would be fruitless and useless to quote, either from Hansard or elsewhere, speeches by hon. members praising the Canadian flag if on the same day or the same occasion one can read in the debates or the papers the speeches delivered by those same members which served to divide the Canadian people.
In making that wish, Mr. Speaker, I endorse the remarks made by my colleagues. However, I should like to point out a paradox which is quite evident. This bill was put on the order paper with great haste and I think it was only right to pay tribute to the great man the right hon. Mr. Pearson was, an authentic liberal-and I mean "authentic"-but although that tribute was called for we must also realize that there is on the same order paper a bill coming from my excellent colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) which brings to the attention of the House the deeds and accomplishments of another statesman, Sir John A. Macdonald, and I think on this occasion if our colleagues are willing to talk about Canadian unity and show a concrete example of Canadian unity it would be desirable to have both bills examined at the same time, deferred to the committee at the same time, dealt with at the same time so as to really enshrine in reality this unity which we so often praise in our speeches.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as one who had the honour to second the motion for second reading of this bill, I might say just a word or two. I should like to congratulate my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson), for presenting this bill before the House of Commons. I feel I must extend to him also another word of congratulation, because if as a new member he should get a private members' bill through during the first session he is here, what a future he has ahead of him. Indeed, some of my colleagues have been suggesting to me that if I stick around long enough I might have the same success.
Earlier today the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) rose and asked permission to withdraw a bill of his because its purpose had been accomplished, namely, the decision to display the Canadian flag in the House of Commons. At first, the thought occurred to me that perhaps I should withdraw half of a bill of mine that is on the order paper, but I have been reminded by the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) that I had better not do that.
I do have a bill, Bill C-79, which calls for two holidays in addition to those that we already have, namely, a holiday in August and a holiday in February. Now that we will have a holiday in February when this bill passes, as I said, some hon. members may think I should withdraw my Bill C-79. But I would point out, prompted by the hon. member for Palliser, that the bill we are now discussing does not give workers the day off and does not provide all of the things that go with certain holidays. It just declares it to be a legal holiday.
February 15, 1973

I hope that after we are used to the idea of Canada flag day being an important day in the Canadian calendar, we will take the further step suggested in my Bill C-79 and make it, as well as an August holiday, a holiday under the provisions of the Canada Labour Code so that all people across Canada will be able to enjoy it.
However, for the moment ah one needs to say is that just as it was an historic day eight years ago, which some of us well remember, here on Parliament Hill, so this is an historic day and I suppose congratulations should be extended to all hon. members that this House seems to be ready to pass this bill.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and myself had discussions prior to commencing this private members' hour, the result of which was altered when the hon. member for Cochrane subsequently came back to us and altered conditions upon which the previous discussions were held. I am not rising to prevent the passage of the bill and the sending of it to the committee, but it was my understanding that we should be using, except for five minutes, the whole of the private members' hour for estimates. That went by the board, and 1 explained to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) that the rest went by the board as well.
So we are prepared on this side to let the bill go to committee, but we are rather impressed by the fact that there have been several motions and several bills passed and sent to committee which were introduced by hon. members on my left as well as hon. members opposite. I think that some fairness should be shown here. My colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquar-rie), has had on the order paper Bill C-95 in this session and similar bills in previous sessions respecting Sir John A. Macdonald day. Surely there can be no greater Canadian in our historical past who would merit a legal holiday and this matter would merit the attention of the committee.
Therefore, before the expiry of private members' hour, having regard to the sense of fairness in having legislation of private members from all sides considered in a fair way, I propose that we permit the bill of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson) to go to committee provided that hon. members are in agreement that Bill C-95, sponsored by the hon. member for Hillsborough, will also go with it as decided in the same private members' hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If there is general agreement, I will say no more and simply resume my seat to see whether or not there is that agreement.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put me in a somewhat impossible position. Perhaps I might explain to him and to the House the way in which we have been attempting to proceed with the private members' hour of late. We have worked out an agreement with the government House leader and the cabinet that we will examine each proposal put forward by hon. members to see whether or not they are acceptable. We have done this with the
Canada Flag Day
first 20 items of bills and notices of motions. What we have done is to make a list of these; we have examined them and we are trying to come to some agreement with the cabinet to either accept or reject them.
It is our hope that as this new practice becomes established we will be able to accept many more private members' bills and notices of motion than has been the case in the past. Unfortunately, I am in the position where I cannot accept the offer made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) until I have had an opportunity to discuss it with the House leader and with members of the cabinet.
However, I can say that I would certainly have no objection to the same procedure being followed with respect to Bill C-95 as was followed with the bill under discussion. I have no objection to private members' bill or notices of motions from all parties being discussed and cleared in this way. I regret that under the circumstances I cannot accept the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Yukon. However, I hope that in explaining the way in which we are trying to treat private members' hour to make it more significant for members, hon. members opposite will permit this bill to go forward, and I promise in the future to give every consideration to bills that come before us and hope it will become the practice, and not the exception, in the private members' hour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order. I shall refrain from asking what happened to the agreement that I thought we had. I do not like this, but I suppose something must have changed. I hope, however, that the fundamental aspect of that agreement, namely, that this bill be allowed to have second reading and go to committee, might be sustained. I wonder therefore, since the hon. member for Kenora-Rai-ny River (Mr. Reid) is not in a position to agree to the passing of the bill in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), whether a compromise could be reached by giving second reading to the bill we are now discussing and by the House passing an order right now putting the bill of the hon. member for Hillsborough at the top of the list of public bills so that it will come up for discussion next time we come to this hour.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one observation on the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The placing of a bill at the top of the list gives no assurance whatsoever of its passage. It will be talked out almost certainly. We would have to have an assurance that it would be dealt with if it were given such priority, that the motion would come to a vote and that it would be sent to the committee at the next private members' hour. We had the spectacle only yesterday of generosity being returned by the very opposite action on very similar matters. Regretfully, I have to say that before I go blindly into such an arrangement I want to know what all the consequences might be.


Erik Nielsen: I have another suggestion to make, that rather than going along the route suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, we stand this bill-if permission is necessary to get approval of my original proposal-and deal with it in the next private members' hour.

February 15, 1973
Supply


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we would have no objection to having the bill stood and retain its present place.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wish to comment on this suggestion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: If I may, Your Honour. Naturally, I shall not object to that. I am unhappy at what seems to have happened to an agreement that we thought we had, but may I suggest that we order two things, that this bill stand at the top of the list and that the bill regarding Sir John stand as No. 2 so that we can consider them together next time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House will permit our going back into committee of the whole before I call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. It being six o'clock, the committee stands adjourned until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose it was considering the schedule, vote 20a related to the Department of the Environment. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are talking about the environment tonight because one of the things that has concerned me since I have been in this House is airport expansion. Airports have a great effect on our environment, and one that concerns me most is the Sea Island airport in Richmond which is in my riding.

Mr. Marchand stated yesterday that only a small number of people were concerned about the expansion of our airport. He said that he did not see why some who wanted to obtain more money for their property used those pretexts in order to get it. I think that Mr. Marchand-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Douglas Reynolds: -is very wrong when he accuses people in my riding of seeking more money. The people in my riding are seeking an environmental impact study on the relationship of the new airport to the environment. The main thing that is wrong with the way the government is expropriating land is that they expropriate first and do their studies later.
I have asked the hon. Minister of Transport questions regarding the environment and he has stated they are all answered. I should like to put on the record of this House some of the questions on the environment that people of my riding are still asking: (1) noise: (a) did not provide technical data on CNR noise cones; (b) new NEF noise cone reports still unavailable; (2) air pollution: no studies, data to justify statement that airplanes are not a contributory factor; (3) engine test-beds: no studies of effect enlarged airport will have on use, expansion or inconvenience caused by test beds; (4) environment: no studies, research, data on environmental effects of airport on Vancouver, Sturgeon Bank fishing, river pollution due to expected container cargo ports, etc.
Then (5) Burkville: long-range plans for this area absent. Mr. McLoud hinted that there may be long-range plans; (6) decision-making process: no information on process of planning for airport-especially whether or not Mr. Marchand has taken a direct interest in decision-making; (7) diminution of land values: neither guarantees nor information about DOT's responsibility for land values; (8) comparative costs: no information on whether comparative cost studies done-comparison of building new airport versus letting air carriers pay penalties versus cost to community. MOT said a study existed, but was not available to be taken home; (9) no data on zoning restrictions and requirements for parallel runways-these exist but have not been made available.
Then we got to (10) Boundary Bay: no studies on whether reserved area at Boundary Bay could be developed into a freight airport thus diminishing the necessity to enlarge Vancouver; (11) cargo ports: no information on proposed cargo ports, environmental effects, effects on property values of nearby Vancouver, etc; (12) population: no data to show that expected growth of airport use is based on realistic estimate of future population growth in greater Vancouver area; (forecast for needs of airport based only on predictions by airlines. This data not supplied either); (13) air space: no studies have been made of available air space (MOT seems to have sought only verbal opinion of air controllers); (14) taxiways: no plans, data, studies of effects of taxiways especially north of new runway.
Then we have (15) landfill: no studies on environmental impact, cost, source of landfill, etc; (16) sinking runway: no explanation of contention that old runway is sinking and this is the reason for the haste in building a new runway; (17) property use: no data, schedule of when and
February 15, 1973

if expropriated or purchased property will be used; (18) public annoyance: no data on how MOT acquires negative information on public annoyance, whether current complaint procedures are adequate and represent actual annoyance; (19) land purchase: no clear explanation of policies used to buy up land, whether it was equitable or not.
Mr. Chairman, these are questions put to the hearing in Vancouver right now, and we still do not have any answers. The Minister of Transport says there have been environmental impact studies done, yet his department fails to produce them at the hearings and that is why we have sought to have them halted. There seems to be a conflict here, because the Minister of the Environment said last Friday night in Vancouver, as reported in the Province of Saturday, February 10:
Environment minister Jack Davis said Friday night the ministry of transport will not expand Vancouver airport without a full environmental study, including public hearings.
A further quote from the Minister of the Environment reads:
I think we've got at least 18 months to do this study.
If in fact, Mr. Chairman, the study has not been done, why are we expropriating the land of people in that area? We should give them a chance. The hearings require that these people be told everything that is going to happen so that they have a proper reason to object. They have not a proper reason to object now, because they do not have these answers in their hands.
For the Minister of Transport to state a few people are seeking more money for their property is scandalous, and I think they deserve an apology. The mayor of Vancouver is concerned about it and his council has passed a resolution seeking that the government delay the hearings. The greater Vancouver regional board has asked that the hearings be delayed until the environmental studies are complete.
The people of that area would like to go along with this government. They agree there is an airport needed. A year ago, in 1972, they came to an agreement with the director of the property and commercial law section of DOT on how the property would be disposed of. The government has not seen fit to bring that agreement before this House. It would have provided an agreeable solution to the problem. My last point in talking about the airport is that it is not a local problem. Members of our party and of the NDP have been raising it here since January. It is a national issue.
In the province of Quebec a priest, the Reverend Georges Duquet, has demanded a probe into the airport at Ste. Scholastique. Yet all we hear is that everything is going all right in that area. The Reverend Duquet challenged the Quebec department of justice to investigate the expropriation of thousands of acres of land for the Mirabel international airport. I read from the press report.
At a press conference, the fiery parish priest charged that "many hands were greased" with expropriation funds and urged the justice department to look into the takeover of 93,000 acres in the Mirabel region.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I am having difficulty relating the hon. member's remarks to the matter before the committee. I know he has been referring to the environmental situation relating to the setting up of an airport, but I hope he will keep to the subject matter before the committee and not discuss the process of establishing airports.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I will try to abide by your suggestion, but I feel that when we talk about expropriations we are dealing with the environment, and the people of my area are as concerned about this question as Father Duquet is about Ste. Scholastique.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You cannot compare the two.


John Douglas Reynolds: The hon. member for St. Boniface says you cannot compare them. The people of both areas are concerned about the environmental impact and about the treatment they are receiving at the hands of this government in the matter of expropriations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Transport and for the hon. member for St. Boniface. They have discussed this issue with us but still have not solved the problem. I wish one of them would go to my area and find out what is happening. The people of my area are concerned about the environment. I am speaking of the people of Sea Island, the people of Vancouver and the people of British Columbia. They want action. I hope that tonight's discussion will result in the Minister of Transport going to the area soon and finding out for himself the problem facing the people of British Columbia.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Burna-by-Richmond asked several important questions. He is concerned about the preparation of environmental impact statements before the bulldozers move in. I think this is essential; it is basic to the federal government's position on environmental policy. It is important, however, to separate two very distinct happenings on Sea Island. One is the removal of a certain number of old homes, probably 50, by expropriation, and the other, at a later date, the expansion of the international airport there.
The expansion of the airport will be a sizeable undertaking and it will have a substantial impact on the immediate surroundings. The environmental consequences could be serious if the airport is not properly planned. But if we deal with one thing at a time, namely, the expropriation of homes and the removal of private residents from that island, the environmental impact of removing those homes will be zero, or positive. That, obviously, is good.
When we come to the expansion of the airport which will begin, say, in 18 months' time, we will need prior to that date a published environmental impact statement. I hope it can be prepared within 12 months; that is the deadline the task force is working to. It must gather all the information available to date. After the publication of that information we must hold hearings. I would hope at the same time that intervenors, be they municipalities, the

Supply
provincial government or private individuals, will also bring forward ideas as to environmental consequences.
May I point out that very few developments in this country so far have been preceded by environmental impact statements. We are embarking upon a new course, hoping in this case that we will have done all the right things in the right time sequence. Certainly, in the case of the construction of a major runway costing many millions of dollars and extending into the ocean, there must be a proper environmental appraisal, a public debate on the matter and changes if those changes are necessary.


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the minister referred to my constituency as Burnaby-Rich-mond, and forgot the "Delta" part of it. There are many fine people in the Delta and they do not like to see their part of the riding left out when the riding is mentioned. Another point of order is that the hon. member for St. Boniface thumped his desk when the Minister of Environment suggested that the government is trying to do things the right way. I am sure it is; there are hard working people over there. But obviously the people of British Columbia do not agree with the hon. member, otherwise, they would not be complaining.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member is making an argument or a case. I think he should take the floor on a subsequent occasion and make his comments about the remarks of the minister.


Mr. Grier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say a few words on a matter affecting the environment. It is not mentioned as frequently as some others. It has to do with noise control, noise pollution, noise abatement and the general impact of noise on the environment.


Erik Nielsen: Beginning with the hon. member.


Terrence Wyly Grier: After spending six weeks as a member of the House of Commons, I have become more familiar with the effect of noise on the immediate environment than I was before coming here.


Erik Nielsen: Especially as the hon. member sits where he does.


Terrence Wyly Grier: The problem of noise pollution is one of which we have become increasingly aware in recent years, especially in cities where industrial, residential and commercial uses of various kinds intermix one with another. Increasingly, environmental authorities, including those of the federal government, ought to be concerned about the problem of noise.
In the cities and metropolitan areas the problem of noise pollution is especially severe, particularly in those parts of cities where industrial and residential areas are intermixed. This is most likely to happen in older parts of cities or in older suburbs because there, among core industries, substantial residential developments have grown up. For that matter, one will find noise pollution even within residential areas themselves as innocuous devices such as domestic air conditioners can, over a period, create an intolerable nuisance to people in the immediate neighbourhood.

Notwithstanding the problem of jurisdiction as between federal and provincial levels of government, and the further problem that a certain amount of noise abatement control is undertaken at the municipal level, there are steps which could be and ought to have been taken by the federal government. I am particularly anxious to see action in this area because there are problems which have arisen in my constituency. I hope hon. members will forgive me for referring to my own constituency in this connection. I am sure, however, that most Members of Parliament representing urban constituencies will find similar problems in their areas.
In my constituency, the residents living on a number of streets are severely disturbed by noise coming from Canadian National Railways marshalling yards and the Go transit yards operated by the Ontario government. Over a number of months I have, in conjunction with members of other levels of government and a number of citizens, been trying to take some kind of action to deal with this problem. Our efforts have been frustrated. First, there do not appear to exist any uniformly accepted sets of standards as to what are acceptable noise levels and what are intolerable noise levels. Second, there is great confusion as to which authority, municipal, provincial or federal, is responsible for dealing with the problem.
These residents and others have found that it is almost impossible to get any level of government to take constructive action on a problem that is of serious concern to many residents, one which is causing depreciation in the value of their property and appears to defy the rational solutions which one ought to expect to be brought to bear upon the problem.
This is a matter which the federal government is obliged to deal with, and I suggest it could be dealt with in one or two ways. Under the authority of the Department of the Environment, some kind of national noise control code or set of standards should be established. This should govern the operation of enterprises and activities within the federal jurisdiction. It would serve as a set of standards for the guidance of other jurisdictions, industries in the private and public sector and the general public. For example, when citizens appeal to their municipal government for assistance in the matter of noise control, they are frequently told that there is no satisfactory set of standards, the matter is not yet fully probed and no immediate action appears to be possible.
Without suggesting that the federal government can interfere with those enterprises or activities which fall within the jurisdiction of another level of government, I think a set of standards which have integrity, which are acceptable to experts in the area and which can be publicized would be of substantial benefit to citizens who are seeking redress of grievances arising from noise pollution. At the same time, such a set of standards ought to be enforced upon all enterprises that fall under federal jurisdiction.
I do not exempt the railways from such a suggestion. In my view, the railways are frequently among the worst offenders. We are not now dealing with the railways of 50 or 60 years ago when steam engines inevitably made a
February 15, 1973

certain amount of noise. We are now dealing with problems of a more sophisticated and complex nature which I believe can be overcome and controlled. As result, residents within the immediate environment of the noise-emitting agency would be given some protection which they Eire now denied.
As I speak, and I hope this is not a reflection on my oratorical ability, the level of noise in the House of Commons appears to be rising. Perhaps it is appropriate as I deal with this problem. In any event, I want to draw to the attention of the minister that there have been undertaken in other countries very substantial efforts to control noise pollution. I draw to his attention the maximum noise level standards established by the Swiss anti-noise commission. That federal country seems to have had no serious difficulty in establishing and enforcing substantial anti-noise devices and control in recent years.
The United States Congress set standards in that federal country under the national environmental protection act. They are enforced by the environmental protection agency. They apply to virtually all forms of noise pollution except those surrounding the operation of airports and aircraft. In Great Britain, the British Standards Institution has set out a comprehensive method of rating industrial noise affecting mixed residential and industrial areas. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I think this matter is of most immediate concern in our country. Those standards are elaborately described in a document published by the British Standards Institution which I commend to the Department of the Environment.
I am aware that many problems surrounding the general area of noise pollution and noise control must be solved at the provincial and/or municipal level. However, I believe that federal leadership is required and can be extremely beneficial. I believe that federal leadership, as an example to a wider community, by way of direct action in connection with those enterprises and agencies which fall within federal control, and by way of moral support to a growing number of citizens in Canada who take the environmental issue seriously and who are devoting their attention to this particular and less tangible form of pollution which none the less may have as serious an impact on our over-all environment as any other, would enable those seeking action and redress at any level to enlist the support of an authoritative set of standards in their struggle to protect their neighbourhoods and point to an example set by the federal government in this field.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to be overly long tonight, but I think the matter raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta deserves some comment in this debate on the environment. I do not mean to go back into a great deal of detail as to what is wrong with regard to the proposed plans for the Vancouver airport. The point I want to make is that we are now reacting after the event.
The Minister of the Environment said that before this project goes ahead, we will need to have a fully fledged environmental study and these matters will all have to be considered. My position is that this shows the basic weakness in our environmental planning, our administrative system and our legislative system. The decision to go ahead with this new runway was made a long time ago,
Supply
before members on the government side or members of the bureaucracy who have to do these things in a detailed way had any idea of what the impact would be on the surrounding municipalities. What is the use of coming along after the event and promising that we will have another study? According to newspaper reports we will be spending $3 million to $4 million to expropriate this land. We will have destroyed a neighbourhood in the process.
Now there is to be an environmental study. I say, with respect, that the only reason there is to be an environmental study is that there has been so much commotion raised about the matter in the House of Commons during the last month or so. The point is that we have not yet come up with an answer to the question: How shall we make decisions in a proper sequence? It is not enough to come along after the event, at the tail end of the decision-making process, and run around trying to satisfy some irate voters by giving them a sop and saying there is to be an environmental study. Let me give an example. The Province of February 12, writes:
The problem of noise levels is being re-examined this weekend by Minister of Transport's Warren Christopher, a senior planning officer from Ottawa, who will try to produce an updated noise exposure forecast by today in partial answer to objector's demands for information.
Why was this not done a long time ago? When we are talking about the environment, we must remember that unless all hon. members in this House recognize that our decision-making process is all wrong we shall be unable to satisfy the public and we shall be unable to solve environmental problems. We have been talking tonight about Vancouver, but this could apply to any area across this nation.
The last point I want to make is this. All hon. members in this House have an obligation to the electorate of Canada to look as though they are trying to do things properly. The protest which is growing in my city does not come only from a few people who are objecting to the expropriation of their property. Hon. members, especially those on the government side, must realize that protests have come from the municipality of Richmond, the city of Vancouver and the executive committee of the greater Vancouver district. The city of Vancouver passed unanimously a resolution last week asking that this whole process be stopped until they can discuss it; and today a telegram has been sent to the Prime Minister from the executive committee of the greater Vancouver district saying: "Stop it until we know what is going on."
These are not protests coming from silly people who are only concerned about the value of their property. These protests are coming from an entire community. If we go on doing things the way we have been doing them-we must all take some of the blame for this-the faith of the ordinary person in the validity of our decision-making will become less and less. So it behoves us all, especially members on the government side, to remember what the consequences are likely to be, because we have an obligation to show the electorate that we can make decisions in a way that makes sense to the people who have sent us here.
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 15, 1973


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver South made a lot of sense. He said many of the right things. We must make environmental studies before we undertake major construction projects. If we had enough expertise, enough biologists around, we should carry out environmental studies in connection with everything we do.
The hon. member was president of the Garibaldi Olympics Association, and they were very active promoting a development in connection with the winter Olympics in a pristine part of British Columbia, Whistler Mountain. But they never did an environmental impact study.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Davis: However, in fairness to the hon. member, environmental impact studies were not in vogue in 1970. Today, people are looking further ahead and asking more important questions. All I want to say to the hon. member is that he must not take for granted that a decision to build a runway in a location is final, and by a date that is settled forever. If, over the next year, we come up with reasons, or others come up with reasons of an environmental character, telling us why this should be done and should not be done, we will have to change our plans. That is basic policy and that is what I believe will be done. And I know I will have the support of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, the first thing I would like to do is to congratulate my hon. friend from Vancouver South for the tremendous contribution he has made in recent weeks to the debate on environmental matters. I am sure he exemplifies the quality of representation we need in the House of Commons. Second, I would like to congratulate my colleagues from western Canada who during the last few days while we have been engaged in discussion of the supplementary estimates have shown much initiative in displaying their concern about the direction being taken in rural Canada and about the problems being faced by our agricultural industry. If I were a voter from western Canada I would be very happy about the quality of representation being brought to the House of Commons by western members in recent days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I wish to make, Mr. Chairman, what one colleague of mine in the provincial legislature once called a second maiden speech. This is my second maiden speech. It is the first time I have taken the floor this year except for a few points of order and a couple of questions during the question period.
I make this speech feeling there has been an area in this session of parliament which has been sadly neglected. I am, of course, referring to the fisheries of Canada. I know when I talk about the fisheries in this country I am talking about a topic which has never been high in popularity on the parliamentary menu of the House of Commons. In fact, I am reminded of the day when colleagues from my own province took part in a debate on fisheries questions and were mocked by members across the way. I remem-

ber the constant din that was set up by those hon. members, repeating the word "fish", "fish", "fish". I suppose one could only call it fun-poking at us for participating in a fisheries debate.
I must even admit, Mr. Chairman, that as I stand here tonight talking about fisheries I do not feel quite as much in order as I would if I were talking about other matters. I am sure that if I were a representative from, say, Toronto, I would feel more in order talking about something like Pickering airport, or perhaps Ste. Scholastique because those things are big, they cost something like $600 million and everybody has come to understand that kind of importance. I suppose it is because this country has become a great big country. It has large cities, great concentrations of people, sophisticated questions about language and urban development, bilingualism, disunity, regional development and all manner of nonsense. But when you talk about fish, that is something which identifies only with little guys.


James Aloysius McGrath: Just a four-letter word.


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, just as my hon. friend from St. John's East has said, it is just a four-letter word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Howard Lundrigan: Of course, the Prime Minister would understand that language, even though he might not know much about the fisheries.
But I remember, Mr. Chairman, when I first came to the House of Commons in 1968 I felt a great deal of pride in being able to identify with the fisheries. As many hon. members who have come here since then, as well as those who have been here a long time, will know, the fishing industry was what gave birth to what has become the Canadian nation.
There is documented evidence available which goes back to the year 1,000 A.D., ample evidence which goes back to 1497 and 1610 in Canadian history, showing the value of Canadian fisheries. It was the first staple industry ever to be established. It was followed by the fur trade, then the great concentration on timber because of the wars and the naval development in Europe. Later we saw the great migration to western Canada and the building of the railways. This was a great, exciting period. But it was only yesterday. Such developments have taken place only in the last hundred years. The fishing industry, however, was what gave birth to the Canadian nation.
I remember just a while ago, relatively speaking, we heard a statement by the Minister of the Environment that he intended to disband the ministry of fisheries. The province of Newfoundland joined the confederation of Canada in 1949. In 1867 the Fathers of Confederation saw fit to establish a Department of Fisheries. Now, in 1973, the man who sits across from me today calls himself the minister of the sexy department, but there is no longer a fisheries department.


John (Jack) Davis: You haven't asked a question this year about fisheries.
February 15, 1973


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister tells me I haven't asked a question about fisheries this year, and that is exactly the point I am trying to make. You do not talk about fish in the House of Commons any longer; you talk about the environment.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that.


John Howard Lundrigan: I'm all in favour of it. I am one of the greatest environmentalists in Canada because I live in a province that is one of the last frontiers. It is uninhabited and unmolested, with thousands and thousands of square miles of beauty that is unpolluted by mankind. I tell you that I am going to be here a long while before I ever allow some of the things to happen there that have been happening in some parts of Canada.
When the minister brought in his Department of the Environment every Canadian knows that he eliminated the department of fisheries. Consequently, today even some of our most vocal spokesmen on fish find it almost impossible to stand here with any support from the House of Commons and talk about fish. You do not hear any questions about fish.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister does not want to hear about fish in this House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: There is no department of fisheries, that is why not. You have no interest in fish. You cut out whaling, you cut out sealing and you cut out everything. You are the biggest doomsday guy in the House, and you know it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: That's why you don't hear about it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You betrayed the fishing industry; you made a mockery of it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, was chairman of the fisheries committee for four years and in my opinion he exemplifies the kind of character, steadfastness and ability we need in the fishing industry of this nation. He has now pretty well expressed the view I wanted to express.
The Minister of the Environment is not interested in fisheries. He does not want to be involved in fisheries. I am sure around the cabinet table he never mentions fisheries legislation. We have eliminated the ministry of fisheries. We have excellent people in the department who are involved with fisheries, but the point I am trying to make is that we have lost our initiative in Canada as a nation which depends so heavily on fisheries. The minister made a tragic blunder when he eliminated the department of fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Supply


John Howard Lundrigan: During the last election campaign the leader of our party went across Canada and said-


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You know which one. There is only one leader in our party. But we could not find your leader over there today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How about some order?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You just can't take it. Where is your leader? You haven't got one.


An hon. Member:: Oh, go get your dory.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Never mind my dory.


John Howard Lundrigan: During the last election campaign our leader stated categorically that we would adopt a policy to rejuvenate the department of fisheries which would in no way impinge on the ability of the government to handle environmental problems. The Minister of Fisheries said categorically that there was no need for it, and my hon. friend from Newfoundland in that cabinet had no choice but to honour his responsibility in the cabinet.
The end result was that after the election was over we came back to the House of Commons and we were told that the government was going to restructure the department a little. We were not going to have a minister or a deputy minister of fisheries; there was to be a Minister of the Environment and a deputy minister of the environment. But we were told that we would have an assistant deputy minister of the environment and an assistant deputy minister of fisheries and related services, or some such nonsense.
It was made quite clear that the minister realized he had made a mistake, but he was not big enough to stand up before the House of Commons and the Canadian people and say he had made a mistake and intended to restore the department of fisheries. Perhaps he could not get support from his Prime Minister. I am sure he could not get support from the Secretary of State for External Affairs because that is where the biggest problem lies. The minister should have to stand today and tell the whole story about the problems he is having in cabinet with Mr. Sharp, because that is where the problem lies.
I will get around to that subject in a few minutes, and I apologize for using the hon. gentleman's name. When talking about external affairs we should remember that there are a whole lot of external matters that come under that department which do not apply to the fishery. Let me place a few things on the record that have caused us concern.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi was a great salmon fisherman and a great sportsman. He is not here tonight but he has been here and has raised problems in respect of salmon, just as the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster has. I want to inform hon. members of this House that I am going to rise on a point of order every time someone stands up and directs a question to the Minister of Fisheries, because he is not alive and does

February 15, 1973
Supply
not exist. He has been dead for over a year. I am going to rise on a question of privilege every time someone asks a question of the Minister of Fisheries.


John (Jack) Davis: It is in the act.


John Howard Lundrigan: What act? He is in the act? I know he is acting all right and that he is a great actor, but where is the Minister of Fisheries mentioned? This ministry does not appear in Hansard. Where the hell is he? This table of ministers indicates that the Hon. Jack Davis is Minister of the Environment, and this is the official record of Hansard. It lists the ministry according to precedence, and it appears in Wednesday's Hansard every week. There is no mention of fisheries. Show me where he exists? The Minister of the Environment should be a little careful as to what he is talking about. Obviously he does not exist.


John (Jack) Davis: It is in the Government Organization Act.


John Howard Lundrigan: He is in the Government Organization Act? Where is that buried? Everybody agrees that the minister is a cold fish, but he is certainly not a very active one. Let's get on to the real issue. We had the Danes involved in the high seas fishery for salmon. The United States very quietly and behind the scenes sent a delegation to Denmark and took their stand against the Danes being involved in the high seas salmon fishery. What did the Minister of the Environment do or say? He said he was going to cure this problem in respect of the declining salmon fishery off the Atlantic coast. He said he would do this by destroying the livelihood of Atlantic salmon fishermen. He said he would take them out of the salmon fishery, and that this would replenish the stock. He gave the impression that he was doing this because he was out to stop the Danes. I suppose he thought they would become very humble because we were punishing our fishermen and that they, the Danes, would then withdraw from this fishery. Instead, they said that he could go straight to hell and that they would have nothing to do with him. They have not done anything about it. The Danes have not reduced their fishing fleet and they are continuing in this salmon fishery as they have over the years. Not only have we not stopped the Danes or turned them back, but they are getting the benefits of this fishery and we are being accused of being criminals.
The minister and officials of his department said the other day that the fishermen of New Brunswick were inflating their estimates of the cost of their fishing gear. He said the costs were so high they could not settle the claims. The Globe and Mail came out with a headline to the effect that the fishermen of the Atlantic region were trying to take advantage of the Department of the Environment. Everybody across Canada, especially those in Toronto, now thinks we are a bunch of crooks down in the Atlantic region because of the attitude taken by this minister. That is the kind of publicity we can well do without if we are as interested in national unity as those of us from the Atlantic region. What has happened to the seal fishery?


An hon. Member:: Oh, don't mention that.


John Howard Lundrigan: Last year I received a letter from a favourite friend of mine in British Columbia who writes

me periodically about the seal fishery. There is a lot of interest in the seal fishery in British Columbia, especially around Capilano, and don't tell me the minister is not concerned about what goes on in Capilano. In any event, this lady said there had been a secret treaty signed with Norway allowing the Norwegians to take 60,000 of our seals inside our 12-mile limit. Canada has a 12-mile limit, and this is about as archaic as the cannon. That is how we got the three-mile limit. In the days when we had cannons we used to shoot three miles out into the Atlantic and if anyone came within that distance he was endangering himself. As a result, it was said that we had a three-mile limit.
Fishing has been carried on since 1000 A.D., but since 1400 we have only been able to establish a 12-mile limit. The minister is advancing at the rate of about one-eighth of a mile every hundred years. We might be up to a 15-mile limit in the next two centuries. In any event, the minister has decided he is going to do something about Norway and has said that we want Norway out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. For over a year he has been talking of this gulf as being a Canadian area. He has made the statement that it is exclusively Canadian waters, but we have found that he has made an agreement with Norway whereby they are still to be allowed in the gulf until some time to come. When is the minister going to get them out?


John (Jack) Davis: They have not been there for ten years.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister says that they have not been there for ten years. Well, that is the greatest revelation I have ever heard, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment have been telling us that in order to get them out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence we had to give away our seal fishing rights. We were told a special concession had to be given. Last year secret talks were held in this connection and then they were allowed to take 60,000 of our seals nine miles inside our territorial sea. I do not know of another occasion on which we have allowed people to declare war on us by agreement.
Then we might talk about the whaling industry. There is no whaling industry in my riding. The hon. member for South Shore has a whaling industry in his riding.


An hon. Member:: He does not have it now because it was taken away from his constituency.


John Howard Lundrigan: He had one. The hon. member for Bona-vista-Trinity-Conception, who sits across the way, is not here tonight. I am waiting for him to make his maiden speech. He had a whaling industry in his riding. The minister read Farley Mowat's book on Burgeo and the killing of a whale. I have read Farley Mowat's books for years. The first book I read was "The People of the Deer". I love his writings. He is a dramatist and an author. His writings are partly based on fact and largely on fiction. There is also a lady in Toronto who has been involved in saving the whales.
There have been 50,000 whales killed by the nations of the world, and 500 by Canadians. The minister decided to set an example. One day he held a press conference on
February 15, 1973

whaling in Canada. The people were told that we must protect our non-renewable resources so he cut out whaling. The minister did not have the decency to tell the people what the scientific evidence was, what the situation was and what we should do. He did not say we must have a plan. He said when people are put out of work there must be an alternative arrangement for them so they will have employment. There are hundreds of thousands of people walking the streets today as a result of the behaviour of this government. When I think of the behaviour of this minister I am ashamed that I have not violated that little space between us.
Now I shall move on to the matter of the swordfish industry. This does not have anything to do with us in Newfoundland. The minister does not allow us to sell our swordfish. He tells us the reason is that there are certain mercury levels and contaminants, and yet swordfish are being sold in other parts of the world.


John (Jack) Davis: The Americans will not allow it to be sold in the U.S.


John Howard Lundrigan: Well, are swordfish being harvested by other nations? I thought they were.


John (Jack) Davis: Tell us.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will not tell anything. I do not know anything about fisheries. I am from the east coast. I am not involved in that. I eat T-bone steaks and filet mignon.
Then we have the lobster fishery. We do not know what we are doing in respect of that industry because we do not know when the minister will pull the plug and destroy the industry. Regulations are being made without any consultation. Last year the minister would not allow anybody in our province to take salmon who had not been involved in the industry prior to the bringing in of the regulations. There are people in my province who have never done anything except fish, and now many of them cannot obtain a licence to fish salmon. There used to be a man who would come around and ask if a person wished a salmon licence. We are not as sophisticated as the people are in Capilano and other places. This man would come around and we would get a licence from him. However, if a man did not get a licence in a particular year, he was barred for all time; the minister decided to put him out of business even though he had all the salmon nets and gear sitting in his yard. This is the type of regulation this department brings in. We can talk about national unity, but how can we respect this kind of attitude?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member to tell him that the time allotted to him has expired. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Howard Lundrigan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Is it not customary for an hon. member to carry on, with unanimous consent?


Gérald Laniel: Of course, the hon. member may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: The Chair is of the opinion that there is not unanimous consent. The Chair now recognizes the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


John Howard Lundrigan: Before you do so, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think it is a silly rule because I will probably be back on again in 20 minutes. May I ask what member in the Liberal Party denied the unanimous consent needed for me to continue? Is it possible for you to tell me, Mr. Chairman?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the Chair is a servant of the House and must abide by the rules of the House, which provide for a limit of 20 minutes on the speeches of hon. members in committee of the whole. I must call upon the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Since we all want to get on with the consideration of these estimates and have the discussion completed as quickly as we can, I believe there should be some co-operation. The rules provide that an hon. member may speak as many times as he chooses-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon knows the rules. There is no provision in the rules to extend an hon. member's time unless there is unanimous consent. I must abide by the rules and recognize the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, who also has a right to speak in this House.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think there is agreement on this side for the hon. member to continue.


Erik Nielsen: I was simply about to suggest to the committee that it give unanimous consent in order that we may get on with our business and not take any more time than is necessary.


Gérald Laniel: I could again ask whether there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I did not realize I was allowed only 20 minutes. I had assumed I would be allowed 30 minutes. I thank hon. members for the privilege they have given me of continuing. There are two or three points I should like to talk about. I could speak for five or six hours because I think the question of fisheries is that important.
A couple of days ago I received a letter from the Department of Public Works. I had written the department on behalf of a small fishing community asking for some facilities. I was told in the letter from the department that they did have some opinions, but could not do anything about it because they had not received an expression of opinion from the Department of the Environment; therefore could not make a decision. Two years ago it was my understanding that the Minister of the Environment assumed responsibility for matters of facilities which came under fisheries. My understanding was that they were going to take unto themselves what is now the role of the Department of Public Works in constructing these

February 15, 1973
Supply
facilities, Apparently this has not happened, either, because of conflict within the cabinet, difficulty with regard to jurisdiction or difficulties in structuring.
The fact is that today on our coast-and I think hon. members from the Pacific coast are of the same opinion- you cannot get anything from the Department of Public Works. All of our facilities, thousands of wharves and breakwaters and other fishing facilities that are absolutely essential for the continuation of the industry, are going downhill and are not being replaced. If you write to the Department of the Environment or the Department of Public Works they will tell you that there has been no increase in the fishing activity and therefore the expense cannot be justified. Every move is being made to destroy the fishing industry of this nation, and that is our major concern. I ask the minister to clear up once and for all this nonsense regarding who is responsible for fishing facilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: I will pass over several things having to do with marketing and the flow of dollars into the pockets of our fishermen and go on to another issue which is major in consequence. It has to do with unemployment insurance for fishermen. About two years ago we started raising questions about some plan that the minister might have for the fishermen of our country so that they could be treated in the same way as workers in other industries in terms of unemployment insurance benefits. The Minister of the Environment stated at that time that his department was studying the problem.
Three or four weeks ago I met Mr. Guy Cousineau, chairman of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and raised the question with him. He told me that the commission had studied the problem extensively. I make no negative comment about Mr. Cousineau's involvement, which is a very recent and a very honourable one but the fact is that the department has not yet come to grips with the problem.
I should like to tell hon. members a fact which I am sure some of them do not know. If a labourer or construction worker has eight weeks' stamps, he can qualify for up to 44 weeks benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. Some hon. members may ask why fishermen are involved at all. I wonder whether they know what fishermen can get with eight weeks' stamps. Does anybody in the House know what a fisherman can get with eight weeks' stamps? There is a special ruling for fishermen. They get in benefits two-thirds of the number of weeks they have worked. For example, if a fisherman pays for nine weeks' stamps-I will try to make it easier for those hon. members who are not as mathematically inclined as the minister-he can get only six weeks' benefits. He cannot start receiving benefits until December 1, and this ends in May.
There are all kinds of restrictions; it does not make any difference how long a fisherman works, how industrious he is. In the fall, the fisherman who goes out to fish in the North Atlantic-the same thing would apply in the Pacific-begins to find his unemployment insurance benefits

limited. In the fall, the weather on the North Atlantic deteriorates, the big storms start, storms that have a wind velocity of 80 or 100 miles an hour sometimes. This gets a little rough, and fishermen can only work a few days a week. We talk about rough times in the House of Commons. Let me say that this is a pleasure trip in comparison. Nobody here understands how rough it gets out there. These fellows can go out to fish in the Atlantic only on certain days.
What do you think the UIC does? When fishing stops in the fall, they take the fishermen's last 20 weeks of work and they average out what benefits they have had. Consequently, the fellow who gets in his boat and goes out into the North Atlantic in the fall, in November or December, is running the risk of losing his life but is penalized for that. The reason is that he is too industrious. However, the fellow who decided that it is a little too cold out yonder and gives up fishing in August is all right because he has had the beautiful, heavy summer, fishing stamps at a time when there is a glut of fish around the shores.
This is the kind of benefit that the minister is ready to provide for our fishermen. Does he not feel guilty about these kinds of injustices? If I were sitting there as Minister of the Environment and either had not enough interest or enough pull in the cabinet to rectify these matters, I would feel embarrassed and really ashamed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Any fisherman in Newfoundland who really understands what fishing is all about would feel the same as I do. My colleagues from Nova Scotia are certainly well able to speak for themselves, but I know they have the same attitude. The same is true in the province of Ontario in which fresh fish marketing is all messed up. Manitoba also got itself into a mess because of fresh fish marketing. Yet this minister does not want to talk about it because the sexy thing right now is the environment. When you talk about the environment you can cloud the fishing industry issue. If we had a minister of fisheries today, he would be roasted alive in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: That is not happening to this minister because the environment issue is so popular and so much on the minds of people nowadays that we hardly have time to talk about fish. I understand what the hon. member from the Vancouver area is talking about every day and what his colleague from Vancouver means. These are vital issues, and consequently fishing has become irrelevant. It is a ruptured appendix which should be cut out, so far as the minister is concerned.
Mr. Chairman, there are two or three other issues to which I should like to refer. One is the sort of thing with which the hon. member for Hull across the way should be able to identify. I am referring to the hon. doctor who sits here daily, the distinguished member. Even my colleagues from parts of Canada that have never seen the rolling waves of the Atlantic ocean should be able to understand this. In 1947-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: They don't know what you are talking about.


An hon. Member:: That is before Stanley Knowles.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am getting a charge out of watching the Minister of National Health and Welfare who until recently was one of the super group.


George Harris Hees: "Was" is the operative word.


John Howard Lundrigan: He was better off in the Prime Minister's office where he had the protection and security of being behind the scenes.


George Harris Hees: We need you back there, Marc.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I have only recently assumed the chair and 1 must ask the hon. member whether we are now on the subject of the environment or on National Health and Welfare.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am talking about fishing, Mr. Chairman, but I should be talking about pollution, I recognize that. However, I will get to the point. We have a problem, and I should like hon. members in their daily deliberations to give this problem serious consideration. The fact that our country has developed economically is due mainly to our fishing resources. I remember hearing my colleague, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the eloquent Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, say, one day when we were asking for subsidies, that if we were here when John Cabot came across we would be looking for subsidies for fishing baskets which were used to sink into the water to catch the fish which were there in great abundance. Unwittingly he reminded us that the resource was rolling up on the beaches of North America. It was the same as gold except that the shape and weight were different; it attracted people the same way that gold attracted people to Alaska. It was another major form of wealth. We had millions and millions of dollars worth of fish.
The ancestors of many members of the House today constructed boats and developed the technology to harvest that resource. They fought the elements, they scratched and dug into an environment which was completely foreign to many who came from Europe, especially those who came from southern European countries, and thus they eked out a living. Some of them survived, some did not. They distinguished themselves as aggressive, competent people. About 20 years ago-and this is not due to this government-we became part of Canada. Since that time, the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada is something that people blush about when they talk about it.
The Soviet Union discovered there were resources out there. Mr. Chairman, we discovered that 500 years ago. But the Soviet Union discovered them ten years ago and put millions of dollars into a great naval fleet, not to declare war on Canada militarily but to declare war on our fishing resources. That is what the Soviet Union and other nations have done off our coasts. Hon. members get all excited when we send troops to Viet Nam. But, Mr. Supply
Chairman, we have been at war for years. The Russians have been sending naval fleets to attack our resources.
The Russians destroyed the whole resources of the Hamilton Inlet banks, which was the spawning ground for the traditional Labrador fishery. In one year the Soviet Union and other nations took enough fish off that bank, and other banks, to keep the largest fish plant in my riding going for 100 years, employing 300 people. They took away one billion pounds of fish. So that hon. members can understand the magnitude of this, I repeat that that amount of fish could have kept the largest fish plant in my riding going for 100 years, employing 300 people working eight or ten hours a day. The end result was that that fishery was completely destroyed.
Is it any wonder that in the last three years members from my province have been standing up in this House asking for special assistance for our fishermen on the Labrador coast? Our fishermen traditionally used to go up the Labrador coast and harvest these resources in small boats. I have heard stories in which my ancestors described the quality and quantity of those resources. Today there is nothing left. Today, as we say, we cannot get a fish for the pot on the Labrador coast. The whole fishery is destroyed. Foreign nations moved in 250 miles off our shores and destroyed the spawning grounds.
The government has imposed some limitation on this, and I agree with that action, but overfishing continues to take place on all our banks and spawning grounds. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has not the gumption to stand up and tell us what propositions Canada will be presenting to the next International Law of the Sea Conference. The reason is that the government has no proposition to present. It is ashamed of the fishing industry. This is true; this is a fact.
Ministers don't talk about this in cabinet. They are not going to present any case at the next Law of the Sea Conference because the fishery does not fit into their major strategy for the Canadian nation. Iceland had no alternative but to take action. Icelanders depend on fishing for their livelihood. A year ago they established a 50-mile limit. They said to the British and Germans, "You send your bloody ships in here and we will sink them." And, Mr. Chairman, Iceland does not have a large enough navy to occupy the Rideau canal!


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, particularly as we have agreed to allow him to continue, but I would point out that we are under some time pressure on this particular question. If we do not succeed in completing our consideration of supply before we get into the budget debate, all these programs we are considering will not be able to start until after the budget debate. I would hope the hon. gentleman would be able to conclude now because I do not think he was making a leader's speech.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will respect that opinion, Mr. Chairman. We have been under a time pressure for about 500 years, but I am going to respect the minister's opinion. I think that I have gone beyond the normal privilege that one should take when one has been given extended time.
I just hope that one of these days we will get a Canadian government and a Canadian minister, and Canadian
1344

Supply
people, who realize that there is more in Canada causing disunity than just a language problem. There are a lot of serious economic problems and a lot of cultural problems. I and my six fellow colleagues from Newfoundland are the youngest Canadians here. As Canadians we are just 24 years old. We have a lot of social welfare problems, a lot of economic problems, but we would feel a lot more at home in confederation if we saw a manifestation on the part of any government, whether it be a government made up of hon. members opposite or a government made up of hon. members on this side, that it knew our problems were real. All Canadians have their own problems, but they are not getting the response from the government that they should be getting. I plead with hon. members to pay attention to our problems because they strike at the roots of the system in this federal country.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Chairman, I wish I had the sense of humour and the ability to deliver a speech displayed by the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, but I do not. One thing I resent is that no man delivered a speech with more sincerity than he and was faced with more mockery by hon. gentlemen to your right, Sir. They took it in a very lighthearted fashion. I exclude the minister from that, but those who sit behind him treated the speech with laughter. That is a disgrace to this House and an insult to the fishing industry.
I would like to pose just a few questions that hon. members might consider. Place yourself in the position of a clam-digger in the Atlantic area who is eligible for unemployment insurance. It is in the law of the land that you are eligible. So you try to find out why it is impossible to draw benefits. You go the Minister of Fisheries, if there is one, and he tells you, "You have a complete season. There is no reason why you should not get unemployment insurance." But you know that you have a very limited fishing season because the minister has closed down the fishery.
When you try to find out from the Minister of National Health and Welfare why you cannot get unemployment insurance stamps, you are told it is because the terms and conditions regarding unemployment insurance for clam-diggers have been set by the Department of National Revenue, and not even the Department of Fisheries can help you. Laugh that off, I say to hon. gentlemen opposite.
The fisherman is confused beyond reason by the host of regulations emanating from Ottawa, regulations drawn up without consultation with the fishermen. We are told in the Bay of Fundy that we should catch only a very limited number of fish of various species. But when one talks to fishermen who have been placed on quota, they say, "The best description of our quota that we can give you is that a Gloucester fishermen once said, 'The Russians don't need sonar. For generations we have been able to find schools of fish, but now when we find them the Russians overrun us and we cannot catch them.'"
The catch in that area is down to 20 per cent of what it was 25 years ago. It is less then 50 per cent of what it was before international fishing fleets invaded those waters. While our fishing boats are halted at the 12-mile limit off the United States coasts, U.S. boats are allowed to fish up to the three-mile limit off our coasts. I do not know how
the hon. gentleman from Newfoundland would describe that, but it is a most unfortunate situation.
When confederadtion was formed there were free tie-up privileges at the docks of this nation, from coast to coast, for fishermen. Why is it that fourth generation fishermen, for the first time are now being charged for tie-up privileges at their home docks and are being hauled into court for non-payment? Why are these regulations invoked? They give rise to frustration, defeat and discouragement. We have a situation in one province where the average age of farmers is 55 years. It is virtually impossible, by virtue of regulations, for a young man to get into the fishing business today, following the practice of his father or grandfather, because he cannot get a licence.
I am quite prepared to recognize that the minister and his department are taking a very serious look at conservation, which of course is important. I submit, however, that it is vital that the minister and his staff get out into the fishing area, get to know the problems of the people and achieve liaison between the department and the fishermen in order to understand their problems and meet them on their own ground.
It has been so long since a general survey of docks has taken place in many areas that the badly needed repairs will be very expensive indeed. While a minimum of work is going on, it is not enough. In many instances, harbours along the coast are no longer capable of accommodating the boats. If you were a fisherman and were told by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that you could buy a boat and it was such a good boat that the department would pay 50 per cent subsidy, and if you managed to get a little conversation going with the then department of fisheries-a department that has now disappeared-and your department of fisheries financed you and bought the boat for about $350,000, you would think the government was going to pay the 50 per cent and everybody had financed it for you. You would fish with it for two and a half years and then would come the Canadian steamship inspection service and say, "I am sorry that your boat is not seaworthy. We are going to tie it up at the dock."
You might ask what you were going to fish with, but that does not make any difference; your boat is not seaworthy so you find yourself out of pocket $350,000 for a boat that you bought with the assistance of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce but with no assistance from the Department of Fisheries. In good faith you bought the boat. Do you blame the people in the Bay of Fundy area who wonder what is going on in the Department of Fisheries in Ottawa? Do you blame the salmon fishermen who wonder which way they are going when the minister says, and I am sure he means it, "We will treat you fairly"? Then along comes a representative of the department who says that there is only $125,000 allocated for this work and it is impossible to give you any more money. That is what a representative told a fisherman in our area-"The money is all spent." Now that statement has been taken back.
I beg you, Mr. Chairman, to call the committee to order and not to take the subject of fishing so lightly as it was


taken today when the hon. member from Newfoundland was discussing it. I think he deserves an apology from some members to your right.
It is high time a minister of fisheries was reinstated in the cabinet so that he will no longer have a conflict of interest as between fisheries and any other department of government, or at least, if there is a conflict of interest, fisheries will have a voice in the halls of government to say, "You may be right, but let's try to find some sort of solution," so that the fishermen can make a living. Let us not just leave them among the rocks and shoals to drown.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I <do not wish to take much of the time of the committee. I enter the discussion only because of the matter that was raised in the House this afternoon, that is, the question of having an opportunity to question the minister. If we cannot do it in the House, the only recourse is to do it on estimates. Canada apparently received an invitation recently to take part, with the United States of America, in the study of the pollution effect of aircraft in the upper atmosphere with particular reference to supersonic aircraft, military and otherwise. Is Canada taking part in this?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, we have in fact received an invitation and we have one man in the department who is quite an expert on this subject. We will be looking at the SST, but essentially in a defensive posture. We have no intention of buying them and we hope we can prevent their flying over Canada.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I take it from the minister's reply that we have accepted the invitation to study the possibilities of pollution and its dangers in co-operation with the United States authorities?


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Chairman, we have not yet replied whether we would join with the Americans in this study. But if we do, that is the gentleman who would be involved. He has already done some work in this field.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I raise the matter because of press reports in the major newspapers in the last few days, that pollution of this kind, so the scientists say, could cause as many as 300 deaths per year from cancer, not to mention other aspects. In view of these reports from reputable scientists, Canada should take part, because when supersonic aircraft fly over North America this kind of pollution does not take cognizance of the famous 3,000-mile border between this country and the United States. This stuff can creep into our atmosphere, and in major military exercises of course it does. In view of the real danger of this kind of pollution, I think we ought to take part in this study.
The other matter is one that I tried to raise this afternoon and on other occasions, but this has not been possible because of the short question period. I want to emphasize this again. I am thinking of the great danger to southwestern Canada from the high level of the lakes. Since the Prime Minister was kind enough to tell me this afternoon, in answer to my question, that the Minister of the Environment is designated as chairman of sort of a cabinet subcommittee on the matter, I am addressing my remarks to him.
Supply
Up to the present time there has been no co-ordination on this matter because so many ministers are involved; the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because he is in charge of foreign affairs and the IJC, the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Transport, because he controls the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. The latter minister, in reply to a question on this matter the other day in the House, indicated that he would be very happy to extend LIP to allow some local work to be done in the area to protect cottages and permanent residences and to supply emergency materials to keep out the waters.
Recently I had a letter from the minister which was probably written by someone in his office-maybe the minister did not even see it-and it indicated that he was backing out of the undertaking made in the House. This afternoon the Prime Minister asked me if I would suggest something that the Minister of the Environment might do. Rather than write the minister a letter, I am happy to make suggestions now.
First of all, he might persuade his colleague the Minister of Public Works to send engineers to the Canadian shore of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario where the water level has risen four feet. A few feet difference in the water level is important, particularly when there are nasty storms in the Great Lakes and in the straits. Ice piles up and breaks into cottages. One place I would refer to is Long Point Island, where there are three or four thousand summer cottages. In a short while ice will be piling up there as a result of winds and water. Many cottages have been innundated already.
It is unfortunate that these things happen. We must prevent further damage. I think we should have foreseen that this would happen, knowing that the levels of the Great Lakes had risen and that damage could be done. Perhaps the minister will take a number of steps which may help. Let him send engineers from the Department of Public Works to those areas to see what can be done. It is most urgent that we prevent further damage being caused. What has been caused has been caused and the losses are great, but we should prevent further damage.
The best thing to do would be to use a number of people who are unemployed and ask them to work temporarily erecting barricades or piling up sandbags to stop the water, or something like that. It is quite likely that after June or July the waters will recede. The critical period is the time between when the ice goes out, probably in one month or six weeks, and midsummer. If something could be done, it would be very helpful. It is not just a few people who are involved. Probably at least 50 members of this House are involved. That is why I think this is a political matter and it is as important to the government as to the opposition that something be done. I hope the minister will take the urgent steps that are needed. The situation is dangerous.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I had a good deal of difficulty being elected to this chamber, having tried five times. It is rather odd to be seated at its edge, but I am somewhat uneasy when I have difficulty in being recognized by
25789-13i

February 15, 1973
Supply
those who operate the translation and public address system.
There is a small matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries. I will not take up the time of the committee by quoting extensively. I have read with considerable interest a news release issued by Environment Canada. There are two, actually, one dated January 3, 1973, the other, Thursday, February 8. The first, to do with "National air quality objectives announced," reads in part:
National air quality objectives for four major air pollutants: sulphur dioxide, particulate matter, carbon monoxide and total oxidants have been announced by the Honourable Jack Davis, federal Minister of the Environment.
The communique goes on to say that this is a significant step in the taking of the inventory of air pollutants in this country. The news release of Thursday, February 8, says that a nationwide inventory of five major air pollutant emissions has been completed by Environment Canada. After repeating the substances contained in the inventory, it says in the fourth paragraph:
Commenting on significant findings, Mr. Davis noted that transportation accounted for 57 per cent of total air pollution emissions of 31.2 million tons. The federal government is actively engaged in the control of motor vehicle emissions.
We are told, particularly in the document I just referred to as well as in the other one to which I referred earlier, that one of the major aspects of motor vehicle exhaust emission is that of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide, we are told, is the by-product of the incomplete burning of carbon containing fuels and some industrial processes. The following words are significant:
It decreases the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and at levels often found in city air, may impair mental processes.
That last sentence has much to do with the point I wish to make. As it is significant I shall repeat it:
It decreases the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and at levels often found in city air, may impair mental processes.
I have done some research into this matter. Recently I talked to the driver of one of our parliamentary buses. He told me these buses are to be replaced by new buses at the end of this month. I asked, "What kind of buses will these be replaced by?" He said, "New and better buses." I said, "Run by gasoline motors?" He said, "Yes, run by gasoline motors, of course. What else?" I suggest to the Minister of the Environment that if the federal government is concerned about the control of motor vehicle emissions, why could not we of this parliament, in this city, in a small way give an example to other institutions, to other cities and other communities and introduce, not gasoline operated buses but electrical vehicles? They exist. They can be purchased. In our own, small way we should by example show what can be done. This matter may not be of national import. On the other hand, we are Members of Parliament and we ought to lead the way because our mental processes, weak as they may be, may be further impaired if we use gasoline-powered vehicles.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to be brief. Many of the things I wanted to comment on were covered adequately in the excellent speech of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate this evening. I commend it to the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries.
There are two or three items which I feel should be brought to the minister's attention. Since we have experienced difficulty in making our points in the limited time at our disposal during the question period, and since the minister of late has seemed preoccupied with matters concerning the environment, I believe we should take advantage of the opportunity presented by the supplementary estimates to put before the minister our views and concerns relating to fisheries.
We are witnessing, Mr. Chairman, the systematic destruction of Canada's most ancient industry. I hope the House, and particularly the government, will view what is happening with alarm. The industry is threatened not only by overfishing and the inability of the government to protect our own resource in this regard and take necessary action to prevent undue exploitation by foreign nations, but also by environmental pollution, something that I am sure is close to the minister's heart.
On Tuesday last, in the absence of the minister, I directed to the minister's parliamentary secretary a question concerning a statement issued the previous day, February 12, by the United States government regarding the pollution of plankton, the very essence underlying the life of our marine resources. Evidence had been unearthed by the United States government to indicate that plankton, that minute form of marine life with which begins the entire marine ecological process, was being polluted with minute particles of plastic and oil and that this pollution extended from the eastern seaboard of the New England states all the way down the coast of the continent to the Caribbean.
In the absence of the minister I asked the parliamentary secretary, if this very serious threat of pollution exists in Canada, what investigations have been carried out in this country to determine the effects of oil on plankton and on minute forms of sea life and what the effects of plastic pollution are on these minute forms of life. If this pollution extends all the way to our Atlantic coast we face a problem of monumental proportions. This will make the problems of mercury pollution minute by comparison. If in fact plankton has been polluted by oil and plastic, this can affect the whole ecological process and ultimately destroy all the major marine resources. It will certainly have a devastating effect on groundfish.
I also raised another question which is directly related. On January 10 I asked the Minister of the Environment what he was doing in connection with the substantial reduction in the total catch for last year. The total catch for last year suffered a reduction of 25 per cent. To my mind, this reduction in our total catch epitomizes the seriousness of the problem. It can be attributed directly to our inability to control this resource, to extend control over our continental shelf and our inability to say to the nations of the world which fish off our coast, "This is essentially our resource. We are prepared to share it with you, but you must recognize our right and, indeed, our obligation and responsibility to manage it."
If we do not do that, Mr. Chairman, the result will be total destruction of the fishing industry and the many thousands of Canadian jobs that are dependent on it. The

February 15, 1973

foreign fleets will vacate our shores and head for other fishing grounds to do damage there, and our fishery will in fact have been destroyed.
I had hoped the minister would have taken advantage of the occasion to express his concern, even though my question was couched in terms of what the minister was going to do to compensate the loss to fishermen as a result of the 25 per cent decline in the total catch. The minister replied:
I am happy to report that the total income of fishermen on the east coast is up appreciably. It is up 10 per cent over that of last year.
That was not the answer I wanted. That was a misleading answer. If I may say so, it was irresponsible. I wanted the minister to express his concern over the 25 per cent decline in the fishery and to say what he, as the minister responsible, was doing about this decline which is directly attributable to overfishing by foreign fleets off our shores.
We are now on the verge of oil discoveries being made off the east coast of Canada. We are not satisfied that the minister, in his environmental responsibilities, has satisfied himself as to the consequences on our marine resources of an oil strike on the continental shelf. I feel the minister should address himself to these questions. This is a very serious matter and I hope the minister will respond to these questions tonight. I hope he will tell us whether the pollution referred to by the United States authorities extends to our coast and, if so, what steps he is taking to do something about it.
I hope the minister will tell us what it is proposed to do at the next Law of the Sea Conference. We have not been able to establish the government's position. We have a right to know, in light of the evidence before us which indicates that at the rate we are going there will be no more fishery in ten years. Cod resources will have been destroyed. At the rate we are going, this industry will have been destroyed as well as many thousands of jobs that are dependent upon it.
I believe it is the responsibility of members of this House who represent constituencies that are dependent to a large extent on the fishing industry to bring these questions to the attention of the minister. I certainly make no apology for so doing. I hope that in the few minutes remaining the minister will address himself to these very serious questions.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make only one very important point. In the past 18 months we have managed to get together all of the nations fishing in the North Atlantic. They have agreed not only on a basic principle, a principle of sustained yield operations, but also on the shares of a sustained yield operation. In other words, they have agreed to stabilize the fishery. More than that, they have agreed to help rebuild the stocks of all species in the North Atlantic. Canada in the future will have the largest share under this sustained yield plan. One of our problems at the moment, and this is particularly true of Labrador, is that our allocation is very much greater than we have ever managed to catch in the past. We have a great challenge concerning our fishery on the coast to move out and take the quota allocated to Canada.
We have a sustained yield operation in the North Atlantic by international agreement. The first agreement of this nature was last June under the ICNAF authority. We now
Supply
have a larger share, a larger quota, a larger amount of fish to take which is allocated to Canada than has ever been the case in the past. It is up to the industry on the east coast to show what it can do now that we have a larger quota.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister what we are doing to police this agreement regarding a sustained yield. As the minister well knows, most ICNAF agreements have been characterized by the inability of the member nations to live up to the agreement.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Chairman, we are making progress. As the hon. member says, in the past it has been a lawless operation in the Atlantic. Two years ago we got agreement among all of the fishing nations that protective officers from any country in the North Atlantic could board vessels of another country. We have the opportunity to board vessels. We are also organizing overflights. We have a new liaison between National Defence and our fisheries service which keeps track of all foreign vessels in the bank areas anywhere off the east coast. We do not yet have all the vessels we need to carry out the on-board checking operations. We have a large allocation of funds to build larger vessels which will enable us to go far from our coasts to inspect these foreign vessels and carry out police action. Because of the drawing of the fisheries lines, we do not have the same problems in our inland waters and we will be able to devote more time to the offshore operations.	.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Chairman, when the North Atlantic countries met last year in Bonn, Germany, an all-party resolution, which the hon. member for Laprairie was instrumental in drafting, was presented asking all NATO countries for an investigation into the depletion of marine resources in the North Atlantic. It was accepted by all countries in the North Atlantic which are affected by the depletion of marine resources. I gave the Minister of the Environment a copy of this resolution. There has not been anything since that time to indicate that the Canadian government is aware of this resolution. As this was done on a non-partisan basis, will the minister indicate, prior to the Law of the Sea Conference, whether Canada, which is greatly affected, will get the co-operation that is expected?


John (Jack) Davis: I should like to tell the hon. member through you, Mr. Chairman, that Canada is taking a leading role. We are probably putting a far greater scientific input into the next Law of the Sea Conference, in so far as fisheries is concerned, than any other nation. The hon. member should bear in mind that Canadian initiative was responsible for the meeting of more than 60 fishing nations which is taking place right now in Vancouver. We have managed, through the United Nations, to get the fishing countries of the world together to talk about principles of sound management and sustained yield operations. That is what the current meeting in Vancouver is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Davis: At that meeting we are not talking in terms of slicing up the pie but in terms of how to make the pie larger-how best to manage the fisheries of the world. We

Supply
are talking about basic principles, especially about a principle which would really place the coastal states in the position of managing all the living resources of the sea near their coasts. That kind of objective is the objective of the conference.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the minister tell us about the policing of the northwest Atlantic? Will he tell us how many ships Canada has to police this area, which is about 500 miles one way and 1,000 miles the other, and where some 20 nations are fishing?


John (Jack) Davis: We have a large number of vessels, but as the hon. member well knows, very few are capable of going any great distance out to sea. Our new construction program is aimed at overcoming this deficiency. We do carry out overflights with aircraft, however.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister reiterated that new ships are about to be built. What is he doing about the situation in which our naval patrol vessels only work an eight-hour day at the present time and tie up at five o'clock every day? He knows as well as I do that the principle infringements of our coastal waters take place after dark. What is he doing about the present ludicrous situation?


John (Jack) Davis: This is a problem which stems from union negotiations. Those craft are unionized. We have incurred additional costs so as to operate in other hours, and this has affected our budget very considerably. I meet this problem every time I go to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. It is chronic. We have had to spend a great deal more money to get other crews to operate at night. But the problem is one which we cannot dismiss lightly. It is built into the structure of the civil service.


William Arnold Peters: We are dealing, now, with the estimates of the Department of the Environment. I am not prepared to argue whether or not the department of fisheries should logically be part of the Department of the Environment or whether it should be separate. It is true there has been a good deal of discussion on the subject.


Erik Nielsen: It depends on whether the fish are fresh.


William Arnold Peters: 
William Arnold Peters: May I call it ten o'clock?


John Angus MacLean: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It may be doomed to failure before I make it. I thought there might be a consensus in the committee that you should not see the clock for a little while, so that we might make some progress.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Ten o'clock.


Erik Nielsen: On a further point of order, Mr. Chairman, since there does not appear to be unanimous consent to your not seeing the clock, might I suggest that the committee pass without debate, now, vote 5A relating to the Department of External Affairs, vote 12A relating to the Department of Finance and vote 1A relating to the Department of Justice.
Mi


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. There have been at least four or five occasions to date when private members have asked for the unanimous consent of the House to consider certain matters and that consent was refused. I now refuse this request for an extension of time.


Gérald Laniel: There is not unanimity to continue.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, we will consider some satisfactory resolutions now. While everybody is leaving the House, I should like to inform you that on February 8 I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) if in his intentions to promote federal industrial development in his western region he would also consider the development of the eastern part of Canada, particularly the province of Newfoundland. 1 wanted to know whether he intended to promote some economic development through the Department of National Defence by deploying elements of the Canadian forces to that part of our nation, not only by way of economic impact but to complete, as it were, the consideration of a Canadian forces' presence in all of Canada.
While I realize it is doubtful whether the island would be in a more advantageous position, strategically, than it is with the present deployment of our forces involved in our committed tasks, there are several areas where the expenditure of our unfrozen defence dollars would or could be utilized to the economic advantage of that province and the nation as a whole.
The first obvious justification of our Canadian forces mission is our intended thrust toward northern development. For some strange reason or other, in our visions of the north and its development we keep talking about only one segment of Canada. The supposed experts, whoever they may be, seem to forget that there is a portion of our nation called northern Newfoundland and Labrador, which I hope is still part of Canada, which needs development just as seriously. What better way could we utilize the resources of our Canadian forces than by building roads, bridges and providing vital communications to this
Adjournment Debate
part of our nation, and providing normal heretofore denied communications links such as telephone and television? The situation as it now exists should be an embarrassment at this time to everybody responsible.
I wish I had more than seven minutes to tell-off those people who are disturbing everybody. Can you imagine that after five years of frustration during my presence here, before my presence here and certainly since confederation, the CBC and CNT have not been able to come up with the fundamental capability of providing television and telephone facilities for those Canadians living in northern Newfoundland? I suggest this can only be considered preposterous.
Secondly, what an opportunity the engineering capability of our Canadian forces would have in directing the provision of a connecting road between Quebec and Labrador, a continuation of this link between the two land masses by a tunnel or causeway, and a further continuation of a decent paved highway along the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland.
So I say to the minister or his parliamentary secretary, whoever is here, let us use some meaningful common sense, ingenuity and imagination and develop all of Canada so that we will see some realization of the pledges of the government of equal opportunity for all Canadians regardless of where they live.
Our Minister of the Environment and Fisheries spoke just a few days ago of the threat of the extinction of our fisheries. Is it not, then, fundamental logic that the Canadian forces could provide the surveillance capability in Newfoundland to prevent the depletion of our marine resources by foreign draggers who are literally raping our Atlantic fisheries?
To turn for a moment to the utilization of our Canadian forces from a military context and in support of our NATO mission, Newfoundland was found suitable for training exercises of our fighting troops because of the similarity of our climate and terrain to that of our task in our NATO commitment. I ask the simple fundamental question: Is there any reason elements of our Canadian forces could not be stationed in Newfoundland as a nucleus of a training cadre to provide logistic and training support on a continuing basis for present and future commitments, as well as provide administrative support to the reserve forces?
I find the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker, is one who rightfully shows more than a token responsibility to his part of the country, even though he is committed to direct his attentions more on a national basis. For this reason I can only give him full marks. He has made his presence felt here by being successful in having provided a mint to his native Winnipeg. While I would like to have a mint in my province, Mr. Speaker, this might come, depending on the fortunes of our political future; but I only ask the minister, to use a military drill term, to make an about turn from the central part of our government and look to eastern Canada and provide a justifiable share of the expenditure through his department to those Canadians that seem to be continuously left out in sharing the wealth of our nation. I ask for a proper answer.

Adjournment Debate


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister o£ National Defence):: Before responding directly to the representation of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) on behalf of his home province of Newfoundland, I personally, as parliamentary secretary, would like to take this, my first opportunity so far as he is concerned, to recognize his long standing interest in the department and his dedicated service as both a commanding officer and the militia adviser in his province.
I am sure the hon. member has had an opportunity to examine my response to the question put by his colleague from St. John's East concerning search and rescue capability. I do not intend, other than by reference to page 1215 of Hansard for February 12, 1973, to deal with that matter in detail. There is one point, however, that has been made many times before but does not appear to be clear in many members' minds, nor indeed in the public mind; that is, the actual responsibility of the department in terms of search and rescue.
The department, by cabinet direction, is responsible for providing search and rescue facilities capable of responding to air distress incidents in accordance with Canada's international responsibilities as agreed with the International Civil Aviation Association, and also in terms of our own domestic requirements. In addition, on behalf of the government the rescue co-ordination centres provide coordinating services for both air and marine incidents. This department does not receive a resource allocation, nor does it have the responsibility-I want to emphasize this-to deal with marine incidents. That is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I know that the hon. member appreciates, however, that when there is a distress call, be it air or marine, the search and rescue facilities of the Canadian forces are immediately alerted and provide whatever assistance is possible.
The financial constraints under which the department has operated for the past few years has resulted in an over-all reduction in forces strength and also has necessitated consolidation of bases to achieve the most effective return for each defence dollar spent. I am sure that the hon. member would recognize that to reduce operating overheads it is more economic to provide centralized support services at five major bases in the Maritimes than to maintain a series of smaller, and hence more costly, bases in that area.
In terms of strategic considerations, the department does have the capability of performing both maritime and air surveillance in the Atlantic area to meet the primary defence role.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please.


MANPOWER-INQUIRY RESPECTING EFFICIENCY OF CENTRES
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, on February 6, I asked the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration the following question:

In view of the fact that since the beginning of December a new regulation compels the unemployed to take personal steps to find work, could he tell us if in his opinion the application of this regulation will be enough to boost the economy ...
Mr. Speaker, I asked that question because a new regulation enforced by the Unemployment Insurance Commission since last fall is causing problems to a great many unemployed. I would even say that this regulation is ridiculous in view of the present situation.
Speaking of only a few sectors of the labour market, I would mention first of all that of the footwear industry where the demand for labour is decreasing and employment is becoming seasonal. To my mind, it is absolutely senseless to force an old timer to find work elsewhere, when there is none available, and especially when he can be rehired by his former employer within a month or two.
Recently, several persons were denied unemployment insurance because they limited themselves to seeking employment with the manpower centres and the civil service. Mr. Speaker, if the workers have developed the habit of going to the manpower centres, it is because they have been trained or forced to do so.
For instance, when an unemployed person goes to the arsenal at Valcartier, the guard, at the gate, will tell him to go to a manpower centre because the arsenal does not hire people directly.
At the Quebec Department of Transportation a worker looking for a job on government ships goes through the same motions and gets the same answer.
At the Department of Public Works or the Department of the Postmaster General the unemployed cannot enter the building to apply for a job. The guard does not let them in but recommends that they see the public service or the manpower centre.
The same problem exists in the construction industry. An unemployed cannot move around the sites. A guard will tell him: see your union.
During the weekend I met a construction worker who, looking for a job had gone to the manpower centre. The receptionist did not even bother to refer him to a consultant. He was told: Friend, look up the billboard when you come in, that is all we have.
Lumberjacks are being forced to look for jobs which no longer exist.
In fact, any normal person knows that it is impossible for a five foot and a half lumberjack to move in six feet of snow. A lumberjack is not a mole, he is a human being.
If companies hired a lumberjack to work in six feet of snow with snow shoes he would violate the labour security legislation.
In addition to that, the provinces have their own statutes. Since there are regulations governing the height of stumps, a man cannot cut a tree at the height he wants but must do it according to the inspectors' instructions.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that six feet of snow are enough to upset the working methods of a lumberjack.
I know a jobless who went down to James Bay. He had left Quebec City by train and had done the last leg of his journey by plane. Upon his arrival he was told that the company was willing to hire him, since he is a heavy

equipment driver and there is a shortage ol workers in that field there.
But that was the hitch, Mr. Speaker. The company which was prepared to hire our man could not do so unless he went through the Montreal provincial manpower centre. He had to go back, and it had cost him $115. That is the way they treat the unemployed!
Mr. Speaker, we question the value of certain rules and we wonder where they originated. Officials of the commission assured me that they were never consulted, and the representatives of major unions were not either. No employer seems to have consulted them, or the hon. members of this House, for that matter.
As some regulations are inapplicable, I realize we are facing regulations suggested by one person only. In my opinion, no team would have taken such a stupid decision.
Mr. Speaker, all I am asking the hon. minister is this: who is that person who could have dreamed up regulations which are a nuisance for the unemployed and the Unemployment Insurance Commission staff?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the regulation to which the hon. member refers has been in effect for some seven months. It is regulation 145(9) which came into effect on June 23, 1972, and reads as follows:
For the purposes of paragraph 25(a) of the act, a claimant fails to prove that he is available for work and unable to obtain suitable employment on each working day in a period if he fails to prove that during that period he made reasonable and customary efforts to obtain employment.
Claimants who do not make reasonable efforts to seek employment in areas where there are known to be job vacancies are therefore not eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The purpose of requiring claimants to furnish evidence that they have conducted an active search for work is to determine whether claimants are entitled to receive benefits, in accordance with the requirement of the above regulation. The application of this regulation by the commission does not affect the operation of the Canada Manpower program.
I have to say that the parade of horrors to which we have been treated by the hon. member simply does not exist or, if it does exist, it exists only in isolated cases. The plain fact is that the search for jobs has to be conducted in a way that is appropriate to the skill of the person unemployed and appropriate to the area. If no jobs are available in the area, the search required does not have to be a strenuous one. Or if all employers in the area hire under the Canada Manpower service, it is sufficient for the unemployed person to register with that service. In other words, the interpretation of this rule varies from place to place. It is applied according to the conditions in the place concerned.
As the regulation says, he must make "reasonable and customary efforts to obtain employment." The reference to "customary efforts" has reference to the custom in the district in which the unemployed person resides. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would have to say that in our view the problem to which the hon. member has referred does not exist in an acute form. If he knows of any cases where, by
Adjournment Debate
accident, problems have occurred, we would be very pleased if he would bring them to the attention of the department or of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


HOUSING-LAND ASSEMBLY PROGRAM-RECONSIDERATION OF INVESTMENT OF FUNDS IN PROPOSED GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP PROJECT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on January 30 I asked a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) with respect to the land banking arrangement, or land assembly program as it has been called, or the model city, as it has been sometimes called, to be located at Carlsbad Springs in the township of Gloucester in the national capital area. I want to thank the minister for his courtesy in coming here this evening to listen to what I have to say.
I asked the minister at that time whether the government was reconsidering its decision to invest public funds in that project. I want to make it clear at the outset that I am not against the concept of land banking because I believe it is one of the things that we will require in this country as time goes on. However, I think land banking must be done with a certain amount of perception, having regard to the need, and the need of this day and this time ought not to be ignored.
My question and my respectful submission at that time arose because I believed there was an attitude of prematurity with respect to the development in that place. Most important, I think there has been, and the press has indicated since that this is so, an obvious lack of consultation between the municipal authorities of the township of Gloucester and the department in respect of the investment of public funds for such a project in that location. I believe it is important in matters of land banking on large assemblies which will affect the development of many properties that there be proper consultation.
The reeve of the township has said that this is the least suitable site. He is concerned with the financial problems in which a dormitory community might involve the township, and he is concerned about the quality of the land. Just recently the regional municipality asked the senior governments to keep their hands off planning in their area. They are in the midst of dealing with an official plan and it is important to them in the development of this plan that there be the greatest possible consultation.
The eruption at the recent regional executive meeting indicates that as far as that council is concerned there has not been that kind of consultation. Moreover, from the engineering point of view-and I care not what tests there are, the minister has not produced any tests of the suitability of the land-there is an extremely high water table and instability of land, I am told. As a result, whatever development is proposed it cannot be a mixture of development and land use which will supply an immediate need for varied housing properly supported by the usual commercial amenities.
With respect to the problems of servicing and urban transportation there has been no consultation. The
1352

Adjournment Debate
McLaren-Richards' report, the service report of the regional municipality, indicates that the prime area for serviced development is the township of Nepean and the township of Goulburn where there has already been a great investment of federal public funds in sewer and water services. More important than that, there is a real housing need today, not five years, not ten years, not 20 years from now but today in this area.
This great land assembly, some 5,000 acres projected over a period of 20 or 25 years, is not going to solve the problems that come to my desk each day as a Member of Parliament with respect to the crowding of existing urban areas, on the one hand, and the availability of relatively inexpensive serviced land, on the other.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to reconsider the investment of public funds in this area in that premature way and to invest those funds in the area which is now serviced with the assistance of federal funds, the townships of Nepean and Goulburn in the west end of the national capital area.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Friday. February 16, 1973