1974-12-12

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. Georges-St. Barbe):: I wish to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter which I deem to be of urgent and pressing necessity. The chairman of the Public Service Commission, Mr. John J. Carson, in addressing the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on employer-employee relations in the public service, requested consideration of the removal of preferences to veterans of the two world wars and the Korean war and expressed his feeling that preference to these citizens was no longer consistent with today's intent of the merit principle.
This unpatriotic utterance is certainly not in keeping with Canada's commitment to the veterans of Canada and expresses a lack of humanity on the part of the chairman, which should be one of the qualities that his important position should require. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott):
That this House orders that the government make a statement on motions to declare their position on the preferential status of veterans of Canada in seeking employment in the public service, and if that position is contrary to the feelings of the chairman of the Public Service Commission that he should be asked to account or resign.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to inform the House that that statement is not government policy. The statement was made with no authorization from the government.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Under Standing Order 43 it cannot be put without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put at this time.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Mr. Maurice Spring of Alberta has been attempting to establish an organization called Springhaven which would provide homes in Canada for orphans from the third world. This project has been endorsed by a number of reputable organizations in Canada. The Alberta department of health and social development has also given its approval and provided assurances that it will take over responsibility for the children in the unlikely event of Mr. Spring's financial inability to continue at some point in the future.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration has been examining the Springhaven project and has just recently indicated that it will not allow any children into the country under the auspices of this project. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the minister to reconsider his decision on this matter and permit Mr. Spring to proceed with his humanitarian project.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Under Standing Order 43 it cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ABORTION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a motion under Standing Order 43. Because it has just been revealed that an abortion was performed on a 15 year old girl in Niagara Falls who was six months pregnant, and new figures by Statistics Canada show that abortions in Canada in 1973 totalled 43,201 which is 12.6 per 100 live births-the highest rate on Canada's history-I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be instructed to investigate the rapidly rising abortion rate to deter-

December 12, 1974
Transport
mine if abortions are being performed within the terms of the law, that is to save the life or health of the mother.


Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated on previous occasions, the contents of this motion refer to matters of continuing importance, but does not have inherent in its terms an element of urgency or immediacy as required by Standing Order 43. As important as it might be, without those ingredients it cannot be put under Standing Order 43.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent reports confirming that construction has commenced on the largest nuclear submarine depot in the world at Bangor, Washington, just 60 miles from Victoria and 100 miles from the lower mainland of British Columbia and in view of the fact that this base will make Vancouver and the lower mainland of B.C. the No. 1 target area in North America in the event of nuclear hostilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make immediate representations to the United States President and the United States Secretary of State and, further,
That this matter immediately be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the department of government affecting all parts of our nation which is presently being allowed to stagnate under an indifferent government and minister. I am referring to the Department of Transport and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle): That the Minister of Transport cause an investigation into:

(a)	the inability or unwillingness of CP Rail to discharge its obligations and responsibilities relating to the transportation needs of British Columbia fruit growers, and
(b)	the situation presently existing in the province of Quebec and about which I have received complaints concerning the use of French only as a language of communication for airline guidance and direction for small aircraft; a situation which presents grave danger and which is a departure from normal transport and communication procedures.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I heard the motion correctly, I am sure the hon. member will agree that although the subjects might be of some importance they surely would come under the classification of continuing grievances with respect to the policies of the government, if that be the proper description of the hon. member's motion. It certainly does not have any ingredient whatsoever of immediacy or urgency.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not want my remarks to be taken in any way as being on one side or other of the question of abortion or the question which was just raised. Both of these instances, however, have raised questions relating to human life, particularly the last one referring to air traffic in the country and our adherence to international agreements in that there could be fatalities immediately. I am not questioning anything but that it is a matter of some urgency involving as it does, and as did the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), the question of human life. Without for a moment criticizing your decision, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this is certainly a matter of sufficient urgency to be put to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, there can be no other interpretation upon his question of privilege except a reflection upon a decision that has been taken by the Chair for which there is, according to my understanding, no room under the Standing Orders.
 * *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate the business of the House for today, tomorrow and Monday. Because of certain discussions that have been going on, it has not been possible until today to make a decision. I should now like to indicate that today and tomorrow we still consider Bills S-2, S-6, C-43 and C-25. We will also be prepared to consider the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments tomorrow, that is Friday.
As to Monday, there will be some further discussions among House leaders but I should like to indicate to the House that we will probably wish to consider a supplementary estimate. The purpose of this supplementary estimate is to enable the cost of the equalization of oil prices in eastern Canada to be met over a period and to permit the petroleum administration bill to be considered over a somewhat longer period than is encompassed by the proposed termination of this part of the session.
December 12, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I know that all hon. members would like to break at Christmas time and get home to their families. The date I have tentatively in mind for adjournment is December 20. I hope we can adjourn by that date.
I want to make it clear that this decision on the part of the government, which follows the suggestion made by the House leader of the official opposition, does not in any way indicate any withdrawal by the government of any part or any of the objectives of the petroleum administration bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the government House leader for this information which represents a useful contribution to the deliberations of parliament and shows that when necessary this House, representing all Canadians, can make an effective contribution to solving the problems of this country. I welcome the statement that the petroleum administration bill will be put off, for discussions if necessary, until after the Christmas recess. This decision is particularly timely as today the Premier of Alberta has made constructive proposals which will contribute significantly to the establishment of new sources of petroleum in this country. I hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will find an early way of convening a meeting of first ministers so that, on behalf of all the people of Canada, this matter may be discussed and, hopefully, some solution found to one of the problems which worries the people of this country a good deal. We will be prepared to co-operate with the government in working out the type of program which the government feels will be required between now and the interesting day on which the minister has proposed the House is to adjourn.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure no one in this House would think of suggesting that this arrangement has been made so that we can begin our Christmas holidays on December 20; therefore I will not make that suggestion, although others may. Seriously, I commend the government for having found lawyers who can advise it how to deal with the collection of the export tax and the payment of compensation payments without becoming involved in a confrontation on the floor of the House of Commons during the Christmas period. We think it is a good idea that the government has decided to take a bit more time to sort out problems associated with Bill C-32 and with certain provisions of the proposed Income Tax bill. Therefore we accept this proposed order of business, with the expectation that, before the day is out, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) may be able to tell us about the business for the remainder of next week.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for his official confirmation to the House of the agreements concluded by the parliamentary leaders in the House as a result of our discussions.
I think that the solution chosen by the government, not to leave in abeyance but to settle the problems concerning Bill C-32, as stated by the member for Winnipeg North
Seafarers' International Union Centre (Mr. Knowles) to avoid a major confrontation which would endanger the proceedings of the House, is a wise one and will show that it is always possible to come to an agreement. This is when the House of Commons takes its true meaning.
Mr. Speaker, I understand the proposal made by the President of the Privy Council, but I would like him to specify what he intends to do about Bills C-40 and C-39 concerning customs and excise charges.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these two bills will, I hope, be up for discussion amongst the House leaders when I meet with them later today. Of course, they are not being withdrawn or postponed in any way. I also have to meet the convenience of my colleague, the Minister of Finance.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   LABOUR CONDITIONS PROPOSED INQUIRY INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 26, I ask that the House do now adjourn for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the many irregularities that exist within the Seafarers' International Union which from all allegations and documentations which I possess should lead to a federal public inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the requirements of Standing Order 26, the hon. member was good enough to give the Chair notice of his intention to move this motion and, therefore, an opportunity to consider whether it is the proper subject under the circumstances of a motion pursuant to Standing Order 26.
I might refer hon. members to the wording of Standing Order 26(5) which reads as follows;
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
To begin, it is obvious that the matter raised by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) is extremely important. Indeed, it has occupied much of the attention of the House over the past several years, as it ought to because of its importance. However, that very fact seems to indicate that first, the questions which have been put to the ministry over the past couple of weeks represent a fairly thorough airing of suggestions by hon. members on one side for an inquiry and demands of that sort and responses by the ministry on the other side.
Furthermore, I am deeply troubled by the fact that rather than this being a question which comes within the general administrative responsibility of the government, it

December 12, 1974
Oral Questions
seems to be one which comes within the scope, as the words of the Standing Order read, "of ministerial action" in the specific case. Indeed, if information exists which ought to precipitate consideration of any kind of inquiry or in fact the inquiry itself, surely the hon. member ought to make that information available, as has been suggested a number of times in preceding question periods, as opposed to moving the setting aside of the ordinary business of the House for the purpose of having a debate in order to bring that information forward.
In the final analysis, it appears that the hon. member's suggestion really ought to result in a substantive motion requiring or suggesting action on the part of the government, which is certainly not the goal of Standing Order 26. The Standing Order states that because of the very urgent and important nature of the problem sought to be put before the House, the House ought to adjourn rather than take an individual step which would be contemplated in a substantive motion. I feel that would be the proper course for the hon. member to take at this time.
I would remind hon. members that important though the matter may be, it has been considered on several occasions by the House over the past few days. In fact, it had at least the potential of being the subject of considerable debate during the recent discussion on conflict of interest, so it has been considered by the House in other ways. It is of continuing importance but I doubt whether it is of such an urgent character as to justify setting aside the ordinary business of the House.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the statement in the Speech from the Throne that the government had initiated a series of consultations with the principal groups in our society and the statement in the budget referring to a comprehensive series of discussions with all sectors of the economy. After all this time, can the minister tell us the results of these consultations, if any, over and above his statement yesterday that he has a mind to renew these talks early in the new year?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The hon. gentleman keeps looking for instant solutions. These consultations are being pursued on an informal and exploratory basis. When they reach a stage at which I can report to the House, I will do so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In the light of the allegations by the government and the minister that these consultations have been going on, now, for a number of months, may I ask the minister whether he is still engaged in the process
of ascertaining what might be acceptable to the principal elements of the economy? Has he yet reached any view as to the position which might be reasonable or necessary to adopt in the present economic circumstances?


John Napier Turner: These conversations, aimed toward a consensus, are still in the exploratory
stage.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Bearing in mind the reference in the Speech from the Throne to these consultations having already been begun and other references to this effect by the minister, notably at the time of the budget, can the hon. gentleman give us any reasons why we ought not to regard this succession of statements as nothing more than a game to con this House and the people of Canada into believing something is happening?


INFLATION-POSSIBLE SETTING OF CEILING ON GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question, too, is directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering that the minister has now achieved the dubious distinction of having tolerated the greatest peacetime inflation of any minister of finance in Canadian history in that consumer prices have risen 27 per cent since he took office in January, 1972, can the hon. gentleman specify what concrete measures he intends to take to combat inflation at the federal government level? Has he, for example, given the President of Treasury Board a definite ceiling to govern federal expenditure in the coming year? If so, what is it, and, if not, why has he not done so?


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. member could have saved himself posing that question if he had read the budget.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I suggest that my question was not answered. Has he set definite guidelines for the President of Treasury Board to follow in the coming year so that the cabinet may understand the limitations on possible expenditures, and, if so, what are they?


John Napier Turner: As I stated in the budget, we are trying to restrict increases in expenditures this year to 15 per cent.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT-CONTINGENCY PLAN TO MEET DEFICIT IN SUPPLIES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the accuracy of the calculation made by the National Energy Board that Canada will be self-sufficient in oil up to 1982 depends upon Syncrude coming into production, as does the government's plan to provide eastern Canada with oil, and in view of the offer made by Imperial Oil that any partner willing to buy into the project would be welcome, may I ask whether the govern-

December 12, 1974

ment is seriously considering entering into partnership so as to make the project viable?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I met with the Syncrude partners-or the remaining partners-yesterday and discussed the state of the project with them. It has been agreed, with the approval of Alberta, that federal officials may attend tomorrow to get a full briefing from the Syncrude partners on the state of the project and some of the difficulties it faces. I understand that next week the government of Alberta will consider whether or not it should take part in the project. Our own participation would be subject to a full understanding of the costs, the problems involved, and, of course, the consent of the government of Alberta and, in the final analysis, our judgment as to whether this would make a significant contribution to Canadian oil policy.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Bearing in mind the lack of option open to the government if sufficient oil supplies are to be available by the 1980's and if Alberta does agree that the federal government may be involved, is the hon. gentleman prepared to take an equity interest in this project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated in my answer, the Alberta government has not yet decided whether the federal government should be allowed to become involved or not. The question can only be answered next week when we have a clear indication both of the facts and of Alberta government policy.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Since it is not likely that the oil sands will be developed as planned unless there is federal involvement, and since conventional oil exploration has dropped off faster than was anticipated by the National Energy Board, will the minister tell us what contingency plans the government has in mind to meet the likelihood of a deficit in oil supplies earlier than anticipated? For example, is the government prepared to buy certain existing oil leases and itself undertake exploration for conventional oil?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member may know, we have a measure on the order paper to place the federal government in a position of having an operating entity in the petroleum field. As to the balance of the question, it is hypothetical at this point.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-POSSIBLE STEPS TO ENCOURAGE INVESTMENT BY ADDITIONAL PARTNERS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: In light of the urgent need, as expressed by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, to ensure continued domestic petroleum supply and particularly the development of additional domestic sources, and in light of the obvious consequence of the lowering of world prices by OPEC nations which would be to prohibit such development, I wonder if it is not premature for the minister to tell us now, what steps he proposes to take to improve the situation of those oil groups still involved in the tar sands venture. More particularly, what steps is the minister prepared to take to encourage investment by desperately needed additional partners in that project?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I agree with the hon. member's suggestion that this is premature.


POSSIBILITY OF USING GEOTHERMIC SOURCES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that, apparently, tar sand development may prove too costly, not to mention the possibility of an energy shortage, can the minister advise the House whether his department has investigated the possibility of tapping geothermic energy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I must say that we in Canada do not have the same geothermic energy potential as other countries, such as New Zealand and Iceland. However, we have set up programs to examine all possible energy sources of the future. One of our programs, although limited in scope, is devoted to geothermic energy.


OIL-POSSIBLE CONVENING OF MEETING OF IMPORTING AND EXPORTING COUNTRIES TO SET PRICES AND ALLOCATE SUPPLIES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is on the same subject. In view of the statement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about the doubtful development of the tar sands and the position in which this puts eastern Canada in relation to supply, has the Prime Minister had time to consider the question I put to him on October 3, 1974, suggesting that Canada should be the host country to all the oil importing and exporting countries of the world in order to bring about a rule of law on the price and allocation of supply in the world?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot remember exactly what my answer was then, but obviously the objective would be a laudable one. The question is whether such a conference could be organized, when it could be held and that kind of thing. I have no position to state on it at this time.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of information I would ask whether any approaches have been made to any one of the OPEC nations and, if so, which ones?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about approaches relative to that type of conference in Canada the answer is no, not so far as I am aware. However, in so far as meetings between consuming and producing nations are concerned, of course this subject has been discussed many times by myself, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and by the Minister of Finance. I would say it is on the agenda every time we meet with other ministers, heads of government or heads of state. As late as yesterday and the day before, we were

December 12, 1974
Oral Questions
discussing that kind of question with the Prime Minister of Iran.
The hon. member knows that our finance minister is the head of the interim group under the IMF, so obviously this kind of discussion is going on. The only part of the question I cannot answer is in respect of whether the meetings should take place in Canada or elswhere, if meetings were to take place.


TRANSPORT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government is giving consideration to moving the operations of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian Maritime Commission and the National Harbours Board back under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and, by so doing, enable the government to once again direct these important operations, eliminating the chaos the Minister of Transport has described several times in this House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure this is a very well thoughtout suggestion, and I will take a lot of time thinking about it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is thinking I wonder if he would add this question to his thoughts. Is he not aware that the basic cause of the trouble is that the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission consistently ignores the Minister of Transport, thereby effectively taking the direction of transportation matters out of the hands of the government? As bad as this government is, this is causing chaos, as any member of the Department of Transport will tell you if you ask.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must review my first answer a little bit. I now see by that statement that what I thought to be profound was actually very shallow indeed.


George Harris Hees: That is a fine, statesmanlike answer. Another bad day following a bad night.


FINANCE
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is spending over $1.5 million annually on the training school for native people at the former Rivers air base, and as DREE has made large grants to locate the Sekine Bicycle Industry at this training school, making work available for native people, will the minister revise his decision to reduce the

customs duty on imported bicycles from 25 per cent to 15 per cent as this could mean the closure of this large industry at Rivers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions on this important question with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Careful study was made of representations of that company and others between the May 6 and November 18 budgets. We feel that the reduction in duty from 25 per cent to 15 per cent is reasonable in view of the fact that most of the parts are imported duty free, but we will continue to review the situation. There was a meeting on December 4 of officials of the department and representatives of the company at which time those representatives said that what was of immediate concern to them was not the budget cuts, but what was referred to as the dumping of bicycles on the Canadian market from abroad. We are looking into that aspect as well.


Donald Craig Stewart: As the Sekine Company announced just prior to the budget an expansion program for its Rivers plant, which would have great benefits to the people of Manitoba, was the minister not advised by other government departments involved that his reduction in duty on imported bicycles could mean disaster for the plant at Rivers?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. gentleman is stating the matter in perhaps exaggerated terms. He ought to take into consideration also that the sales tax on bicycles was eliminated.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is yet in the position to announce some new program to bring relief to the producers of beef and the beef industry generally in Canada, with special reference to the producers of grade B and C beef which is a byproduct of the dairy industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I hope to be soon.


BEEF GRADING SYSTEM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF PRACTICES OF PACKING COMPANIES
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. During the exhaustive study of the beef marketing industry in Canada, which he promised the House and the country, will he also examine the government's beef grading system which is no longer being adhered to by packing companies? These companies are no longer buying according to the federal government's beef grades.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have an advisory group composed of people

December 12, 1974

from different beef producing organizations, the packing industry and provincial people who just recently had a meeting to put together some recommendations in respect of a beef grading system, and I am sure that group will also take this into consideration.


BEEF-ALLEGED UNJUST PRICE DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN GRADE A AND GRADE C
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he would also look into the problem in respect of the wide and unjust differential between the prices of grade A and grade C beef, and if that differential continues to exist will steps be taken to see that the difference is passed on to the consumer so that larger profits are not made by packing houses and distributors on the lower grades of beef than are made on the higher grades?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, this will all be taken into consideration.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact a postmaster in Edmonton recently accepted a phony certified cheque for $48,000 worth of eight-cent stamps and no prior effort was made to identify the purchasers before this purchase took place for such a large sum of money, will the Postmaster General assure the House that his department will review its policies with reference to the purchase of postage stamps in such large quantities by means other than cash transactions?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his suggestion. The general rule is, of course, that any large purchase must be made by a certified cheque. The matter is now in the hands of the RCMP.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it is customary for postmasters to receive a commission on the volume of business conducted, what commission would the Postmaster General suggest would be in order for the sale of these $48,000 worth of stamps?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I would not even by inference want to leave the impression that this postmaster was anything more than an innocent dupe in the whole affair.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Consumer and
Oral Questions
Corporate Affairs has already indicated to the press that he knows the names of companies which are not passing on sales tax reductions to consumers and hence are profiteering, and in view of the fact that the release of these names would now have the maximum punitive effect at this time of high Christmas shopping, will he now give the names of these firms?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have never given names and it is too early to predict what the findings of the investigation we are carrying out will be.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister when he proposes to make this release since he has already indicated to the press that he knows the names of the companies which are not passing on savings to consumers.
I apologize, since the translation system was not working for the first part of the minister's reply, that I did not catch it.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have provided general information in reply to a question a reporter had asked me, but I repeat that it is too early at this stage to predict what the findings will be. Therefore, we shall have to wait until the investigation is completed before we can identify firms or draw final conclusions.


HOUSING
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I note that he has been making statements outside the House in respect of new policies, probably in an effort to compensate for the inflation which the government fails to combat in respect of the high cost of housing. Would the minister be willing to concede that the new housing legislation to be introduced before Christmas or shortly is merely an extension of the Assisted Home Ownership Program and that in fact there is little new about his proposal with the exception of an increase in subsidization which probably will not keep pace with the ever-increasing spiral in the high cost of housing?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention to the hon. member that the information he took as announced was given in my intervention on the budget debate to which I wish he had listened because he might have learned about our housing policy. I would not deny that much of this new legislation to be introduced will be an extension of the assisted home ownership program and the limited dividend rental accommodation program which the hon. member keeps on asking us to forget. They happen to be the most successful pieces of legislation ever brought in,

December 12, 1974
Oral Questions
which I might say were brought in by my predecessor. Since these are being expanded these will have a much greater impact on the housing market in bringing forth greater funds than the federal government can possibly supply at the taxpayer's expense from the private sector.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. One thing that is sure is that the program is not short of verbocity. I think the minister has pretty well answered the question about it being an old speech he made away back during the budget, so there is nothing new. May I put this to him directly and perhaps he can answer it succinctly. Will the minister outline to the House the exact new measures he is proposing apart from the fact that it is merely an increase in the subsidy which really is nothing new because it does not keep pace with the high cost of housing.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Succinctly, Mr. Speaker, yes.


QUINPOOL PROJECT, HALIFAX-POSSIBLE INVOLVEMENT OF CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING IN PURCHASE OF LAND- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NOT HIGH DENSITY PROJECT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of State responsible for housing, especially in respect of location. Could the minister inform the House if CMHC is currently involved in negotiations to purchase land known as the Quinpool Project in Halifax.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, if CMHC is engaged in purchasing land I think it would be best to let it do so as quietly as possible.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Under the circumstances I think the contrary should be the course of action. In view of the report that the Quinpool Plaza Limited paid approximately $4 million for the 15-acre site known as the Quinpool Project just four months ago and is now demanding over $8 million, either from CMHC or from the city of Halifax, will the minister assure the House that such an exorbitant price will not be paid, both to avoid profiteering and at least to avoid the possible necessity of creating high-cost high-density housing on this project which would be inappropriate in that part of the city of Halifax.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, Mr. Speaker, without going into it in some detail, I do not think I could give that assurance except to assure that in acquiring such property CMHC makes certain that it does not pay above the market rate for such land in such localities. However, with regard to the rest of the question I will have to look into it in some detail.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a final supplementary.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, while the minister looks into it would he assure the House, given his previous statements about the importance of good town planning, that when this project is proceeded with or if it is, it will not result in high-cost high-density housing but in fact

will fit in with the prevailing medium-density housing which already exists in that part of Halifax.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my intention, and I know the intention of CMHC, to make certain that the housing in which we are involved is not high-cost housing. There are cases when higher density housing is indeed desirable. It would depend on the surrounding area and the objective. I should like to look into this specific case.


CARLSBAD SPRINGS-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PRIORITY OF DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of yesterday's statement by the Ontario Housing Minister which indicates that the government of Ontario has joined the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Council in supporting private developers and land speculators in downgrading the Carlsbad Springs southeast city plan which would allow Ottawa area residents to acquire homes for $5,000 to $10,000 less than present prices, can the minister assure the House that the development of this new city will continue to receive the highest priority from the federal government?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the southeast city of Carlsbad Springs certainly has a very high priority with the government and the National Capital Commission. Naturally, we have to reach some degree of harmony with our provincial colleagues and the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and are working toward that end, but insofar as I am concerned I give it a very high priority.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Following a recent statement made by the Governor of the Bank of Canada recommending that all Canadian financial institutions accepting deposits should be subject to the same conditions as banks are respecting reserves, does the minister intend to implement this recommendation in order that Canadian financial institutions that accept deposits have the same powers and the same reserves, under the law, as banks now have?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters that the House will be considering when the decennial review of the Bank Act will take place.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 12, 1974


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the applause is the result of the fact I tried to get a supplementary to a question on Monday.


An hon. Member:: And every day since.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes, and every day since. My question is directed to the Solicitor General. On Monday the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain raised an issue concerning irregularities within PFA. Has the Solicitor General instructed the RCMP to investigate those allegations?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. Nobody asked that I do so. If the member wants me to turn over that request to the RCMP I shall do it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. While the minister has suggested he would comply with the request I should like to place a supplementary on record. Would the Solicitor General take steps immediately to direct the RCMP to review available documentation and information concerning irregularities within PFA, instruct them to lay charges if warranted, and to submit their findings to the Auditor General of Canada who is a servant and officer of Parliament and thus prevent the difficulty of one minister of the Crown investigating and reporting on another federal department?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to make clear that I will not direct or instruct the RCMP to investigate this but will ask them to consider the representation made by the hon. member.

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES IN PRAIRIE FARM ADMINISTRATION-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MINISTER'S INVESTIGATION
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Red Deer to the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain put a question on Monday to the Minister of Agriculture concerning irregularities in PFA, and the minister replied that he did not know what the situation was but he would check it and ascertain the facts. Has the minister done that checking? Has he ascertained the facts, and when will he be referring the situation to the Solicitor General to investigate what appears to be a pretty gross misappropriation of public funds for political purposes?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry is not completed, so far as I am concerned, but I was in the province of Alberta the day before yesterday and the preliminary reports contain enough information in my view to show that what took place was grossly overstated. I am sure that the RCMP or anyone else who is investigating this will find the same thing. The facts we have in the department will be turned over. The person referred to was a casual employee working on the inspection of PFA. He was getting $20 or $24 a day for his work. The case involves one person, as I was informed so far, but the inquiry is far from complete.


Erik Nielsen: When the minister's inquiry is complete, will he turn over the facts to the Solicitor General with a request that the RCMP investigate them?


Eugene Whelan: Of course, Mr. Speaker. We have nothing to hide whatsoever.
* *
* *
*


INDUSTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated in the House that officials of several departments were meeting with him to discuss the question of the depressed lumber industry in Canada. The minister is not here today but I am sure the Prime Minister will be aware of the outcome of the discussion and will be able to give us an indication of what his government is prepared to do to assist the industry in question since the situation is deteriorating rapidly.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I take the question as notice and I shall be happy to bring it to his attention.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Solicitor General. It stems from comments or statements made by Inspector L. S. Smith of the RCMP in a recent interview in Toronto in part to the effect that more marijuana is being grown, more marijuana is being imported and more marijuana is being used than ever before and that that particular force has not enough men to cope with the situation. I want to ask the minister what plans he or his department has at present to increase the manpower of this distinguished Canadian law enforcement group to cope adequately with this serious situation.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, last year we provided for an increase in manpower in the drug enforcement section of the RCMP. We have also requested an increase for the next fiscal year. So we have been following the request of the RCMP to increase the

December 12, 1974
Oral Questions
manpower in this area, and we will continue to do so. I do not have the exact figures.


HOUSING
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would he advise the House whether any definite conclusion has been reached with regard to the effective date with regard to the applicability of the $500 grant to first time purchasers of condominiums and whether, in addition to that, there has been any change of view concerning the fact that the program envisaged the purchase of new homes rather than used homes.


Barnett Jerome Danson: In so far as condominiums are concerned, they do qualify and on the same dates as announced for the program. I assume the hon. member means the date of occupancy or ownership of the condominium. If the purchaser has an agreement to purchase, the $500 home owners grant will be forthcoming from the time he moves in with the option to purchase which we would honour as evidence of purchase.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The reason the difficulty arises is that under certain provincial legislation the transfer of title in an effective purchase agreement cannot be completed until 75 per cent of the units have been purchased or agreements entered into. In many instances it is eight or nine months after the first tentative agreement is signed under which individuals are merely tenants that they can be classified as purchasers, and this creates a great deal of difficulty and uncertainty. I, and I believe everybody, would appreciate it if the minister could make a clear and unequivocal declaration as to what the program will cover.


Barnett Jerome Danson: That is the intention. I will try to clarify it further, if I can. As I understand it, in some cases the number of residents required must reach 80 per cent and we understand that in some cases the finalization of those agreements can take eight months to a year and sometimes more. For those reasons, as long as there is an agreement to purchase and it is binding, we will consider that, for these purposes, to have been the completion of the purchase, assuming that the applicant moves in in that time frame and with that agreement from November 1, 1974 to November 1, 1975.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It's tough on those people who moved in this summer.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: My question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs or in his absence to a minister delegated to reply on his behalf. In view of the trial of Dr. Stern which began this week in the Soviet Union, which seems to stem simply from his desire to emigrate to Israel, and the widespread concern expressed about this trial in Canada, including a petition which I presented to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on Dr. Shtern's behalf, could the minister inform the House whether the Canadian government has made or is prepared to make representations to the Soviet Union indicating Canada's concern about this trial?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be appropriate for the government of Canada to make representations of this kind, but I would suggest to the hon. member that he could make this petition and its contents known to the Soviet ambassador here. I would be prepared to see that these representations that he has presented to the House are conveyed by our ambassador on his behaf to the Soviet government.


POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS OF GRAIN TO NEEDY COUNTRIES-ALTERNATE SOURCES OF FINANCING OF FOOD RELIEF
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. A meeting was held in Rome on November 29 of the major grain exporting and importing countries to follow up the earlier world food conference. Were there additional commitments made by Canada or other countries at this meeting on November 29 to reallocate grains to the most seriously affected countries threatened with early or immediate starvation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the meetings examined the availability of supply of grain, but so far as Canada is concerned no further commitments were made at that time. Of course we will be endeavouring to find out what supplies we have available so that we know what can be offered either for aid for other countries or for the commercial market.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The producers and importers at this Rome meeting put the emergency needs of African and Asian nations from now until the end of June at 7.5 million tons of grain. How much of this has been committed and did Canada or other nations insist upon alternate sources of financing for immediate food relief for the areas most seriously affected to the financing available from traditional food donors?


Otto Emil Lang: Our basic position did not change at that meeting from the position we took at the conference in Rome earlier which was that having made certain additional commitments ourselves, and very significant ones for future years as well, we now expect that other nations should come forward with similar increases in their aid commitment. There have been some indications of willing-
December 12, 1974

ness on the part of some of the countries involved in the various world food arrangements to make those additional commitments.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister must have misunderstood my question. I was referring to immediate commitments for the current season and as far as I know the Canadian government made no commitment in Rome in respect of that. I am asking about those particular commitments to deal with places where there is an immediate threat of starvation.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe I did understand the question and the hon. member is not accurate in his view in regard to commitments, present or future. My answer referred to other commitments on the part of other countries both for the immediate period and for the future.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport but because of its urgency-it has only come to my attention-I must direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister or the acting minister. In light of the allegation that the instrument landing system at the Sydney airport has been inoperative since a severe storm in October and-I sincerely hope that this is incorrect-in view of the fact that six of ten scheduled flights could not land on Tuesday of this week because of the low ceiling, in the interest of safety would the minister cause an immediate investigation to be carried out to either deny the allegation or correct the situation if it exists?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly check into the allegation that the hon. member has heard and report back to him later this day.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The minister has just announced his intention of creating a so-called elected advisory board to the Canadian Wheat Board and at the same time has indicated that the government will still have control over appointments to this board. Will the government now consider making this board totally and democratically elected so that any suggestion of political interference can be avoided in connection with this representative board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the procedures which are being
Oral Questions
adopted for selection of members to the board follows a commitment made some time ago. The current Wheat Board Act allows for appointment by Governor in Council. The proposal is that the recommendations will be the result of the selection procedure which has been adopted. They will therefore be elected in a fully democratic way. I think that will help ensure the strength and ability of the board to deal with matters in the farmers' interest. It may well be that as soon as we have developed some additional experience in regard to the appropriate form of selection or election, appropriate changes can be made in the Wheat Board Act.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Will the hon. lady please advise the House of the expenditure that has been made to date by her department on plans, surveys and land options pertaining to the proposed Pacific Environment Centre in Vancouver?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will agree that the question should be put in another way.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance? As it has been reported that Saudi Arabia will not accept the British pound in oil payments, can the minister tell the House what his information is about this matter and if it poses a serious problem to the world monetary system?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the repercussions will be complicated and I should not like to speculate upon them right now.


ABORTION
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the disturbing report of an incident in a Niagara Falls hospital as reported in a Toronto newspaper on December 11, will the minister indicate if he is considering introducing legislation to tighten the present laws on abortion?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any report on the matter from the provincial attorney general who would be the person with

December 12, 1974
Oral Questions
principal responsibility. If there are allegations of misconduct such as the hon. member may be suggesting, I know of nothing beyond the press reports of the matter. Certainly the responsibility and initiative rests with the provincial f;ttorney general as far as enforcement of the Criminal Code is concerned.


SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF REASON FOR HIGH RATE IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, ONTARIO AND ALBERTA
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Justice. In view of the incident brought to light today of the 15 year old girl in Niagara Falls and the 1973 statistics which show that 43,201 abortions were performed last year, the highest number ever, and because the law specifies that abortions are permitted when the life or health of the mother is endangered, may I ask if the minister has investigated why the abortion rate is the highest by far in the three wealthiest provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some work is under way in an attempt to determine the manner in which hospital committees are operating in various provinces and these in particular. Of course, here again I would indicate there is a prime responsibility on the provincial attorney general to see if the Criminal Code is being followed.


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Now that the government has some $5 billion on deposit with the Bank of Canada and Canadian Chartered banks-money that was sopped up in part from moneys on deposit with institutions that specialize in mortgage lending activity- and in view of the fact that the money was won through an excessively high coupon rate on the last Canada Savings Bond issue, would the minister consider redepositing for a suitable term some portion of the new-found cash with companies active in the mortgage lending field so that mortgage funds will become more available and not more costly?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the full ambit of the two preambles of the hon. gentleman, the high cash balances of the government now pose a different set of debt management problems. One was satisfied to a certain extent by lowering the secondary reserve ratios of chartered banks to 7 per cent and bonds released to the Central banks were released to inject a certain amount of liquidity in the banking system to make up some of the problem the hon. member was describing. We will have this in mind, but the hon. gentleman's particular suggestion does not commend itself.


LAG IN DELIVERIES OF WHEAT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO CATCH UP
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice in charge of the Wheat Board. Has the Wheat Board made a final determination on how far behind it is in delivering commitments for grain and when, if ever, it can catch up and has an attempt been made to find a formula to enable it to catch up?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board has been examining the question of how much additional grain will be moved by rail during the course of the winter so that commitments out of eastern destinations may be met as quickly as possible. I do not have any detailed analysis of how far behind we are in regard to any particular shipments but I will be glad to ask the Canadian Wheat Board for a full report.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question. May I ask whether a combination of strikes plus some grain that has moved into the open market makes it impossible for the Wheat Board to determine what we have on hand and thus the Wheat Board is not making sales since it is keeping its price at something like $1.40 above the Chicago price presently being received?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the present position of the Canadian Wheat Board in not making sales in an urgent way is to assess the situation in regard to delivery of grain and quality of grain and to make such adjustments in the program as are required. A major reason for not doing additional selling at the present time is that the forward selling program of the Wheat Board earlier was so vigorous that very large commitments have already been made in terms of sales.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Since yesterday's question period I have tried to get in touch with the Minister of Labour on numerous occasions yesterday and today, but I only got as far as his secretary, I believe. In dealing with some of the evidence of the SIU, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity, because I did not get the opportunity to see the minister for one reason or another, to tell him that because of the fact that the board of referees of the Unemployment Insurance Commission granted-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that if the hon. member has information to communicate to the Minister of Labour he has had the opportunity in the last hour to take a few steps across the floor to where the hon. Minister has been sitting. I do not think that the hon. member ought to be able to take the time of the House to make that sort of complaint.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think what the hon. member said should be contested. After the question period yesterday my office was in touch with his office, to obtain the material he had. There was no answer. My special assistant, Gordon McCaffrey, sent a messenger to the hon.

December 12, 1974

member's office to get the material. I understand that the hon. member was involved in a press conference and revealing the material during the course of that conference; perhaps that is why I could not obtain the material at that time. I am aware that he did try to get in touch with me this morning but I was not available, being involved in cabinet and other meetings. I would be more than happy to meet the hon. member right now, after the question period, and to see that material if he will let me have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to clarify what the minister has said. I was with the press immediately after the question period, but I went to the office and waited-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member raised the subject which, as I have already indicated, does not constitute a question of privilege. I do not think it is fair to other hon. members to continue this proceeding. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-2, to amend the Supreme Court Act and to make related amendments to the Federal Court Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members wish to pass this measure, so I will say only a few words at this stage. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Supreme Court Act and the Federal Court Act in order to bring under control the workload of the Supreme Court of Canada.
The workload of the court at present is too large, and the court therefore has fallen behind in the hearing and disposition of appeals. The main reason for this is that there are too many cases coming before the court under the present provisions whereby an automatic right of appeal is given in actions involving at least $10,000.
In the past few years it has become obvious, from the number of cases left over from previous sessions of the court, that there is a serious problem in relation to the workload of the court; particularly in 1970, 1971 and early 1972 a large number of cases remained to be dealt with at the end of each session.
My predecessor, who was minister of justice then but is now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), wrote to the President of the Canadian Bar Association to ask that body to examine the work overload of the Supreme Court and to make suggestions about what might be done to correct the situation. The then President of the Canadian
Supreme Court Act
Bar Association followed up that request with the appointment of a committee under the chairmanship of B. J. MacKinnon, Q.C., of Toronto. The other members of the committee were: George S. Cumming, Q.C., of British Columbia; J. H. Laycraft, Q.C., of Alberta; Keith Turner,
Q.	C., of Manitoba; Frangois Mercier, Q.C., of Quebec; D. M. Gillis, Q.C., of New Brunswick and I. Norman Smith, for many years the editor of the Ottawa Journal. Professor W.
R.	Lederman of Queen's University was the research officer for the report.
The report of the special committee was made to the Canadian Bar Association well over a year ago. A copy of that report has been printed as Annex "A", to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of Tuesday, November 12, 1974. The special committee reached the conclusion that the Supreme Court was, in fact, overloaded and that the principal reason was that there were too many civil cases coming to the court under the automatic entitlement to appeal where more than $10,000 was involved in a case. The special committee concluded also that many such cases were not worthy, by the test of public importance, of a second appellate review.
It should be made clear at this point that the report and the bill are solely concerned with a second appeal in that they relate to appeals to the Supreme Court after the hearing of an appeal before the provincial court of appeal or the federal court of appeal.
The committee found, upon examining the workload of the court in recent years and making comparisons with the Supreme Court of the United States, the House of Lords and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, that latterly there have been more cases than the court could reasonably be expected to deal with, and the committee accordingly made some recommendations. Its first and principal recommendation was that all appeals in civil cases to the Supreme Court of Canada should require leave from a panel of judges. Appeals as of right in such cases should be abolished. It further recommended that the present rules should be continued in relation to criminal appeals and reference cases.
A summary of the committee's recommendations is as follows: First, the abolition of appeals as of right in civil cases should be made fully effective without delay; second, present procedures for hearing applications for leave to appeal should be continued; third, the judicial definition of elements of public importance should govern when applications for leave to appeal are granted or refused; fourth, certain questionable uses that might be made of appeals as of right in civil cases would be precluded by the abolition of such appeals; fifth, the Supreme Court of Canada should remain the general and final court of appeal for Canada on all subjects. The court should not be limited to so-called federal questions.
I say as an aside that that safeguard had been proposed as one way of limiting the work of the court, but the committee felt that it was undesirable to limit the court in that way.
It further recommended that, sixth, the Supreme Court of Canada should continue at its present size of nine judges, but if the principal recommendation does not bring the necessary relief from case overload after a trial period, enlarging the court should then be considered; seventh,

December 12, 1974
Supreme Court Act
the present court year of three sessions should be continued; eighth, the judges cannot delegate their essential functions, so the assistance available from law clerks is severly limited; and ninth, the present practice of full oral argument in the Supreme Court of Canada should be continued.
The Council of the Canadian Bar Association considered this report and approved it subject to two reservations, one of which has been incorporated in the legislation, the other relating to the so-called retroactive feature I shall deal with later. The Canadian Bar Association point of view is set out in a letter from the president of September 13, 1973, found as Annex "C" to the report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which I previously referred.
The bill before the House is intended to implement in their entirety the recommendations of the special committee of the Canadian Bar Association. The government agrees with those recommendations and feels it is a matter of some urgency that the workload of the court be brought within manageable proportions at an early date.
The legislation will remove the monetary criterion in respect of appeals. In this day and age it is very hard to disagree with the view put forward in the report that a monetary criterion ought not to entitle a litigant to a second appellate review. This has not been the case in the House of Lords since 1934, and it is now almost 50 years since nearly all appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States have been by leave of that court. This is what we are now proposing with respect to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Quite apart from the manifest importance of bringing the workload of the Supreme Court within the control of that court so that appeals may be heard and disposed of within a reasonable period of time, it is almost self-evident that a more equitable and fair test for the privilege of appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada should be developed.
The special committee recommended the test of the public importance of the issue involved as being the one that should be applied. The Council of the Canadian Bar Association thought that it was essential also that the test make reference to an important principle of law. The proposed legislation takes up these recommendations and, we hope, broadens them so that it will be possible for the Supreme Court to consider all meritorious matters that ought to come before it.
In this regard I consider it important for all potential litigants, and those advising them, that the court make clear, to the extent it is possible to do so, how these basic rules will be applied so that there will be as little uncertainty as possible in relation to what matters are ones to which the Supreme Court will give serious consideration on applications for leave to appeal.
The legislation follows the recommendation of the special committee in that by its terms it will apply to every matter in respect of which an appeal has not been begun when the legislation goes into force.

The Council of the Canadian Bar Association has suggested that the legislation ought not to apply to cases actually before the courts at the time it goes into effect. We have not adopted that suggestion, for two reasons. The first is that it is imperative to bring the workload of the court within manageable proportions as soon as possible. If any matter in respect of which a writ has been issued in some lower court at the time the legislation comes into force may be appealed, automatically under the old provision it may be several years before this goal can be achieved.
As an aside, you would also get the anomaly with the actual accident of timing. Whether or not a writ had been issued in the matter would determine whether the matter had the right to appeal at a later date. At that later date, with issues of exactly the same nature side by side, one case would have the right to appeal and the other case would not. That anomaly would be avoided.
Second, the legislation does not totally remove the right of appeal. Cases involving $10,000 or more may be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada henceforth on the same basis as all other cases, namely, that they proceed by way of leave, which will be given where the test of public importance or of the importance of the issue of law or the nature of significance of the matter is such as to warrant attention by the court.
It must also be remembered that all of these cases are afforded one level of appellate review, and that what we are talking about is a second appeal. I believe the failure to apply the provisions of this bill as soon as possible would also lead us into some difficulty, because of the delay in reducing the workload of the Court, in knowing whether we were to be pressed for an extension in the size of the court. The special committee recommended against that extension. I believe there are many members who would see it undesirable for the court to become too large and unwieldy, leading to panels of judges and other problems that arise from that. The sooner we can bring the court's workload under control, the sooner we will be sure that the size of the court is not, in fact, to be increased.
In addition to these main features, which is the principal purpose for putting this legislation before the House, the bill deals with several subsidiary features. It deals with residence requirements of judges of the Supreme Court. It makes a change which is more in line with other legislation going through parliament and applying to the national capital region. It is also designed to bring the ability of the court to provide interest on judgments into closer line with current realities.
This bill is not intended to, nor does it, involve any fundamental alteration in the structure of the Supreme Court of Canada. It is designed to meet one specific and pressing problem in the workload of the court. In dealing with the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe it is important to proceed with caution and in a limited step by step way, learning from experience.
It is hoped, and indeed expected, that this measure will enable the court to control its workload and to hear those cases of importance to Canada and to Canadians. It will obviously have to meet the test of experience and the test of time. I believe it to be an important measure, one which
December 12, 1974

the committee will no doubt want to look at further and with care.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this bill affords us an opportunity to take a look at the Supreme Court of Canada, reflect about it a little and say that it is a healthy thing that lately there has been more public scrutiny of the decisions of the court, of the way the court is formed, and of how it conducts its business. I think this reflects on the quality of the appointment particularly that of the present Chief Justice, for now there is an openness about commenting on the court, its decisions and so on, that cannot help but be healthy for the whole judicial process.
I was intrigued, as I suppose many hon. members were, that the government introduced the bill in the Senate. Here I am going to point out that I find it easier to say Senate than to keep repeating the euphemism "the other place." I have listened enough to that in all my 13 years here. I think the Senate is the Senate, and the House of Commons is the House of Commons. I propose to call the Senate the Senate, unless I am taken away in chains!
The Senate has had an opportunity to debate the bill. The report it produced is very useful because it gathers together in one place the report of the special committee of the Canadian Bar Association and of the Council of the Canadian Bar. It had the advantage of hearing Counsel for the Canadian Bar Association, and Professor Lederman. Therefore the House of Commons has the advantage of having that information before our debate takes place. For example, it means that one of the law officers of the Crown was able to tell the Senate committee in clear language the main purpose of the bill, which Mr. T. B. Smith, Director, Constitutional Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice, described as follows:
... the essence of this bill is really to implement a report of a special committee of the Canadian Bar Association that was submitted to the Minister of Justice about a year and a half ago. That special committee was constituted, as you know, at the request of the Minister of Justice by the Canadian Bar Association. The essential recommendation the Canadian Bar Association made was that henceforth all appeals to the Supreme Court ought to be by way of leave. This recommendation was made to deal with the problem that was at the root of the minister's request, namely, the work load of the court... henceforth cases ought to come to the court by leave of the court.
This is a progressive and healthy change. I must say that my own research did not go far enough. I did not know that appeals had been abolished as a right so long ago in the United States and Britain. I am glad the minister reminded us of this.
There are those who believe that once a constitutional decision has been arrived at by the Supreme Court of Canada, that ends the matter. I think it is realistic to remember that that does not happen. It is important to the government and to parliament to have the views of the Supreme Court of Canada on constitutional matters. It is almost trite to say that. However, there still remain abiding political decisions which the governments of our country and of the provinces have to take as a result of decisions of the Supreme Court.
There are people with tidy minds-I suppose you could classify them as having such-who like to think that once a judicial decision is made, that ends the matter. Often it
Supreme Court Act
does not end the matter, but really begins the political discussion. I just want to enter the caveat that we will continue to have what I call constructive tension, in a federal system, between the government of Canada and the provinces.
A special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the constitution of Canada, which reported in 1972, had a fair amount to say about the Supreme Court and, in the context of second reading of this bill it might be well to remind ourselves of what that committee said. Recommendation No. 44 reads as follows:
The existence, independence and structure of the Supreme Court of Canada should be provided for in the Constitution.
May I remind hon. members that in 1972 as in 1872 and, presumably, in the year 2072 we were and we shall be waiting for a patriated constitution amendable in Canada to save us the embarrassment of going on our knees to the parliament of the United Kingdom for any changes. Recommendations Nos. 45 and 46 are as follows:
Consultations with the Provinces on appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada must take place. We generally support the methods of consultation proposed in the Victoria Charter, but the Provinces should also be allowed to make nominations to the nominating councils which would be set up under the Victoria proposals if the Attorney-General of Canada and the Attorney General of a province fail to agree on an appointee.
The Provinces should be given the right to withdraw appeals in matters of strictly provincial law from the Supreme Court of Canada and to vest final decision on such matters in their own highest courts, thus leaving to the Supreme Court of Canada jurisdiction over matters of Federal law and of constitutional law, including the Bill of Rights. The issue of whether a matter was one of strictly provincial law would be subject to determination by the Supreme Court of Canada.
That was two years ago, and presumably we can look forward to a period of renewed activity as far as discussions on the constitution are concerned. There has been some settling down in Canada. Elections have been held in several provinces, and the government of Canada has a new mandate. This would seem to me to be an opportune time to renew a process which has become perennial in Canada-failing to agree on a constitution.
I mentioned earlier that perhaps it is very healthy that there should be discussion surrounding the court. While the joint committee was meeting there was a good deal of comment about the court in magazines and journals, and a most interesting book has been written on the subject by Professor Weiler, chairman of the Labour Relations Board of British Columbia and a professor of law at Osgoode. This book is called "The Last Resort," and being a careful person I must say I do not agree with everything Professor Weiler says, but it is interesting that there should be a book on the subject of the court. As a matter of fact the author recommended some of the changes to be embodied in this legislation before the Canadian Bar had an opportunity to report to the minister.
The Senate committee reminds us that the funding necessary to cover the cost of these studies, and this report, was provided by the Donner Foundation of Toronto. This is a good opportunity to say to the trustees of that foundation that those of us who are interested in law reform cannot help but notice that assistance related to a great number of aspects of this subject has been

December 12, 1974
Supreme Court Act
provided by the Donner Foundation. I think it is a healthy thing when outside bodies are able to assist professional bodies like the Canadian Bar Association which, in turn, make reports to the minister. Presumably in these days of proliferating government grants the Canadian Bar could have asked the minister to provide funds to enable the committee to make a report to him. I have no fundamental objection to such a system, but in cases where there may have been substantial conflict of opinion I think it has been helpful that the Donner Foundation should have provided funds.
The minister mentioned an increase in the number of judges. He himself indicated he would reserve his position until he sees what the results of this bill may be. I revert to being an authentic Conservative on this matter. I hope, very much, that the bill will do what it is supposed to do, but I do not take the view now that adding more judges, or doubling or even tripling the size of the Supreme Court of Canada will necessarily mean cases will be handled more expeditiously.
I do not wish to prejudge what might happen in five or ten years, but it is a fact that in a country with ten times the population the Supreme Court of the United States still manages to deal with a couple of hundred cases a year-perhaps that estimate is somewhat liberal- although it has the same number of judges as we do. As a matter of fact I believe its docket at this very moment is for 160 cases.
The minister mentioned in passing the occasion when, by a constitutional amendment, appeals to the Privy Council were abolished. I have been advised by the highest judicial authority in this land that it took some nine years to wind down, as it were, the appeal process. In other words abolition took place in 1949, I believe, and some eight years later there were still cases in process. I agree it would be unrealistic to place pressure on the court for an eight or nine year period. I believe the recommendations of the Canadian Bar rather than those of the special committee should be accepted on this point, but because I am a person who believes in compromise on occasion, I have a suggestion for the minister. It might be possible to allow appeals as of right in cases where courts of appeal have given judgment by the date on which the bill is passed. This might be a neat way around the problem identified for us by the Council of the Canadian Bar, yet it would not get us into the predicament the country was in when appeals to the Privy Council were abolished.
There is one other point I should like to make, and I do so as I feel this is a general debate. I would hope that officers of the Supreme Court of Canada can think of a method whereby counsel who come to the court from great distances have some way of knowing, within at least a day or two, when their particular case may be heard. It is all very well for members of large firms in Toronto and Montreal, who are on the telephone and can get on a plane and be here rather quickly, not to know, but when one has to come from the extremeties of the country, so to speak, I believe the system is now subject to gentle criticism in that counsel wait around this city often as long as a week before their case is heard. I hope better administrative arrangements can be decided upon in this respect.

I should like to end by commenting briefly on the matter of the interpretation of cases of public importance, and my notes indicate that the Senate dealt with this also. At page 1:13 of the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Senate, Issue No. 1, Tuesday, November 12, Professor Lederman discussed judicial definition of elements of public importance, and the phrase "public importance" was used as the key operative phrase. He suggested that these should govern the application for leave to appeal, as to whether leave should be granted or refused.	.
Professor Lederman reminded the Senate committee that there was a very long consideration, long in terms of patience of members in the other House, involving some 300 words, on the subject of public importance. I do not want to strain anybody's patience by going through even 300 words. Professor Lederman, who was, by the way, the consultant to the Canadian Bar Association special committee, says at page 14 of the report, sub-section (3):
We have said that the grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada should depend upon the presence in the case offered for appeal of some element of public importance beyond the purely individual concerns of the parties to the case. We have given some thought to further definition in some detail of these elements of public importance, and we have concluded that specific definition and development of such criteria should be left with the courts themselves ...
I think that is an important statement, and presumably when the standing committee of this House considers it, we will be discussing it to find out exactly what the Bar Association had in mind. We might even go through 300 words.
It is interesting to reflect that on the matter of individual rights probably in the last few years the seminal case on the whole issue of human rights, involving Mr. Drybones and a Saturday night jaunt with a little too much booze, was one of the most fundamental cases decided. It is this example I would like to think of when I envisage a sensitive court having a definition of public importance in mind when it grants leave. Indeed the court will become its own master, so to speak, and monetary consideration will no longer be the criterion in civil cases.
I must say that this is a good change in the law and one that should commend itself to this House of Commons as it has already to the other side of parliament, namely, the Senate. The minister is anxious about this bill because presumably he hopes to have it in place for the next term of the Supreme Court of Canada. By agreement in this party, and presumably others, this is the statement for the Official Opposition and we hope, Mr. Speaker, to be able to deal with the bill rather expeditiously when it goes to the committee.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I would very much have liked to have had my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), speak on Bill S-2 because of his long and distinguished career before the Supreme Court of Canada. The reason I say so is that we are now at the point where we are using his criterion of the public importance of the issue.
I cannot help but think of some of the issues and cases in which the hon. member for Greenwood has participated during his years as a lawyer. He appeared before the courts in the famous Japanese-Canadian case when the
December 12, 1974

government years ago intended to deport certain Japa-nese-Canadians to Japan. He also appeared in the notable Saskatchewan labour relations case, to mention just two. His record before the courts is one that makes me feel very proud. He has established a distinction within the courts, which is certainly a great honour to him.
I should like to give credit to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) for introducing this bill, which I think is long overdue, and to the committee of the Canadian Bar Association which made a thorough study of this matter. I would be remiss if I did not give a great deal of credit to the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who, many years ago, began urging amendments to the act. In fact, he had an article on the subject in the "Canadian Bar Review" in 1951. It is to his credit that some initiative was taken, and it has reached partial fulfilment in Bill S-2.
The Minister of Justice went into detail in respect of the recommendations of the committee of the Canadian Bar Association. That committee handled the matter very well, and I am not going to add to that. I think the primary purpose for these changes is to reduce the heavy workload of cases prevailing in the Supreme Court of Canada. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) compared its case load to that in the United States. The number of cases dealt with by the Supreme Court of Canada represents a remarkable achievement.
There are three main areas in respect of the proposed changes; one is very trivial, and two are important. The first change will allow judges of the Supreme Court of Canada, the registrar and the deputy registrar, to reside within the national capital or within 25 miles thereof. That is a change from the present provisions in the act which state that judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must reside within the city of Ottawa, or within five miles thereof. I rather think this is a trivial thing. Probably the amendment should have done away entirely with the requirement that a judge, the registrar or the deputy registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada must reside within the national capital or 25 miles thereof. Perhaps at the committee stage an amendment in that regard will be moved.
The second rather important change is that which allows interest on judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of certain awards of money. The reason for this is that judgments come from the lower court where no money award has been made, and there have been cases before the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of which the judgment of the lower court was reversed and a money award made. The problem then is in respect of interest which would be applied, and the date for which it would run. I hope the Minister of Justice will direct his mind to this because I think the provision is not too clear concerning when the interest begins to run. Is it to run from the time of the application of the action in the lower court, or from the time the judgment was made in the lower court? We would like some clarification on that matter.
The third and most important change is the restriction, in respect of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, to
Supreme Court Act
cases in which leave to appeal has been granted. There is an old legal maxim which says that justice delayed is justice denied. That is very true. When one thinks of some of the cases before the Supreme Court of Canada where two years expire before a case is heard and when, after a case is heard until the time of the judgment six months have elapsed, one finds that there is a span in respect of appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of two and one half years. In many cases it could be said that justice delayed is justice denied. For that reason alone immediate attention is certainly called for in respect of this matter.
The minister has said that one of the reasons for the delay in the past has been because of appeals as of right where the amount exceeded $10,000, and also with regard to habeas corpus and mandamus actions. That certainly has been the main cause of the delay.
I would hope there would be a further reduction in appeals in respect of negligence accidents. I can foresee, within the next ten years, motor vehicle cases being transferred from the courts to other tribunals. This has been done in some of the provinces across the country, and I think we will see within the next five or ten years that negligence cases are done away with, with regard to the Supreme Court of Canada. I rather look forward to that day.
With regard to the restriction on appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada to cases in which leave to appeal has been granted, I would point out that this restriction was imposed in England in 1934 and in the United States in 1925. It is now being imposed in Canada in 1974. This indicates the remarkable speed with which the courts and the government of this country move at times.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They do not do things over night.


Otto Emil Lang: Very steady.


John Gilbert: I must say that most of the cases that are heard in the United States deal with constitutional matters. In the Supreme Court of Canada we have a wide variety of cases, including constitutional, civil and criminal cases. The appeal as of right where the amount involved exceeds $10,000 certainly imposes a great burden on the court.
Clause 5 sets out the criteria with regard to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The first is that the matter must be one of public importance or, second;
.. . the importance of any issue of law or any issue of mixed law and fact involved in such question, one that ought to be decided by the Supreme Court or is, for any other reason, of such a nature or significance as to warrant decision by it, and leave to appeal from such judgment is accordingly granted by the Supreme Court.
I think it has been shown there are two ways in which to appeal to the Supreme Court at this time. One is that if the case involves an amount over $10,000 there is an appeal as of right, and the other is if the amount involved is less than $10,000 and there is a question of law or mixed law and fact, if leave to appeal is applied for it is granted in some cases. Again this results in many appeals.
I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Justice to the experience in the United States Supreme Court where, I understand, about 4,500 cases a year are heard in

December 12, 1974
Supreme Court Act
respect of leave to appeal to that court. I understand the procedure is that there is a filing of all the evidence and the law with regard to an application for leave for appeal. No oral argument is made before the court, and the court then decides whether or not an appeal should be granted.
It may be, if there is an excess of applications before the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal, that consideration should be given to the technique or procedure followed in the United States Supreme Court. If the Minister of Justice would like an analogy which comes quickly to my mind in reading the bill, it is that under our present immigration laws when a deportation order is made the applicant or appellant is given the right either to appeal to the immigration appeal board by written evidence, or by oral evidence and thereby appearance in person.
Here in the Supreme Court of Canada when a person wants to obtain leave to appeal he is confronted with certain expenses concerning the preparation of the record and the argument, as well as in retaining counsel. If one should live in one of the far provinces of the country and wishes to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, this involves quite an expense. If a person were given the right to file the evidence and written argument without appearing in person or being represented by counsel at the application of leave to appeal, this might be of some assistance not only to the appellant but also to the court. I would ask the Minister of Justice to give some thought to the practice in the United States and the practice before the Immigration Appeal Board.
I think it has been pointed out, not only by the Minister of Justice but also by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, that we also must build jurisprudence with regard to this question of leave to appeal. It is not sufficient in respect of an application made to the Supreme Court of Canada that leave be denied without written reasons, although in many cases involving a frivolous or vexatious situation this might be a different matter.
It is important that we build up a body of law with regard to the reason leave is denied or granted, because this would give some indication to the public and to lawyers of how to proceed when there is a desire to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I would hope the Supreme Court of Canada would sit in panels of three, as has been the case in the past, in respect of these applications. I also hope that some jurisprudence will be developed with regard to the law in order to help the public and lawyers.
Those are the three main areas of change in the act. I will conclude by saying that I give credit to the Minister of Justice, and special credit to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada who has devoted his life to matters of law, and has applied his intelligence unsparingly and unstintingly. He has earned for himself the respect and regard of the legal profession and of the public of Canada. If anything is needed in matters of law it is the hard work and competence which men like the Chief Justice have contributed, and we in Canada should be justly proud of him.
[Mr. Gilbert.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs- Possible introduction of legislation concerning housing for veterans; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Survey of veterans houses in Newfoundland-Possibility of assistance for improvements; the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Finance-Effect of budget proposals on size of public service-Consultation with staff association.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO SET DATE FOR FINAL PAYMENT rN POOL PERIOD
Otto Emil Lang: that Bill S-6, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I propose to be very brief in dealing with Bill S-6 before the House. The purpose of the bill is very straightforward, namely, to give additional certainty to farmers delivering grain to the Canadian Wheat Board regarding the taxation year in which they will receive the final payment by the board.
It frequently takes a good period of time after the closing of the crop year on July 31 for the grain to be priced and for the Wheat Board to be in a position to close the pools and make a final payment within a pool. Therefore the final payment in recent years has generally been made in the year following the crop year, rather than in the taxation year in which the pool closed.
However, there was one occasion a year ago when, because of the rapid sale of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board, the board felt it desirable to close the pool at an earlier date. Accordingly, as it saw its duty under the act, the final payment was made very late in the same taxation
December 12, 1974

year, which happened to be the same year as the crop year. That created a sudden additional final payment in the year, and for those farmers who plan their tax position as carefully as they can, given the variations in the income receipts and deliveries in the farming business, this was an unexpected problem.
Therefore the bill recognizes the practical fact that in almost all cases the final payment will be made after January 1 following the crop year, rather than in the portion of the year which lies between July 31 and December 31. It simply makes that the universal rule. It is certainly not the intention to delay the Wheat Board's final payment, and in most years this will not have any impact at all. However, it does mean that we will be able to say to producers definitely that the final payment will come in the taxation year following the end of the crop year. In this particular year, for instance, this was a pretty important piece of information for producers. We told them that that would be our objective, and that we would try to make sure that that is done.
There was a tendency among producers to wonder whether they should deliver grain or acquire further income in a particular year when they did not know whether a final payment would be made in the same year. In the future we will avoid that problem, if the bill is adopted, and I urge hon. members to join us in offering this certainty to producers by sending the bill to the committee and moving it along with dispatch thereafter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Madam Speaker, before Bill S-6 passes I too would like to make a few brief comments. As the minister stated, the bill is not very necessary. In the past it had been an established practice for the final payment on grain grown in designated areas to be made in the calendar year following the crop year, which ends on July 31.
However, in recent years there was one occasion when the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board took it upon himself to assure farmers that the final payment would be made in a hurry, in the fall of the same year in which the crop year ended. Some people could say that that was because of the fall election that year, but I would not suggest that to anybody in eastern Canada, and one does not have to suggest it to anyone in western Canada because we there know that the Wheat Board has been monkeyed around with for political reasons more often than not.
The frequent question put in western Canada is whether the Wheat Board works for the farmers, and the reply to that question is yes, its job is to serve the farmers. But invariably when we have a minister who wants to use the Wheat Board as a political mechanism, the opposite occurs.
All this started with the late minister of agriculture, Mr. Gardiner, who set up a political machine in Saskatchewan. There are some people around today who try to emulate his machine in the province of Saskatchewan. This bill as I say, is not necessary, but it will take the decision out of the hands of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to make the final payments prior to January following the crop year if he thinks a fall election is imminent.
The farmer is the only person producing food who really does not know what he will get for it, and what the
Wheat Board Act
demand is for the commodity he produces. It has long been my belief that he should know, at least approximately, what the demand for his product is and what he will get for it. I am in complete agreement with the pooling system of the various grades, but we should establish a firm principle that the initial payment should be 75 per cent or 80 per cent of the expected final payment. Then the farmer, by looking at the cash receipts that he receives from the elevator agent, would know approximately what his product is worth.
In the past year wheat was worth $3.50 in the country elevator. Then on August 1 it dropped down to a little over $2, and stayed at that price until enough political pressure was put on the minister, which the minister passed on to the Wheat Board, which then gave a little more than $3.50 at the elevator. That is the price that the farmer receives, not the price at the lakehead. What he receives is what he gets when he delivers grain to the elevator. That is becoming increasingly important today when farmers are wondering if they should sell their grain on what is called the open market to feed mills, feed lots, or to the elevator agents in western Canada.
The farmer does not know what the demand for his product is, and the initial price he receives may have no relationship to the expected final payment. I believe there should be a formula by which the farmer would know approximately what his product is worth and what he would receive when the pool account is wound up. He does not know that today, and so cannot plan ahead.
There was a demand for wheat last year, and the government advocated increased acreage planting in the spring. The farmers did not heed the government, however, because they were skeptical about the wheat scarcity. At the recent Food Conference in Rome a great deal of concern was expressed about the people in underdeveloped areas suffering from starvation. We hear more and more of this all the time and, as producers, we wonder what the effect on grain production will be. A year ago there was a scarcity of beef and prices were high, but now there is a surplus and lower prices. Will the same thing happen with grain?
In the past year we have seen a build-up in the demand for energy, and the scarcity that has resulted. To some extent that caused a surplus of beef and higher prices for grain.
Considering the balance of payments problem that the United States is experiencing. I would not be surprised to see that country demanding nearly $10 a bushel for the grain it produces, and if wheat goes to $10 then corn, which is its next biggest crop, will go higher too. This would be a result of the high prices the United States has to pay for oil and energy. If Canada curtails oil sales to the United States that will aggravate their problem and Americans are likely to counteract their demands for energy with demands for higher prices for feed grains and wheat.
I think one would be remiss if one did not warn farmers to seed all the wheat they can this coming crop year because there will be a demand for it. Because of its balance of payments problem and its energy situation, the

December 12, 1974
Wheat Board Act
United States is likely to produce more feed in an effort to save its economy. As the United States faces recession, and perhaps Canada will as well, the agricultural community will come to the fore to save the United States, and will perhaps contribute a great deal to rectifying the state of the economy in Canada.
At this point, I should like to put forward again a plan I proposed in rather a hurry during the budget debate. Grain producers in western Canada are in the position that, for the next calendar year, they will have to accept deferred payments of nearly $600 million, and the final payment for the 1973-74 crop year to be paid next January will be in the neighbourhood of $200 million. The initial payment for grain was raised recently, and from August 1 to the present that amounts to something like another $100 million.
In one form or another farmers in the designated area of the Canadian Wheat Board will have to accept deferred payments of close to $1 billion, and so they may be reluctant to sell grain in the next calendar year because of the problem of income tax. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should take notice of this, and indeed perhaps that is why this bill has been brought forward suggesting that the final payment will not be paid out until January 1. But what will happen for the calender year 1975?
My suggestion is a registered savings plan for the agricultural industry. In the past farmers have sometimes not delivered their grain until January because that put them in another calendar year. The grain could have been delivered in the fall with less trouble considering the climate, but because of tax problems they delayed until January. Under my plan farmers could deliver the grain in the fall, when the weather is more favourable than in January or February, but the money received would not be taxable.
In the past there have been instances where farmers bought machinery they did not need just to avoid paying tax on money received for the sale of wheat. The same thing has happened in the cattle industry, where cattle have been purchased in December and put in feed lots until January when they were sold, in other to gain a tax advantage.
I believe a registered savings plan would have considerable merit, Madam Speaker. A similar plan is now available to wage earners. At the moment anybody in Canada can put $4,000 a year into a registered retirement savings plan, tax free. But of course $4,000 is not a great help to anybody in the agricultural industry. In the budget debate I suggested that if a person could put $50,000 in a registered savings plan in one year, it would be helpful. This would contribute to savings, and farmers could accept the deferred payments due on January 1 without having to pay tax on them. In the event of a crop failure they could draw upon the plan, or if they were unable to sell grain because of low quotas or whatever.
A similar plan might have helped the cattle industry in years gone by, but at the moment no farmer in the cattle business has enough surplus to put into any plan at all. The concept is that if a person puts money into a regis-
tered savings plan he would not pay tax on it until he took it out. It is better to store dollars than to store wheat.
It will be important to build up food stocks in 1975 and 1976. Grain all over the world is in short supply. North America, which has traditionally produced a great deal of grain, produced below average crops last year. Drought hit the United States, and drought and early frost affected Canadian crops. Consequently we did not have as much grain as usual to sell. Russia and China in recent years have imported grain, aggravating the scarcity. Therefore we must encourage farmers to grow more grain and to sell it. Last year they did not seed as much land to grain as the minister wanted. I think they will seed heavily to wheat this coming spring. I am encouraging them to do this; of course, the size of the crop and its quality depend on someone who is not a politician.
Be that as it may, we should help farmers as much as possible. I suggest that setting up a registered savings plan of the sort I have suggested would be a step in the right direction. The bill before us may help farmers in the short term. On the other hand the registered savings plan would enable farmers to average their incomes, because they, in common with all good managers, take into account their net receipts rather than gross receipts in computing profits.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, members representing grain producing areas a few months ago received many representations from farmers who asked for final payments on wheat to be deferred until the next taxation year. These requests have come about because of high international wheat prices. Recently we have seen wheat go up from a couple of bucks a bushel to about $5.50 per bushel on the international market. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said, imports by Russia and China have driven up the price. In addition farmers have not produced their customary crops of wheat, because of adverse weather and operation LIFT.
I am sure the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) will recall vividly that a few years ago farmers in this country were paid not to produce wheat. The result of all this is a general wheat shortage and escalation of wheat prices. In addition wheat, like oil and other commodities, has become more expensive because of international inflation. The price of wheat rose, and for the first time farmers earned a decent return on a bushel of wheat.
Much of the farmers' extra income has come unexpectedly near the end of the taxation year, and farmers who face many uncertainties must now face problems connected with income tax. As the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said, the farmer does not know what price his commodity will fetch on the market. When he plants his crop in the spring he faces the uncertainties of climate. He does not know if it will rain, or if early frost, as happened this year on the prairies, will damage his crops. In addition until now he could not be certain as to when he would receive his final payment from the Wheat Board. This added to his problems.
As the hon. member for Crowfoot suggested, final payments have sometimes been made when politically expedi-
December 12, 1974

ent. It seems rather odd that sometimes the final payment for grain has been made prior to a federal election, or prior to some other important political event in this country. This bill will eliminate some of that uncertainty and no minister-I am not accusing the present minister-will in future be able to direct the distribution of a final payment at a politically opportune time.
It is important for the farmer to know when he can expect his final payment. If he knows when it will come, he can eliminate one of the uncertainties with which he must contend. He can plan. Because of this I think all members of the House can support the bill before us.
This bill will bring a short term benefit to the farmer, as he can defer part of his income for one year to the next taxation year. Of course he can only do this once; he can defer paying income tax only for so long. In the long run he must pay all income tax owed. Therefore this bill will be of advantage to the farmer only in the short term. Further, once this bill is law the farmer will know when he can expect final payment. That is important, as on the basis of such knowledge farmers, when planting, will be able to plan their activities for the coming year.
Passage of this bill will encourage planning in the agricultural sector of our economy. It will remove one of the uncertainties of agriculture, and therefore is a step in the right direction. I think the government should plan to pay the highest initial price possible for grain. The payment should be made at the beginning of the crop year. Such action would go a long way to removing uncertainties.
When wheat was $5 per bushel the initial payment was around $2. The difference, around $3 per bushel, was paid into the pool and represented an interest-free loan to the government. Recently the initial price was raised to about $3.50 per bushel, and the farmer has had the advantage of the extra money. Previously the initial payment was as low as $1.50 per bushel, and the money not paid to farmers stayed in the pool as an interest-free loan to the government.
We must try to make the initial price as high as possible and give the farmer as firm a guarantee as possible. If the farmers are guaranteed high prices they will produce much needed food. In other words, we need planning on the part of the federal government, various provincial governments and agencies, as well as farm organizations in order to stabilize farm production.
The hon. member for Crowfoot referred to the Rome Food Conference and noted that many people in the world are dying of starvation. We know that countries south of the Sahara Desert as well as Bangladesh, India and others are suffering from drought and flooding. They need food. Therefore we must produce as much food as possible. We shall only produce food if our farmers are guaranteed a stable price for their produce. If we extend basic guarantees farmers will be able to plan how much wheat to plant, how many head of cattle to raise, how many hogs to produce and so on. Without such basic guarantees-without such a guaranteed wage, so to speak-farmers will not produce.
On the other hand if farmers are guaranteed a fair price for their commodities they will produce to the maximum
Wheat Board Act
extent. It is incumbent on Canada to produce as much food as possible, for the benefit of Canadians and of the starving people in the world. The growing populations of many countries, including developing countries, need more food.
A bill like this can be used as a reminder that we should be trying to rationalize agriculture. We should plan the agricultural sector. Our objective should be to produce as much food as possible. The only way to do that is by giving the farmer a fair return.
We should be channeling surplus food that we cannot trade or export through the normal market system into some sort of Canadian or world food bank to be used as part of our foreign aid. It was a tragedy last summer when 18 million eggs were spoiled because we had no physical means of disposing of them. It was not the fault of the marketing board nor of the egg producer. The marketing board margin of error was less than 1 per cent. The fault lay in the fact that we did not have any mechanism to dispose of those eggs. We could not channel them to those who were starving.
When considering a bill such as this we should look at it in the perspective of the world community, producing as much food as possible and channeling that which we cannot sell in the ordinary market to international aid programs under the auspices of the United Nations, or some such other organization, in order to feed the people of the world. That would be a real contribution.
As long as people are starving there will be social unrest in the world. There will be population problems and power struggles between different races of people and between different groups within a country. Canada is one of the few nations that can make a real contribution toward avoiding many of these world problems.
I do not want to hold up this bill. Our party supports it. I want to indicate to the minister that anything which will plan agriculture, and which will tend to guarantee the farmer a basic price that is decent and fair for his commodity will have the willing and enthusiastic support of this party.


Stanley James Korchinski: Madam Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) I do not support this legislation. I cannot see that it is anything but political gimmickry, a lot of balderdash and a one-shot deal.


Otto Emil Lang: Otherwise good.


Stanley James Korchinski: The minister says otherwise good. If that is how defunct they are opposite of ideas on how to improve the situation as far as farmers are concerned, it is a very sad state of affairs. The minister said in committee this morning they are not a team of horses. I suggested at that time that they seem like a bunch of mules.
This is another example of what the government is sponsoring. To quote a saying, the government is all "mux-ed ip". Apparently it is trying to help the big, rich farmer, and has no regard for the poor, unfortunate farmer who does not have a crop.
2202

December 12, 1974
Wheat Board Act
On various occasions the minister argued against himself. He tells the farmers they do not know how to run their business so he will withhold their money until next year. Once in possibly 15 years prices were high, and there was an opportunity for producers to defer. In all the years I have been farming, this is the first time prices have shot up in such a way that income tax will be collected.
On another occasion the minister allowed farmers an opportunity for deferral. The farmer did not have to take the money in the year he delivered the grain. Surely it is within the competence of the minister to draw up legislation whereby the farmer has the option of taking the final payment in the year of delivery, or in the next year.
There are several ways this could be done. There could be a leaf in the permit book whereby a farmer, having been notified by the Wheat Board that a payment will be made, could elect to defer accepting the payment until January 1 the following year. That is very simple. But that may be too complicated for the Canadian Wheat Board, even with all its computers. As an alternative, there could be a rubber stamp used at each elevator. The elevator agent could simply stamp the cheques issued by the Wheat Board "not valid until January 1". In this way the cheques would not be negotiable until the next year. The income tax people could see that even though a cheque was in the possession of a farmer, he could not draw any of that money in that year. This would avoid intervention by the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a very simple mechanism. It does not take a Ph.D. to figure it out.
The minister stated that this is part of the government's over-all plan to help the farmers. As I said earlier, this legislation only helps the big farmers. I am informed that something like $1.1 billion will be involved in these deferrals. This has never happened before, and chances are it will never happen again. As the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville stated, once the payments have been deferred this will catch up with itself and therefore only be good for one year. From then on the farmer will be forced into a difficult position. What will the minister do at that time- withdraw the legislation in order to assist the farmer?
The minister stated it is not likely any pool accounts could be closed before January 1. Therefore what is the need for this legislation? It is an absolute waste of time for the minister to sponsor this type of legislation. He knows a pool cannot possibly close its accounts until later. It is a political gimmick, window dressing to make it appear as though the minister is acting on behalf of the farmer.
On other occasions the minister introduced cash advance legislation. The farmers asked for that. The minister stood proudly, and almost dislocated his shoulder trying to pat himself on the back because he was introducing amendments to cash advance legislation. If the farmers want cash advances, they obviously need the money. They do not need the minister to tell them when they are going to get the money, even though it is sitting in the pool. Those who take cash advances need the money. Otherwise they would not take them. These people are not afraid that they will receive too much and will have to deal with the income tax department. They are desperately in need of cash.
As I said earlier, the minister is all "mixed up". He argues against himself. He first tells us that because of

this final pool accounting the farmer will pay higher income tax. The initial price for wheat was low. Earlier it was set at just over $2. This year the minister increased that initial price, making it possible for farmers to get more money. He then turns around and tells them they cannot get their final pool accounting until January 1 because they have too much money. The minister should be consistent.
The minister said the farmers are getting too much money and they should only get the bare minimum. The farmers asked for an increase in the initial price. To me, this shows they needed more money. It did not mean they wanted it held back while the minister played a political game. He came out with the open market, the new system for the delivery of feed grain. He lowered the initial price and kept it low. He lowered it because he wanted his new policy to get off to a good start.
All the farmers I know who dealt on the open market or engaged in off-board sales did so because they desperately needed the higher amount of money which was available. They did not know then that the minister would increase the price. But what did he do? He waited until such time as he felt, calculating the requirements in Ontario and Quebec by the use of computers and simple addition, that the requirement had been met. "Good," he said, "we have got enough of this grain. You fellows in Ontario and Quebec, hurry up and get your grain at lower prices because the chances are the price will go up." The minister got it for them at a lower price and then, when he felt they did not need any more, he increased the initial price offered by the Canadian Wheat Board. Earlier, he had placed the Board in a position where it could not compete.
When the minister appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture he agreed that in the final analysis the Wheat Board would produce more money for producers. Last fall, it was the off-board sales which did so. The immediate return was there. But the minister was playing a cat and mouse game, pitting \yestern farmers against the eastern feeders. Having done that, he turned around and said: "Hey, you fellows, we want to give you this money because there are some of you who came to me and said you want to hold back on your income taxes. Now you have the option of an averaging plan." I have already offered the minister a way out of the difficulty by using a sample ballot, or a rubber stamp indicating that a cheque is not negotiable until the following year.
I do not like the way in which the minister manipulates the farmers. Sometimes a person can outsmart himself. I cannot understand why the farmers, who have been forced out, should have to wait for their money. There are all kinds of inspections as far as crop insurance are concerned. They are not grumbling yet. But wait. The heat will be on next spring. This legislation should be withdrawn at the end of the present crop year because it will be useless from then on, and will merely be taking up space on the statute books. This is why I do not particularly care for the measure and, in fact, am opposed to it.
When he appeared before the Senate Committee on Agriculture in November the minister stated at the begin-
December 12, 1974

ning of his evidence with reference to the conditions in western Canada in the present crop year:
It has been labelled by some a disaster in the sense of being a crop of the poorest quality the prairie region has ever known.
Despite this he wishes to hold money back. He went on to say further:
The exact volume of grain the Wheat Board will get is impossible to calculate.
This is what he said in answer to a question. Of course it is not possible to calculate the amount because the Wheat Board does not know how much it is going to receive. At one time the Board was able to estimate the amount of grain stored on farms, in the elevators, in terminals, and so on. But today there is no means of knowing how much will be sold on the open market.
The Wheat Board set a fictitious price, over $6. This avoids embarrassment to Wheat Board officials when explaining why they are turning away potential customers on the ground that they do not know what supplies will be made available to them. The minister has placed them in this straitjacket. He has set an unreasonable price, which means no one will have to deliver. Obviously he does not want any feeders to buy from the Wheat Board. He wanted to manipulate his plan. That was his baby. He is using the Wheat Board and the western farmer to further his political image.
Even now he should inform the Wheat Board that a realistic price should be established to conform somewhat to the world price. It does not necessarily have to be $4.80, but there should be some reasonable similarity to what others are getting. The minister is doing this because he wants his feed grains policy to get off the ground. There is no other reason, as far as I can see, for the price established by the Wheat Board.
Mr. Speaker, I see it is five o'clock. I wish to continue my remarks at a later hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members' business.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: On a point of order I wonder whether the House would agree to extend the hon. member's time so that we could finish this bill today?


James Aloysius McGrath: I would certainly agree to that. I am sure the House will give a little extra consideration by allowing whoever is speaking for the party to which I belong to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this a package deal then that whatever time we take from the private members' hour would be restored after six o'clock? That would depend, of course, on the length of the hon. member's remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley James Korchinski: I thank the House for its courtesy and 1 will be as brief as possible. I could make a great many more remarks on this matter, but I will try to cut down as
Wheat Board Act
much as possible so that the House can proceed to other business.
I should like to put on record the objections of Senator McNamara, a member of the committee of the other place. He stated, as recorded in the proceedings of that committee on November 13:
. . . I do not favour this kind of parliamentary or governmental directive to a marketing board such as the Canadian Wheat Board.
Later he said:
. . . I sympathize with producers and their taxation problems and I have heard suggestions from you, Mr. Chairman, and seen other suggestions in print to the effect that more protection should be provided to producers in respect of taxation-I do not think that is part of marketing and I do not think that the board should be used for that purpose.
In other words a former Chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board took objection to this type of directive from the government. As a producer I find this type of directive equally as objectionable. A farmer should not be told when he is to receive his money and when he should calculate his income. That should be left to the decision of the farmer himself.
Unless the minister is prepared to introduce some amendments I cannot see my way clear to support this piece of legislation. This legislation would forsake the unfortunate small farmers who are in need of cash, in favour of those producers who are already in a secure cash position.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely Notices of Motions (Papers), Private Bills and Public Bills. There being no items under the heading of Notices of Motions or Private Bills, the House will proceed to Public Bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is agreement to proceed to the consideration of Bill C-211 under public bills in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we allow the other items to stand and proceed with the consideration of Bill C-211 in the name of the hon. member for St. John's
East?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
28626-51/2

December 12, 1974
Broadcasting Act



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


James Aloysius McGrath: that Bill C-211, to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope that by the conclusion of this hour there will be agreement of the House to refer the subject matter of this bill to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, and I now intend to relate my remarks in support of that proposition.
This is the fourth time in the last three years this bill has been introduced in the House, and that fact in a way exemplifies that it is of urgent and contemporary concern to many Canadians. I intend to show that the majority of the people in this country would favour the consideration I hope the House will give this bill today.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile to review briefly the history of the bill since it was first introduced on April 7, 1971. Since that time there has been a literal ground swell of non-partisan and universal support from across the country. Because of the nature of the bill and what it attempts to do, it is long overdue reform.
The bill was first introduced on April 7, 1971, and again on January 15, 1973. In March of that year the House agreed to refer the subject matter of the bill to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. That committee considered the subject matter of the bill and, in pursuit of that responsibility, it heard many witnesses. As a result of the evidence heard, the committee produced a report to the House that contained five recommendations, and that report was presented on July 16, 1973.
The recommendations of the committee are a matter of record and I will not read all five. The first recommendation is an important one and I think it should be repeated here. The committee recommended:
(1) That the CRTC pass regulations which would provide that advertising must not be directed exclusively to children;
It is interesting and should be noted that the House concurred in the recommendations of the committee on July 24, 1973. I might add that there was unanimous concurrence. One would expect that, following concurrence by the House, there would be action taken by the appropriate authority, in this case the CRTC which receives its authority, under the Broadcasting Act, from parliament. One would expect that body to take the appropriate steps to implement the recommendations of the House. That was not the case, and that is why the bill is again before the House today.
The Chairman of the CRTC in a press release announced that he could not enforce the recommendations of the House as he felt such a fundamental change in broadcasting regulations required an amendment to the

act. Section 16 of the Broadcasting Act does in fact give the CRTC all the authority it needs.
A nation-wide Gallup poll was conducted and released in March of this year, which showed that 57 per cent of those interviewed favoured a total ban on children's advertising. The breakdown of that nationally conducted poll is interesting in that it reveals that in the Atlantic region 65 per cent supported the ban, in the province of Quebec 55 per cent supported it, in Ontario 59 per cent were in support, on the prairies 49 per cent were in support, and in British Columbia 64 per cent supported the ban.
It would also be of interest to put on record that in November of this year the Liberal party of Quebec at its annual meeting passed the following resolution:
Whereas the methods employed by advertisers in their advertising directed at children are extremely powerful
Whereas advertising arouses desires in children which cannot be fulfilled by parents
Whereas children lack sufficient reason to exercise their right of choice
It is proposed that commercial advertising directed at children of 13 years or under be banned in all media.
That was a resolution adopted by the annual meeting of the Liberal Party of Quebec City in November, 1974.
The response of the CRTC and the CBC has been disappointing. First of all, the CRTC in a statement released in the fall of this year, which statement I might say came about as a result of the third debate on this bill in March of 1974, implemented the following in the form of a public press release:
1.	That adherence to the provisions of the Broadcast Code on Children's Advertising will be made a specific condition of each broadcasting licence.
2.	That a representative of the CRTC will formally represent the Commission at all deliberations of the Children's Advertising Sections of the Advertising Standards Council which have the responsibility for pre-clearing all children's commercials.
That was as a result of a compromise agreement reached when the bill was given second reading early this year. It should be stated that the broadcasting committee in its report specifically pointed out that it had no faith in any industry code specifically to discipline itself and carry out the kind of regime the committee envisaged. That is the reason why the committee went all the way in recommending that there be a ban on all advertising directed exclusively to children.
It is also worth mentioning at this time that the code on which the CRTC bases its case is, first of all, an industry code. Second, while it has the force of a CRTC regulation it is the only regulation in respect of which there have been no public hearings. There has been no public input whatsoever in respect of the code. It still remains basically and essentially an industry code. That is a very important argument which I submit for the consideration of the House.
Also it should be stated that the enforcement of the code has inherent difficulties in respect of distinguishing what is a family program or a children's program. The code now contains a new section which uses the definition "family".
December 12, 1974

In other words ways are now being devised to get around the code. I submit-the evidence is available for anyone who observes television programs of the networks or private stations at the present time-that the code is in fact gradually being eroded.
The other point I should like to make with regard to the CBC is that during the course of the hearings, the president of the CBC appeared before the committee and announced that the corporation, for its part, would be deleting all commercials directed at children from the CBC stations and networks effective January 1, 1975. The corporation placed a rider on that, it being the provision by parliament of the necessary funds which were estimated at the time to be approximately $2 'A million.
Obviously parliament would want to vote the funds consistent with the recommendation in which parliament had already concurred. However, the government has not submitted to the House an estimate, nor indeed has the budget of the CBC been presented to the House requesting that the necessary funds be voted. I brought this to the attention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), who answers in the House for the CBC, in a letter dated November 18. I drew his attention to the report of the committee, and to the undertaking or commitment made to the committee by the president of the CBC.
I also indicated to the minister that as late as November 17, Mr. Sinclair of the CBC, in reply to a question on the CBC television program "Platform", stated that the corporation was prepared to stick by its commitment to the broadcasting committee to phase out advertising directed to children on CBC television by the end of 1974 provided parliament was prepared to provide the corporation with an extra $2'/2 million to underwrite the commercial revenue loss that would result therefrom. Although I pointed out to the minister in my letter of November 18 that there was every likelihood that my bill, which had received a high priority in the draw, would come up for debate before Christmas and it was imperative that there be a commitment from the government as to the action it proposes to take in respect of the position put forward by the CBC, unfortunately there has been no reply to that letter to date. I still hope that, before the debate concludes today, there will be some response from the government concerning how it proposes to meet at least that commitment that was made to the committee by the president of the CBC.
There is a great deal which can be said I submit, most of which has already been stated during the course of the committee hearings and during the several debates which have taken place in this House, in connection with this bill, but essentially what it boils down to is this: parliament has given the power to regulate broadcasting to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission under the Broadcasting Act. The commission has the authority to make fundamental changes in broadcasting. The commission has elected to ignore the recommendation of the House by a public statement it issued earlier this year.
I ask the permission of the House to allow the subject matter of this bill to be referred back to the committee, so that the committee will have an opportunity to hear the president of the CRTC state the reasons why it cannot carry out the wishes of parliament. That is all I ask, and I do so in a non-controversial way. I do so, safe and firm in
Broadcasting Act
the knowledge that the majority of the people of this country favour such a move and in accordance with the recognition that parliament has concurred in the recommendation of the committee to which I have referred.
I think the House could do no less at this time than agree to allow the bill to be referred back to the committee, or the government on its part might agree to provide an appropriate reference to the broadcasting committee, in which case I would be prepared to withdraw the bill in return for such a concession so that the committee could hear the chairman of the CRTC and the the president of the CBC, and so that these gentlemen would have an opportunity to explain to the committee why they do not carry out the wishes of parliament. That is the only reason I bring the bill forward at this time. I do so not for any partisan considerations but merely in an effort to achieve what parliament set out to accomplish in concurring in the recommendations, of the committee.
Our efforts have been thwarted, and I feel we are justified in asking the House to make the reference to the committee, either by way of my bill or by way of a government reference, so that we might hear the witnesses explain to the committee, and consequently to the House, why they did not carry out the recommendations that were concurred in by the House.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to second the hon. member's bill because I want to underline the fact that this is not in any way a partisan consideration. At the same time, I am disappointed-and this may sound strange-that the bill is before the House at all. I am sorry it is before the House because it should never have had to come back here again. We dealt with this matter.
When I was chairman of the broadcasting committee we spent a great deal of time on this, and we produced a report that was accepted unanimously. We obtained concurrence from all sides of the House in the report. There was no disagreement, and no dissent. This is not the time to discuss the pros and cons of this bill; it is not a question of whether or not this is a good bill any more, it is a question of why we should be obliged to bring such a bill back to the House again.
What power does this parliament have? Who is running this country? Here we have a situation which repeats itself day after day, where this parliament decides something, or the government wishes to do something, and the bureaucracy decides that it is damn well not going to do it. This is happening day after day and this is a very good example of it.
Here we have a Crown corporation that decides that it will not follow the will of parliament. How arrogant can you get? It is not that they do not agree with what we said in the committee. We made a compromise and everyone was happy. We said: we do not want advertising to be directed exclusively to children. That was the main recommendation of the committee, and everyone accepted it. Perhaps some would have liked to see it go further, and others did not think that it should have gone quite that far, but nevertheless everyone compromised; it was accepted, and the House concurred in it.

December 12, 1974
Broadcasting Act
What did the CRTC do? They went part way toward that. They wanted the industry to go ahead and do what parliament said it should do, but they did not want to act themselves, or to obey parliament. They wanted to circumvent what they were being asked to do by the House. That is the danger of what is happening in the country today. We have the bureaucracy, whether it be in the civil service or in Crown corporations. The bureaucracy want the power, they want to add to it, and they want to disobey the will of parliament. They say: you fellows are only there overnight; we are here forever and we are the real power in this country. Is that the way we want it? What are we going to do about it? This happens in so many other cases.
You would not believe I spent today going through this bureaucracy of ours in Ottawa. It was a nightmare. I had a small matter which had to be determined regarding the sale of a piece of CNR property involving only a few dollars. However, the bureaucracy had to be gone through, all over the city of Ottawa, in three different departments. This should have been done weeks ago but it was not. It was tossed around, the way they pass the buck from one to another.
The president of the company buying the land was involved. The bureaucracy was holding up a $9 million deal. Do they care about that in the bureaucracy? They have never needed to meet a payroll at the end of the week so they do not give a damn if they leave a matter for a while on their desk or put it aside. This is happening daily and continually.
I spent my whole day today with an important man trying to get the bureaucracy to process this, and I am still not positive that it will go through because another signature is required, and we may not be able to get it until ten o'clock tonight. Then this man must take the papers and go on a plane to Toronto, and fly back because he has other commitments tomorrow. This is the kind of thing that we are faced with simply because we have to go through all kinds of bureaucratic nonsense. We can never get the answers because the bureaucrats are always so secretive. They keep everything to themselves because they are afraid that an elected representative may know more than they want him to know.
So here we have this simple matter of advertising directed to children. The CRTC agree that it should be curbed. They themselves want the broadcasting industry to curb it. They want it to be in the code. We said in the committee specifically that we do not believe the code is sufficient. We want a regulation. They say, "It is almost the same as a regulation because it is just as strong". They said: "We are not going to put it in a regulation". How did they get away with this? In my view this bill should go to the committee for the sole purpose of bringing the CRTC back here and asking them why they disobeyed the will of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I commend the hon. member for having such tenacity. Most other people would have given up a long time ago. They say you cannot fight city hall. Well, if we cannot do it, how can we expect our poor constituents, who do not know their way around this
bureaucracy, this jungle, ever to be able to deal with the government? They just throw up their hands.
Are we running a bureaucracy down here for the good of the people who are in it, or are we running it for the good of the people of Canada? That is the basic question and it is time that this parliament made up its mind that the power lies here, not in the hands of the bureaucrats. So I ask the House not to consider the pros and cons of this- we have already done that in the last parliament-but let us refer this bill back to committee-whether it be a bill or the subject matter of it-to permit the committee to call that body back before us and ask them why they are not obeying the will of parliament. That is what we have to do, and I urge the House to take that action today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for his persistence and tenacity in trying to get this issue of television advertising directed to children resolved, and also the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who pointed out quite correctly the problem that this House is facing on more and more occasions when some group in the bureaucracy, or some regulatory agency think that they know best.
It seems to the CRTC that it does not matter, that after nine sittings and calling 32 witnesses, after producing a committee report after much labour and thoughtful consideration, and after having it brought before the House and approved unanimously, the commission know best. They think that by putting advertising directed to children in the broadcast code the problem is dealt with sufficiently, a problem which faces not only young people below the age of 13 but also their parents.
I would like to remind the CRTC that the issue to which they have failed to address themselves by their inaction, and by their ignoring of parliament's recommendation, is whether children under 13 should be protected from being isolated as a special television audience to be subjected to special advertising designed to exploit their immaturity. The broadcasting committee agreed that these children should be protected. I would go so far as to say that in this case the public interest takes precedence over the broadcasters' and toy and food manufacturers' private economic interests. Therefore, I support the suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's East to refer this bill to committee so that we can call the CRTC before us and ask for an explanation. I also commend the hon. member for the content of the bill; basically, that no advertising shall be permitted during the broadcast of a program devoted to children under 13 years of age.
Perhaps the CRTC should be reminded of the reason the committee felt that children need such protection. Children, especially those aged four to eight, are immature and susceptible to high-pressure salesmanship. Moreover, parents need some protection from children who are manipulated by advertisers in trying to get parents to buy their products. I think it would be worth while to put on the record some of the important observations made by the committee in the last parliament, and certain conclusions

December 12, 1974

drawn by experts who appeared before it. I should like to quote from a magazine called Advertising Age in which Oscar Meyer, an advertising executive, observed in the July, 1965, issue:
When you sell a woman on a product and she goes into the store and finds your brand isn't in stock, she'll probably forget about it. But when you sell a kid on your product, if he can't get it, he will throw himself on the floor, stamp his feet and cry. You can't get a reaction like that out of an adult.
I think it is worth reflecting on that, Mr. Speaker. A survey of the industry, reported in Playthings magazine of March, 1970, found as follows:
Repeatedly, both retailers and wholesalers returned surveys with harsh words for the TV-advertised toys; these items were most often . labeled as overpriced and below standard-a contributing problem to the after Christmas clean-up because TV toys come back in droves ... they just don't work properly.
In the March, 1971, issue of the same American magazine a toy retailer observed:
The toy industry probably has the worst public image of any business in America today, and most of its black eye comes from those of us who have worked within the business and have come away soiled by the contact with the "let the public be damned" greed philosophy that pervades much of the industry. The toys we are forced to offer the public are insultingly touted by slick TV commercials ...
I should also like to put on record, for the benefit of the mandarins in the CETC, a comment by Dr. Richard Fein-bloom of the Harvard family health care program who says that children normally distort reality in accordance with their own immature views of the world. This view is quite different from the adult perspective of reality, and changes rapidly as a child matures. Thus, the same advertising is interpreted differently by children and by adults.
I could go on and on with observations from psychologists and admissions from people within the industry that television advertising directed at children under 13 years of age is unacceptable to them. Dr. Feinbloom puts it this way:
To children, normally impulsive, advertisements for appealing things demand immediate gratification. An advertisement to a child has the quality of an order, not a suggestion. The child lacks the ability to set priorities, to determine relative importance and to reject some directives as inappropriate . .. The child responds as much to the setting as to the object advertised, unlike an adult, and is unable to separate the two. Thus, the real toy is very often found by the child to be disappointing . .. The child cannot judge the monetary value of advertised meichandise, an intrinsic and crucial part of the adult's evaluation and consideration.
I quote these observations because they are important in putting some of the committee's findings in perspective and showing why we think this is an area that demands action by the CRTC. I should like to point out that I do not think we can rely upon the industry to supervise itself. By its code, the advertising industry writes its own rules; in fact, it becomes almost judge and jury. I have researched the 1973 and 1974 "Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children" produced by the Canadian Association of Broadcasters. I recommend that hon. members read both issues very carefully and note changes in the wording.
As long as we allow the industry itself to write its rules, it will do so to its own advantage. One section in particular brings this out. Section 8 of the code covers social values. I should like to read section 8 of the 1973 edition and compare it with the current one. It reads as follows:
Broadcasting Act
Although many influences affect a child's habit development it remains the prime responsibility of parents "to instruct a child in the way that he should go". Advertisers should ensure that they do not make the task more difficult.
(a)	Messages must not reflect disregard for parental authority or parental judgment or portray undesirable family living habits.
(b)	Advertising must not imply that possession or use of a product makes the owner superior, or that without it the child will be open to ridicule or contempt. This prohibition does not apply to true statements regarding educational or health benefits.
(c)	Any material benefits enjoyed should be inherent in the use of the product itself.
Compare that with section 8 of the 1974 code which reads as follows:
(a)	Advertising must not encourage a range of values that are inconsistent with the moral, ethical or legal standards of contemporary Canadian society.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that there is no reference, as there was in the 1973 edition, to disregard for parental authority.
(b)	Advertising must not imply that possession or use of a product makes the owner superior, or that without it the child will be open to ridicule or contempt. This prohibition does not apply to true statements regarding educational or health benefits.
That clause is unchanged. Absent from the most recent edition is the reference in the 1973 one that "any material benefits enjoyed should be inherent in the use of the product itself." I quote that merely to illustrate what happens when an industry sets its own code and changes it as it goes along. The new code also provides:
No station or network will carry more than eight minutes of commercial messages in any one clock hour of children's programming
If you look at the guidelines relating to the new code, what do you find? The regulations allow the industry to get around that eight minutes per hour limitation. On the face of it, the network is not to broadcast more than eight minutes of commercial messages per hour, or four minutes per half hour. However, it is clear that the regulations refer to a half hour period, not to a half hour program. Thus, it is quite permissible to broadcast up to six minutes of commercial messages within a half hour so long as two of the commercial messages are classified as adult-directed commercials. Of course, the definition of an adult-directed commercial is for the industry to determine.
Another loophole is this: only those members of the network who decide to become signatories to the code are bound by it. The CRTC has forgotten this point. They say that if anyone wants to be regulated, they must be participants in the code. Certain types of legally produced commercials are excluded. For example, the code provides:
. .. any commercials scheduled for viewing during the school-day morning hours must be directed to the family, parent, or an adult, rather than to children.
Note the word "school-day" in the code. It says nothing about Saturday mornings, when most children are looking at certain programs. I could refer to other loopholes in this code. For example, there is no penalty for an infraction of the code; all that is required is that the offending commercial be withdrawn. The code is weak, and the CRTC is relying on it to protect children from too much commercial advertising.

December 12, 1974
Broadcasting Act
I commend the hon. member for St. John's East for wanting all commercials banned from children's programs. Of course, we must clearly define what are children's programs. The advertising industry contention that it will go bankrupt without children's advertising is a red herring. I contend that advertising should be directed at parents, who can determine if a toy is suitable for a child. These advertisements should be shown in the later evening hours and not on children's shows.
I repeat, it is important to refer the subject matter of this bill to committee so we can point out to the officials of the CRTC that the commission, on relying on the industry to regulate itself, is copping out and avoiding its responsibilities. I commend the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Cochrane for expressing the sentiment that once parliament has made a decision, that decision should be upheld by the regulatory body concerned. Let us refer this matter to committee as soon as possible.


Miss Monique Begin (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), that of preventing advertising on children's programs is too important and far reaching to be opposed without explanation. I feel compelled to retrace briefly the history of the problem, of the hon. member's action on the subject and of the real issue, at which is directed Bill C-211. The need to speak is still more compelling in the light of remarks made before me by other members this evening.
As early as the winter of 1970, parents' movements initiated protests against massive TV advertising promoting Christmas gifts. The sit-in held in the CRTC's Montreal office by the "Mouvement pour l'abolition de la publicity aux enfants" is still remembered. In Toronto or Vancouver, similar groups held meetings to protest misleading advertising, or over-stimulating advertising messages to children. Those groups were following similar reactions by American consumer groups, in the light of Ralph Nader's theories against "consumerism" and other theories on the urge to consume or the consumer society.
The CRTC immediately had its research branch follow up on the situation and open a file on the subject. Later, in the spring of 1971, the hon. member for St. John's East, at the request of a number of people, introduced a private bill on the matter. He regularly reintroduced it until the present Bill C-211. He deserves commendation for his perseverance. Such is surely one of the main features of the bill. On the other hand, a number of us have been concerned with the problem before being elected or since then.
Last year, more exactly in the spring of 1973, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts worked on a similar bill, as was recalled by the two hon. members who spoke immediately before me, and heard people from all over Canada. Those presenting evidence represented the groups involved, the university people concerned with the problem, and certain of the industries aimed at, so to speak, by the bill. Further, the government regulating body, the CRTC, gave remarkable evidence at the committee hearings of July 5, 1973, to be precise. However, I deeply regret the protective and tradi-

tionalistic attitude of our committee which did not have the good judgment of consulting those primarily concerned, parents who did not belong to those pressure groups, had perhaps a more objective view of the issue, and particularly children. Obviously that would have required a different and more flexible form of consultation, less authoritarian perhaps than that normally followed by the standing committees of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Surely you do not believe that!


Monique Bégin: I believe it wholeheartedly, to answer my colleague in the opposition, because I was a teacher for a good many years and I like children very much. I intend to deal with that in a little while. The real problem in this overall matter is far from being limited to television advertising.
The problem behind this bill is a moral problem since the bill indicts the world consumer society in its most stupid manifestation-publicity. This is indeed what I believe, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is also on this premise that you propose such a private bill.
We discussed it quite often in committee. I am going to change slightly the threads of my speech to take into account the remarks of the hon. member. We also had a lot of discussions in committee about potential reactions to publicity that has been fraudulent, that may be still too massive and too frequent and that is certainly very often completely stupid.
I shall add that the things it tries to represent are stupid, except for candies and breakfast foods, whose inherent quality is simply to exist and which cannot be labelled as stupid. I mean that toys which every winter, before Christmas, are the cause of renewed interest against publicity directed at children are of little intellectual value, compared with toys we had before in our society. This may be also why parents were made aware only three of four years ago of the television publicity directed at children.
I shall add that it is very easy to criticize the regulatory body that decided in 1971, if I am right, to encourage the Canadian Broadcasters' Association to define and apply a so-called voluntary code of ethics for its members.
It is very easy to criticize the CRTC which since last September, considers the most recently revised version of this code as part of its own standards but which has not regulated itself, in the legal meaning of the word, television advertising for children. But this is not the purpose of the bill before us; its aim is more precisely to banish and phase out publicity directed at children.
I shall say that our committee never studied the crux of the matter which is the economic facet of this issue. Since a while ago, we have been particularly negative as concerns our government agencies but our own committee did not define what would be the cost of a basic change.
Everyone knows that television in our country, including children's programs, is very often extraordinary. The French network of the CBC was once considered to make-and I must unfortunately say this in the past tense-the best children's programs in the world. These programs are supported by an economic base which is the
December 12, 1974

publicity, paid most often by toy companies, but also by candy and cereal manufacturers.
For fiscal year 1969-70 alone, the year of radio broadcasters, the revenues spent for children's programs and obtained from the companies which pay for publicity was evaluated at $12.5 million. This amount represents approximately 10 per cent of the total cost of television programs.
I shall add that it seems to me that-as I said earlier, which made the hon. member opposite smile-we are overprotective about children. I sincerely believe that today's children, those of what we call the television generation, decode much more quickly than we do televised messages, that they often become aware much more rapidly than us of the tricks behind these publicity messages, and you only have to listen to them when they are among themselves to see if they do not care and that if they are smart they will make little songs of it that they will repeat between themselves. So one can realize then that children have a capacity of judgment that is perhaps more developed than ours for a medium that is truly theirs and not ours.
I would add that there is one thing oh which I can quite sincerely congratulate the hon. member, and that is arousing, as many others, the public opinion to the nonsense of advertising, the handling of children by mass media, quite specifically television, and the moral aspect that has not yet been mentioned in this House but that is of much greater concern to me than advertising itself, to the point that one can say in a sense that a toy is shown as capable of much greater velocity than it can actually deliver and people are misled on the cost of toys, or any other object for that matter, displayed for children. I think this is very serious because that is what transmits the concepts of social classes from one generation to another. That has never been discussed. In fact, it is a very complex and useful thing because it affects culture and the whole civilization.
But, besides that, I want to congratulate the hon. member because he contributed to arousing parents. I think they have a vital role in an area in which I do not personally believe altogether in legislation but a little in regulation provided, of course, we can include in regulations subtle things of a psychological and sociological nature. The resignation of parents is perhaps lesser now in Canada because they were brought to read frequently in the papers, not so much this year but in previous years, very strong reactions both here in committee hearings and in the public at large on the question of overprodding children and even a certain manipulation by an excessive quantity of television commercials aimed at them.


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-211 provides that no advertising shall be permitted during the broadcast of a program devoted to children under the age of 13 years, these programs being defined by the commission by regulation. I am glad to hear this concern expressed by my colleagues and members of the opposition. We all share this concern; we differ only in the remedy. Television enters all our homes, rich or poor. It has a tremendous impact, especially on children, who are
Broadcasting Act
most vulnerable. On the surface, Bill C-211 may appear to be a good idea. It may appear to be enough simply to ban commercials from children's programs. However, like the housekeeper who sweeps dirt under the carpet, this bill is not coming to grips with the entire question of television advertising in so far as children are concerned.
Children watch television at all hours of the day. If you banned television advertisers on Saturday morning, they might move their ads to Saturday night. This leads to the question of whether we should ban ads on Saturday night. Carried to its illogical conclusion, perhaps in time we should ban all commercials.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?


Marke Raines: Because then the taxpayers would have to shoulder the full burden, and I do not think they are prepared to do that at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They pay for them now in the price of the goods they buy.


Marke Raines: Let us come to the reality, crass and commercial as it may be, that the advertisers pay the heavy cost of producing the programs. Without them we would be more heavily taxed than we may want. Also, many things that are wrong with children's advertising can also be said to be wrong with all advertising. For example, one of the objections to beaming commercials at children is that children of poor families are encouraged to hope for and ask for things their parents cannot afford. Should this not also be an objection to beaming commercials at the parents of poor families who cannot afford the tantalizing things that are demonstrated to them and are hopelessly beyond their reach? Should not our task be to help these families with their problems so they can get the education and jobs required to earn enough money to buy these desirable things, or help people to understand that an excess of material things does not necessarily constitute happiness.
Another point is that in all advertising-and children do watch television at all hours-there are undesirable elements. The game shows are geared to the hope of getting a windfall of prizes-something for nothing. The soap commercials perpetuate the picture of the wife in the laundry room crying over "ring around the collar" or because her neighbour's wash is whiter than hers. These advertisements, which are seen by children, show the wife fussing over the shine on the kitchen floor, or breathing heavily, "I'm so glad I'm a woman". To many thinking people these are very undesirable commercials; they perpetuate myths which make life miserable for women who are led to believe that if their kitchen floor does not shine, they are failures.
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters and the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board have developed a voluntary code for children's advertising on radio and television. It was developed with an end to controlling advertising directed at children aged 12 and under, who have not yet developed a sense of discrimination and who are therefore susceptible to distortion of the real world, through their imagination. I shall not go through the
2210

December 12, 1974
Broadcasting Act
entire code. I simply say that to make the code more effective it should be made widely known to the viewing public, aside from the CRTC, that any violation of the code can and should be reported to the children's advertising section of the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board.
The code is voluntary, and although programs are monitored to judge its effectiveness, the task would be greatly facilitated if parents were made aware that they could do something about advertising content by reporting unacceptable commercials to the board. The CAAB has produced a series of broadcast messages inviting the public to write for free copies of the code and to complain about commercials which do not seem to conform to it. A year after the code was announced, an average of one complaint a month regarding alleged violations of the code had been received. Five of them were sustained. During the same period, 130 commercials were submitted for prior approval by the Advertising Standards Council. Of these, one in four was amended or cancelled prior to public viewing. This in itself is a definite indication that changes can be made and that content can be improved or altered to the advantage of the public, potentially on an over-all scale in the advertising industry.
Admittedly, a code such as this does not satisfy demands to remove any and all advertising from children's programming as contained in the bill presented by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I would question the practicality and effectiveness of such a move and I substantiate this opinion by quoting the words of Mr. R. E. Oliver, president of the Canadian Advertising Advisory Board, who said:
Audience surveys show that children aged seven and over watch not just children's programs but all kinds of programs at many hours of the day. More adults than children watch Disneyland whereas the viewing audience for "MASH", "All in the Family" and "Hockey Night in Canada" includes thousands of children under twelve. Should an advertising ban be placed on these programs, too, thus treating adult viewers as though they were seven years old?
It is even debatable whether we are really doing our children a service by trying to isolate them from the real world. Surely, no one would seriously suggest asking them to wear blinkers during an election campaign so that they would not see the competing claims ...


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the order which was made earlier, it being five minutes after six o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6.06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
(Mr. Raines.]


Otto Emil Lang: that Bill C-43, to amend the Law Reform Commission Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is a simple one. It is to add an additional full-time member to the Law Reform Commission in place of the two part-time positions which have existed since its inception a few years ago. As hon. members will recognize, I think, the commission has been doing some extremely interesting and invigorating work in examining important questions of law in Canada. It has been producing working papers and is about to put before members of parliament and the public in general a good number of final papers and recommendations in respect of changes in the law.
Under the chairmanship of the Hon. Patrick Hartt, the Law Reform Commission has shown a great deal of vigour and has taken on a great number of tasks. I believe it has proceeded with them in very commendable fashion. The commission has also shown in many different ways its desire to have a contact with the bar as well as with the public. It has held seminars and discussions. It has met with the bar association and branches thereof throughout the country. Through its working papers it has put before the bar, as well as members of the public, the views presented to it which can then be commented upon by individual lawyers and groups or sections of the bar.
Originally, it was thought that the part-time members would be necessary in order to give the commission the kind of contact with the practising bar which the full-time members might not have. Even though the legislation provided that the full-time members would include a significant number chosen from the practising bar, it would seem that once they were on the commission they in a sense removed themselves from that particular field of activity. The two part-time members of the commission, Madame Clare Barrette-Joncas and Mr. John D. McAlpine, have indeed served extremely well and I pay tribute to them for the job they have done with the commission.
However, there is a very definite need to give, in an adequate way, a full and appropriate role to the part-time members in reviewing the massive amount of work that has been done by the commission throughout a long period of time. The full-time commissioners, of course, can devote their whole time to those matters, but that simply is not possible for members who are otherwise engaged in busy and fruitful practices of law. The chairman of the commission, therefore, recommended that the commission have added to it one full-time member and that most of the part-time members of the commission really be rededicated to an involvement with the bar in many other ways. The bill before us, although complex in a sense, is designed to serve only that particular purpose.
December 12, 1974

I am sure the chairman of the Law Reform Commission would want to point out the way in which contact with the bar has been maintained. I would say to hon. members of this House that were any problem or danger to arise in that contact, I would be eager to find ways to reinstitute the involvement of the bar with the commission. The history of the commission and of the commissioners I think assures us there is no particular problem in that respect. Accordingly, the bill is presented to hon. members and I commend it to them for speedy enactment into law so that we can add to the commission one additional full-time member.
This is an opportunity for us to put a new member on the commission, which has had only two changes since it came into existence, who may be with the commission for a fairly prolonged period. I am, therefore, pleased to move the second reading of this bill and its referral to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, a more modest person would hesitate to inflict himself upon the House of Commons twice in the same day, but the reason is that the minister has been able to bring forward two bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the third time.


Mr. Fairweather:: Third for the minister, but I was speaking about myself. The only wheat grown in Fundy-Royal is that used at Thanksgiving; it is placed on the altars of the churches, and I have often thanked God for that fact. Mr. Justice Hartt, the chairman of the Law Reform Commission, in a recent interview left the impression that he was discouraged about the progress of the commission, its work and the public understanding of its mandate. I very much hope that this is only a newspaper impression and that it inaccurately reflects the chairman's view of the work of the commission.
I said in an earlier speech that many of us very much enjoyed particularly the third report of the Law Reform Commission. That report was published just recently. I again state that if all government documents and reports could be written as eloquently and as clearly as are those of the Law Reform Commission, public understanding would be much enhanced. The minister and the government, surely, must show that they are in earnest about the commission's work in producing a series of what might be called very fundamental reports about the law. I think particularly of family courts and the very important reform in that area.
In this case, public opinion is substantially ahead of parliament and the legislatures. This is similar to what occurred in the matter of divorce law reform: this parliament was well behind public opinion on that issue. I realize that the report on fines and restitution has only recently been published and I would not expect the government to be ready to move in this direction. But if Mr. Justice Hartt and his newly constituted commission are to believe they enjoy the support of parliament, I think they are entitled to ask when we expect amendments to be made to the law. I hope that when the minister is reconstituting the commission, full regard will be given to the
Law Reform Commission
regional realities of the country. The minister has, of course, quite properly mentioned that one of the commissioners shall be from the bar of Quebec. That is understandable. I would also hope that the new commission would have representation from western Canada.
Really, the questions raised by the Law Reform Commission are almost fundamental to our system of government. They underscore questions that are being raised beyond these walls about, really, the wider philosophy of whether democracies are themselves governable. I do not think that anyone, on December 12, wants to hear me give a lengthy dissertation on this; but I believe that unless our system is substantially improved, that question will be asked by many more people than are asking it now. It seems to me that some of the elements of the law are in a little disrepute at the moment with respect to compassion, sensitivity and access not only to the law but to members of parliament and ministers. If this situation can be changed, justice will be granted quickly, fairly and evenly in essential elements of our society.
I am going to paraphrase a quotation which I have had in my mind for many years. I have searched very diligently to find the accurate reference, but up to now the Library of Parliament has not been able to provide it. It is the saying of a Russian philosopher called Berdyaev who reminded us that you cannot compel men to be just; that pity, mercy and love are elements or components of justice.
I believe this is partly what the commission is trying to remind us of as it researches the law and the reasons for our law. Many people in this House and in the country say that this is so much sentimentality; that if, for instance, one believes that the parliament of the United Kingdom last night re-emphasized its understanding of the elements of justice by refusing to be swayed by the mob who would return to hanging, this message is one which I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself might describe by an expression which he used on an earlier occasion when speaking of wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. It is not that at all. I believe profoundly that it is essential that the public has an understanding of and respect for the law. That is why I am very anxious to see some of the changes proposed by the Law Reform Commission brought forward quickly in the form of bills so that this parliament can deal with them.
The minister is anxious to have this bill passed, and there are other bills waiting in the wings, but I just want to refer to an essay entitled "Morality and Law" which appeared in the November issue of Encounter magazine, written by Shirley Robin Letwin. She writes:
To recognize that morality is not an object, adjunct, auxiliary, or criterion of law, but intrinsic to it, is in no way incompatible with a regard for the freedom of individuals to make their own lives as they see fit. On the contrary, recognizing that a commitment to freedom in this sense is a moral commitment is essential to preserving freedom against its most deadly enemies: those who insidiously spread confusion by undermining all standards of civilization. It must, however, be recognized that all good things cannot be had at once. If a free community values its civilization, it will neither be unanimously agreed on what is compatible with it, nor make all newcomers feel equally at home. In a community that has a sense of its own identity, even where there is no danger whatsoever of persecution or legal
28626 -6%

December 12, 1974
Law Reform Commission
prosecution for deviations, some will feel the pinch of society more than others. But it should not be forgotten that they may feel the pinch because they prefer less rather than more liberty, and more rather than less order. A civil association allows for a great variety of pursuits and enterprises, but the variety cannot be infinite. No community can renounce all limits without renouncing civilization.
Mr. Justice Hartt, in his interview on the philosophy of the Law Reform Commission, seemed to indicate an understanding of these words and also the wider dilemma that society faces. Surely, one of the tasks facing the commission is to remind us that any attempt to escape from uncertainty by what I might call decontaminating the law from morality will certainly destroy the law itself. I hope this bill will go forward quickly, and I hope that the minister, when he is making the appointments, will remember his western heritage.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not see much reason to detain the House for many minutes on Bill C-43. To put it mildly, the bill is not earth-shaking. As I understand it, it proposes to substitute for two full-time and two part-time commissioners, three full-time members of the commission. I think this is obviously an improvement. I am not talking about the personalities of those who occupied the position of commissioner in the past, but it seems to me to make sense that one full-time commissioner could contribute more than two part-time commissioners. So that so far as this bill is concerned, I have no quarrel with it and I do not think we need to spend too much time on it.
However, I do want to make some general observations about the subject of law reform and particularly the Law Reform Commission. I remember well when the predecessor of the present minister, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), introduced this bill with a good deal of enthusiasm and zeal and that feeling was reciprocated in all quarters of the House. The mood then was for reform, and we believed that the Law Reform Commission would be an instrument for substantial, real and meaningful changes in the laws for which parliament is responsible. That mood was accentuated when Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt became chairman of the commission.
As I say, the then minister of justice exuded enthusiastic zeal. But I ask, four years later, what has transpired as a result of this commission? Certainly, reports have been made, many of them excellent. I must say I have not read all of them, but the ones I have read are first-rate. There are at least four detailed reports containing recommendations for action. I ask the minister-perhaps he can answer me at this stage-to tell the House what legislation has resulted from this, what single recommendation has been made part of the law of this country by reason of the Law Reform Commission? I suggest that there is something very wrong when four years after the commission was created the net results, in terms of actual legislation, are completely absent so far as I can see. The report, the terms of reference, the act referred to modernization, improvement and reform. The reference was to new approaches and new concepts.
I am not complaining about the commission itself, but where in the House have we seen any evidence of improvement, modernization and reform of the law? Where are the new approaches and the new concepts? I ask, who is responsible for this? I suggest to the House

that it is perfectly obvious who is responsible. It is the minister responsible for the administration of this policy, and the department. They show no enthusiasm for the whole process of law reform.
We have had reports on criminal law and evidence-that was one of the major products-and we have a working paper on that subject. One working paper deals with giving a person the right to what is called "discovery" in legal terms; that is, to know in some detail what case is being made against him. But where is the legislation? When will we have the legislation that will give this protection to people who are caught up in the toils of the law?
The commission is looking into the field of family law. Despite the changes that were made in 1968 which advanced the law of this country from the 1870s up to the equivalent of the law in Great Britain in the twenties-I may have my dates wrong-we did not accept the opportunity at that time for civilized divorce laws based upon up to date concepts of marriage breakdown, throwing away all the old stuff about marital offences as the basis of our divorce laws. We still have not done anything about it because there is no real concern. It cannot be said that we need time to do these things, because the Ontario Law Reform Commission has made many excellent reports on a large number of them. I do not often praise the Ontario government, but many of their recommendations have been enacted into law, and I hate to see this parliament lagging behind.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with this bill, but I should like to put a fire under the minister and get some action on law reform in the very near future.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Before recognizing the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) it is my duty to inform the House that if the minister speaks at this time, that will conclude debate on this stage of the bill. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I simply want to respond to a number of points that have been raised. I can assure the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that, in accordance with his suggestion, we will take regional considerations into account when appointing the next member of the commission and will remember the need for somebody from western Canada on the commission-always wanting, of course, to find the best possible commissioner for any vacancy that might exist.
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) expressed a desire that we should move rapidly as a result of the work of the Law Reform Commission. I think he is being a little unfair, because at this point we have no final reports from the commission but only working papers which are meant to be discussion documents. If we were to work at full speed on these and moved to implement changes, we would be in advance of what the public and the interested parties want.
December 12, 1974

In the family court area, we have taken certain steps in the provinces to make progress even before making final changes. We have endorsed the concept of certain pilot projects in relation to family law, and throughout the country a number of interesting experiments are being conducted as a result of proposals made in the working papers of the Law Reform Commission. I want to emphasize that these are working papers, Mr. Speaker.
I agree with the hon. member for Greenwood that it is important that we move with dispatch when we receive the final recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. The government cannot in every case, nor can the House, accept blindly or automatically the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission as though they were the law-making body in place of this House. It will be our resolve, however, to put before the House as quickly as we can recommendations based upon or related to the submissions they make. I say to the hon. member that he may be premature in his criticism, but to the extent that he wants to light fires I am glad to have them lit. We will attempt to show, by material placed before this House on many areas of the law, that we can act rapidly once we have the official reports of the Law Reform Commission.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising tonight to respond, on behalf of my party, to the bill that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) has introduced, I should like to say how pleased I am that the minister is in the House. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that when I raised the question of her not being in the House when the second reading debate commenced, I only did so because I felt it was important that the minister be here. I recognize that at that time the hon. lady was on official duty in another part of the country. I think I speak for all members when I say how pleased I am that the Minister of the Environment is with us this evening: we appreciate that.
Health and the Environment
I think I should also say, out of courtesy to my hon. friend the parliamentary secretary, that when I raised this demur some days ago, in no sense did I raise it with the suggestion that it was in any way improper for the parliamentary secretary to begin the debate on the bill. I only mentioned it because I thought it was important that the Minister of the Environment be present during the debate.
I say it is important that the minister be here tonight, because while my colleagues and I respect parts of this bill we have grave doubts about whether it will even begin to do what the government has said it will do. The government's position is that this is a new type of bill, that it will be the precursor of a new type of legislation in the environmental field in Canada because it does not concern itself so much with correction but with prevention. That is the intention of the government and it is what the bill has been advertised as doing.
Mr. Speaker, we know that from 50 to 100 new substances are manufactured each year. I took these figures from the speech of the former minister of the environment last year when the bill was introduced in substantially the same form. We know the great danger of allowing these substances, which may contaminate the environment, to be produced, sold, put into the environment and then corrected afterwards.
The government has boasted that this bill will establish a mechanism for preventing harmful substances from entering the environment before the fact, not after the fact. If that were the real effect of the bill, I would be the first on behalf of my party to endorse its principle. Yet, when one looks at the bill, one finds that there is slippage between what is intended and what will be the effect. Why do I say this? I know the Minister of the Environment is sincerely concerned about the problems we are trying to solve. This bill will empower the Minister of National Health and Welfare or the Minister of the Environment to take certain steps once it is suspected that certain substances have been created which are dangerous to the environment.
Basically, two steps must be taken. Once it is suspected that a certain substance is harmful to the environment, the government agency which is to be responsible for implementing this legislation must investigate the substance-and it is mandatory, quite properly-in order to determine if it is harmful. The government is empowered by this bill to place that substance on a prohibited list. The bill refers to a schedule on which such substances presumably will be listed. In my view, however, the bill has been defectively drafted. I said this some months ago when this measure was before the previous parliament.
The bill talks about a schedule, yet there is no operative clause which will establish the schedule. That may be a technical or a procedural point; the point is, one cannot establish a schedule unless there is provision for its establishment. We can sort this out later and fix the defect. In any event, once the substance is put on the schedule by the government, it cannot be manufactured or used in a way which will harm the environment.

December 12, 1974
Health and the Environment
Clause 3(1) of Bill C-25 raises some questions in my mind. I hope hon. members do not think I am being frivolous. It reads:
Where the minister ...
That is, the Minister of the Environment.
... or the Minister of National Health and Welfare suspects that a substance is entering or is likely to enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that may constitute a danger to human health or the environment, the minister, or the Minister of National Health and Welfare may (a) collect date...
The clause says that these substances are not to be used. The relevant words are "Where the minister . . . suspects that a substance is entering or is likely to enter.. ." What does this mean? What must happen before somebody suspects that something is happening? The former minister of the environment, the Hon. Jack Davis, said in a speech on April 24, 1974, as recorded at page 1730 of Hansard:
We need this information urgently because literally hundreds of new chemicals are being introduced into our local environment every year. Some of them should be withdrawn; that is after the event. But many others can be intercepted in the future; that is ahead of the event. It is the ahead of the event operation which our new Environmental Contaminants Act is all about.
I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House want to support the alleged principle of this bill, but we cannot support it as there is a hole in it big enough to drive a truck through. The defects in the bill makes it almost impossible for the government to know what are the 50, 100 or more substances that are being produced each year, and the government can only act if it suspects that a substance is likely to harm the environment. Only then can it investigate. That is my point. How can you call this a preventive act? I see the hon. member across the way chuckling about this. What is there to laugh about? Would people in Japan laugh, people who were poisoned by industrial processes that went on for years because nobody checked out the processes in advance? I know the minister does not consider this a laughing matter and I am sorry the hon. member on the other side thinks it is something to laugh about.
If this bill is to be preventive, then in the name of heaven why not include a provision requiring manufacturers to file information on which the government can base its considerations? The government agency would then be in a position to suspect that a particular substance is harmful to the environment. I recognize clearly that such a provision would impose upon industry; however, let me quote what the Minister of the Environment said about the bill on November 29, as recorded at page 1815 of Hansard:
I must give credit to the manufacturers who already provided information to the department on the nature of new substances they intended to introduce on the market. They are already co-operating because they realize that prevention is indeed better than cure.
Apparently some manufacturers are already co-operating, although I do not know under what procedural system. I am sure manufacturers are prepared to co-operate, and apparently some of them are already telling the government what substances they are producing. But unless the government knows what to look for as such substances are produced, unless it knows what substances to suspect, countless substances may find their way into our environment without the government knowing about

them until after they are in the environment-until after the fact. That is my point: it is not difficult to grasp.
Nobody is perfect. I see my hon. friend across the way smiling again. I have never suggested the government is perfect. I am not criticizing it for not being perfect. However, on April 24 the then minister of the environment uttered these comfortable words to the people of Canada about this measure, as recorded at page 1728 of Hansard:
It will ensure that man-made substances will be checked out thoroughly before they are produced in this country and sold to an unsuspecting public.
That just is not so. No doubt that is intended, but it will not happen under this bill. He went on to say:
The idea is that artificial or unnatural substances should be spotted well ahead of time. They should not be sold in large numbers or vast quantities and broadcast around the country before we know what their environmental effects are likely to be. They should be checked over carefully before they are scattered around and before the cost of recovery and recycling gets out of hand.
I am in absolute accord with that statement. Everyone in this House ought to be. However, that will not happen under this act. Under this act there will be no checking on substances until something happens that makes the minister or ministers suspect that something is wrong. Referring to Bill C-3, which was fundamentally the same measure, the former minister went on to say on April 24, 1974: Bill C-3 is designed to stop pollution before it starts. Our new Environmental Contaminants Act will put us into the business of prevention rather than cure.
It is not the fault of the present minister that those words were said. However, my answer to that is, in the absence of fundamental changes between the former Bill C-3 and the present Bill C-25 that statement is a lot of hogwash. It is time the Canadian people realized that it is all very well to put out press releases about a piece of environmental legislation, and to put out comfortable words about prevention before the fact; however, when the substance of the legislation does not give you that, what you are doing is deluding the public of Canada. In the long run, you are fooling yourself. I do not see any reason why tonight hon. members should be fooled.
The minister might not like what I am saying. She should look at the act and read it herself. Do not take my word for it. If there is any difficulty with the legal language, take it to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) who is in the House tonight. I am very happy to see him here. I see he is paying close attention to what I am saying: I am very comforted by that. There is no question that the intent of the government in putting forward this bill is very laudatory. I suspect that it was very apparent to the Department of the Environment that there was a hole in the entire framework of environmental legislation in this country.
Along with many others, I have had a modest part to play in promoting some of the legislation that we have in this country on environmental matters. I commend all those who were involved in recognizing this problem and in bringing forward a bill to do something about it. However, what cannot be tolerated in a matter as grave as this is pretending to oneself or to anyone else that a fundamental defect in the bill will support one's intent. Let me
December 12, 1974

again refer to the speech of the former minister of the environment as recorded at page 1729 of Hansard for April 24, 1974:
Its impact on our quality of life will be known in advance. It will be known before it is mass produced and before it gets into our natural environment in a big way.
This legislation, aimed at dealing with environmental contaminants before they contaminate our natural surroundings, has not been developed in a vacuum. We have been in close consultation with industry.
Well, I wonder whether they have been in very close consultation with industry. They have certainly been in enough consultation with industry to know that a vast number of these substances are being produced every year. Surely, if the government had been in close consultation with industry, they would know perfectly well that the substances are produced, set up for market, distributed and used in industrial processes. If you do not find out about them until you suspect something is wrong, that is not preventive legislation; it is remedial legislation. If the government wants to come before this House and present remedial legislation, they should tell us that is what they are doing; they should not play games with us or the Canadian public by pretending they are bringing forward preventive legislation when people ought to know perfectly well they are not.
When introducing the bill on November 19, the parliamentary secretary said this new bill is substantially the same as the previous one. I quote from page 1476 of Hansard:
. . . we are moving from cure to prevention.
That is just not so in this bill. He went on to say:
. . . we have also been phasing-in measures to prevent the damage before it occurs.
How the devil are you going to prevent damage before it occurs, if you cannot act on it until you find out something that creates suspicion that damage is already being done? You cannot do it. You can twist, fiddle, shift or move around all you want. You can play with words but you cannot get around facts. In the same reference, the parliamentary secretary said:
One of the two key goals of Bill C-25 is to answer questions about chemical substances which are, or might become, contaminants of the environment.
That clearly is not the purpose of this bill. I challenge the parliamentary secretary on that statement. This bill only goes into effect if the government suspects that something is wrong, and you do not suspect unless you find out something is going wrong. This is not a preventive bill; it is a bill that moves for remedies only after a problem has been suspected or found. As I said previously, if the government came before us and said, "Look, we have problems here. We do not know how to find out in advance what is going to happen. It is very, very difficult to know, and the best we can do is patch it up afterwards", that would be one thing. However, that is not the position of the government. The government is trying to kid the Canadian people into thinking this is a preventive bill when it is not. That is the defect in it. Maybe I am too strong in saying the government is trying to kid the people, but that may be the effect of it. Maybe the government hoped so badly that it could come forward with
Health and the Environment
legislation that would be preventive that it did not look long enough and hard enough at the facts.
With the number of substances that are being produced annually-which the government admits and industry knows all about-how can you prevent unless there is some reporting system whereby, when a new product comes on stream or is about to come on stream, notice is given by industry, the inventor or the vendor to the government agency that there is a new product. I am not asking that when a new product or a new process is developed you at all times make absolutely certain there will not be some deleterious effects in due course, under certain circumstances. I think it would be straining common sense a bit to do that. But surely it is not straining common sense to ask that industry report to government what it is producing, so that at least the government can take a second look at it and have a better chance of being in a position to know what is going on.
This is not without precedent. I quote from a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which was sent to me some time ago concerning the use of phenoxy herbicides. The minister is very much involved in this bill and I thank him for his courtesy in sending me the letter in response to a question I had asked. He said:
All pesticides, including the phenoxy herbicides, must be registered under the Pest Control Products Act before they are sold in Canada. This act is administered by Plant Products Division, Agriculture Canada, and requires registrants to submit suitable supporting evidence of their product's efficacy, safety, residues and effects on the environment before registration or sale.
Surely, when we demand this in one piece of legislation we should not back up when putting forward a bill which we are telling the public will prevent these noxious substances getting into the environment. The minister sent me a release, dispatch bulletin No. 6, dated June, 1970, which reads:
Under the authority of the Food and Drugs Act, the Health Protection Branch is charged with the responsibility of protecting man by prohibiting the sale of a food product which may contain, in or upon it, any poisonous or harmful substance.
It went on:
The branch requires manufacturers of pesticides for which tolerances are to be established to submit detailed data on the following ...
A number of requirements are then set out with a view to compiling information needed by the government if it is to know what is going on. In this case the government will not know what is going on until someone registers a complaint or, possibly by inadvertence, suspicions are aroused. I know that the Minister of the Environment and her parliamentary secretary are very concerned about the thinking behind this bill. I am not suggesting there is any lack of concern here, but I state bluntly that if those responsible for the legislation before us stop at this point, the act, when in force, will not be effective.
On April 24, 1974, an article appeared in the Globe and Mail entitled "Disastrous pollution threat seen in organic compound use". The article says this, discussing the situation in the United States:

December 12, 1974
Health and the Environment
Although there are literally millions of organic compounds with undertermined potential for harm, benzyne is known to damage the liver, phenols have corrosive properties and alpha benz pyrene is believed to cause cancer, said Mr. Robert Ouellet, head of the Mitre Corporation, a Washington-based environmental assessment agency.
The compounds, 80 per cent of which are unavailable to the public and are only used industrially, are already entering the food chain from pesticide residues, he said.
On October 2, 1974, the Globe and Mail wrote an editorial dealing with promises made by the Liberal Party during the recent election campaign. One of those promises was to stem the despoilation of our planet and return our water, air and land to a more natural state. The editorial had this to say:
An environment contaminants act died on the order paper with the last parliament but environment minister Jeanne Sauve has said the new legislation will be similar... The controls will be on known contaminants. The legislation is expected to require manufacturers and importers to conduct tests on dangerous substances and report results to the government. The government may conduct its own tests.
The Globe and Mail is a fairly reputable newspaper and no doubt whoever wrote that editorial had read the press releases. The article stated that the legislation required manufacturers to conduct tests of dangerous substances and to report to the government. I say, again, that this will not happen until the government suspects there is something wrong. That is the substantial defect in the act. However, there is another defect. Throughout the bill reference is made to a schedule which is to be set up in due course to indicate which are the prohibited substances. The difficulty here is that the bill lacks any operative clause under which such a schedule could be set up. This is not a matter which I am drawing to the attention of the House only this evening; in my remarks on this bill on April 24, as reported at page 1731 of Hansard, I said:
Another aspect of the bill merits consideration. May I draw to the attention of hon. members clause 5(2) which reads in part...
It is not clause 5(2) in the bill before us, but the effect is the same. What it said is that the substances will be placed on a schedule, but nowhere in the bill is there an operative clause designed to set up such a schedule. I think this is a matter which could be corrected without any great difficulty, but unless it is corrected we cannot establish a schedule on which the substances considered dangerous to the environment could be placed. I do not point this out in a pejorative way; it is merely something which needs to be tidied up.
The points I have raised tonight are not new to the government. They were raised in the debate on April 24 in which I stated the following. I quote from Hansard of that date:
I am somewhat concerned about the way the bill has been drafted. It puts the onus on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) or on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to approach industry, but only when one of those ministers suspects, or has reason to suspect or believe, that a dangerous substance within the meaning of the act is being manufactured or used. The bill does not require the manufacturer or the inventor of the substance to give notice to the government of its manufacture or invention, or of its sale. I wonder whether this omission is the result of an oversight on the part of those who drafted the bill, or whether there is a substantive reason for drafting the bill this way. We shall need to examine that aspect in committee.
Some months ago this matter was brought to the attention of the government. A new bill has been brought forth which, by the government's own admission, is substantially the same as the previous one. There are some amendments with some tightening up, but the substance of the bill has not changed and the defects are still there.
This party was quite prepared to allow the bill to go through second reading and into the committee last April. We then had a minority government and many of my colleagues and some, I would suspect, on the government side of the House, were very confident that amendments could be brought forward in committee-because the government did not control committees during the last parliament-which would make the substantive change in this bill which I hope I have illustrated is so important. We let it go through. But we are now in a majority parliament and we on this side, as well as members on the other side, cannot be sure of the opportunity of bringing amendments forward in the committee.
I would hope that when and if this bill gets to the committee, the arguments we put forward will be given consideration by government members. I am quite sure there are some government members who will listen to the argument; but there is'no certainty now. My position, and the position of my party, is that we have every intention of doing everything we can to ensure that this fundamental defect is brought to the attention of all hon. members and is dealt with before there are any votes on this bill in its present form.
As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege, and I think my duty, to move, seconded by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
Bill C-25 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof, the protection of human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order to consider a more appropriate legislative mechanism to establish mandatory procedures whereby substances be reported to the Minister of Health and Welfare and the Minister of the Environment prior to manufacture or sale.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Perhaps I should say to the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and to the House that the Chair has some question about the validity of the amendment that has been proposed. I would suggest, therefore, that, without prejudice to the decision, the Chair will reserve judgment on the acceptability of this amendment from a procedural point of view. If that is acceptable to the hon. member and to the House, the debate will be allowed to continue and a decision will be made at a later time this evening or at the earliest opportunity. Is that agreed?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in so far as my party is concerned, that is agreed. I understand the situation and I hope all members of the House will agree.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Owing to the events which have occurred these two last days and which do not seem to end

December 12, 1974

today, I raise a matter completely outside the present discussion but as a member I think I am entitled to do so under the provisions of the Standing Order relating to questions of privilege.
For instance, we could read this morning in Le Devoir and I quote:
Pots-de viti: Caouette reste coi...
And in an English newspaper:

"Hill reporters take bribes"

And in another English newspaper ...

"Name no names Caouette won't detail bribery accusations"

Mr. Speaker, as I will have to be absent tomorrow, I trust you will allow me to explain to some extent what I said in this House, what I said outside its walls, and even what I did not say outside the House.
I notice, for instance, that there are fewer reporters in the gallery this evening than there were two days ago. Mr. Speaker, I would like one thing to be clear, following the question of privilege of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) yesterday to the effect that the hon. member for Temiscamingue had made accusations against all hon. members in this House: that was simply not the case. I wish to say that after two or three days, and after having seen the photograph of the hon. member for Joliette in the newspapers, I asked myself whether perhaps he himself had not helped to pay for the cost of his personal publicity in some of the newspapers of the province, whether it be French or English newspapers.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I read this morning the statement of a fellow from the French network of the CBC, a Mr. Daigneault, I believe. I do not know him or if I do, I have no recollection of him. He said he was convinced I had lied. So, for Mr. Daigneault's guidance, I say to the House that the first one to be implicated in the whole thing is not the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), nor the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), but the hon. member for Temiscamingue.
I myself paid $20 to a reporter to have a decent article published in a specific newspaper in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


David Réal Caouette: Yes, indeed. In addition to that, I paid $50 in cash, and that for three months, to get more publicity over the French network of the CBC. I say that for the guidance of Mr. Daigneault and company.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is what you would you call bribery. When someone does you a service and you give him $10, whoever he may be, I hardly think that it should create a scandal.
Health and. the Environment
However, when I rose in the House two days ago, I knew what I was talking about. I was aware of the problem and today the CBC employee to whom I referred is in Montreal. I will not name him because he could lose his job. Still I do not think what he did was so wrong because he was following the rules of the CBC, despite what Mr. Daigneault may think, the idiot who made the statement yesterday. That individual is entitled to live and I will respect him to that extent, but I mentioned it to show how far things have gone.
Two days ago I said that reporters could be in collusion with political organizations and not merely accept gifts. Miss Lariviere said: A former Social Credit member sent me a $10 bill. Perhaps that was not enough. If he had sent her $50 she would probably have accepted it and shut up. Any how I saw her last night on television, Miss Fay LaRiviere. Mr. Speaker, nobody will make me believe that those guardian angels sitting in the gallery watching the members of this House ready to attack everybody, are beyond reproach. In addition to the small, petty amounts they may be given to buy a lollipop, there are a good many things more important. For example, when the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make a trip to Australia, Africa or any other country, a selection is made among press members-


Mr. Bechard:: She is there!


David Réal Caouette: I do not know whether she is there. In any case, if she is, she will know what I think of her.
Mr. Speaker, those people are invited, after selection, to take a trip to India, Iran, or some other country. I could give here-


Albert Béchard: One cannot help laughing.


David Réal Caouette: Yes, one cannot help laughing.
Names could be given of good French Canadians who at a given time are here in Ottawa and who find themselves in South Africa the night after. They are quite happy. Who is paying? With the taxpayers' money, not by La Presse, Le Droit, Le Devoir, or Le Jour. They are paid out of CBC funds voted by Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite clear on this; they may say what they want about me outside, I will not name names so they will not lose their jobs, but I went through those channels. I gave $20 to a fellow, and I gave $150 to another. I had better results than when I did not give anything.
Mr. Speaker, let it be made clear, I will not point out anyone in the papers because I do not want them to lose their jobs. Let the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) or Miss LaRiviere feel offended-


An hon. Member:: She tears up $10 bills.


David Réal Caouette: She did not tear up the $10, I am sure of that. Let her name the member, that does not bother me because there are Liberals and Progressive Conservatives who offer them the same thing, or do not, but who give them $10 or $20. They keep their

December 12, 1974
Health and the Environment
mouths shut. Yesterday, I saw in the gallery a $1 bill, a $2 bill, and a $5 bill. Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was $5, $1 or $2 bills those fellows had collected over the last six months. That is all I had to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The hon. member has interrupted the business of the evening on a question of privilege. Of course, he is aware that questions of privilege need to be raised at the earliest opportunity, and the Chair has some doubt this has been done. It is also usual to present to the Speaker written notice of intention to raise a question of privilege. The hon. member is aware that none of these requisites has been observed.
The Chair also notes that at the conclusion of the hon. member's remarks, in which he made an interesting complaint which he brought to the attention of all hon. members, he did not follow up his discourse with a motion for a question of privilege; so there is no further action required by the Chair, and the House should continue the debate which is in progress.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Madam
Speaker, I rise to some extent in a redundant capacity because most of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) are remarks with which I associate myself in terms of the criticisms that have been levelled against this piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: He is a good fellow.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, he is a pretty good fellow, like some of those left-wing Conservatives whom I could never quite fathom. Madam Speaker, before dealing with the content of the bill I wish to refer to the very uplifting statement that was made in the Speech from the Throne on September 30 last, in terms of the intentions of this government to deal with environmental matters. I must congratulate the government on a fine piece of rhetoric, because this is what I find in the Speech from the Throne:
Stemming the despoliation of our planet and returning our water, air, and land to a more natural state are urgent and challenging goals. Legislative measures toward these goals will include:
. .. greater protection from contaminating substances in the interests
of human health and ecological stability; and
... curtailment of ocean dumping through international agreement.
Then the statement went on to refer to protection from contaminating substances and curtailment of ocean dumping. These are fine words, but in terms of performance, when one examines this bill one must question whether this government is really serious in terms of the environment. This bill sets forth a very interesting procedure in terms of dealing with the question of prevention rather than cure. It is almost as if an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure in determining where the bill is heading and what it is trying to solve.
First of all, the bill requires that the minister must investigate. Second, it requires that the minister must consult with the provinces. Third, the minister must consult with other federal agencies: then they have to change the regulations in respect of the emission of dangerous substances. Fifth, the Minister must refer the suggestions to a board of review. The only way to enforce the procedure set forth in the bill is to determine that an emergency

situation exists. How do we determine that an emergency situation exists? In fact, we very rarely know that one exists. When a person who has been working in a pasties factory dies of cancer, perhaps that is an emergency to him, but there may have been many years during which people had been working on that substance or that particular experiment.
In respect of the Indians of the White Dog reserve at Grassy Narrows who were consuming food containing mercury levels far above those which a person should consume, it is almost impossible to know for how long that situation existed. So it seems to me that the bill does not do what must be done, which is to really zero in on the problem of prevention rather than cure and place the onus where it belongs, on those who are contaminating the atmosphere. The onus is on the government and on the prevention agencies in respect of this bill to determine whether an emergency condition exists or whether the atmosphere is being polluted.
Assuming that we are lucky enough to find somebody who is producing new substances which contaminate the atmosphere and may maim, kill or injure those of us in society, the bill goes on to establish a penalty. Clause 8(5) of this bill must have caused people who are contaminating the atmosphere to laugh all the way to the bank, because this clause provides:
Every person who contravenes this section is guilty of an offence and is liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars or to imprisonment for six months or to both . ..
That is hardly a deterrent when a new product is brought into society which is worth billions of dollars in some cases, and certainly millions of dollars. If one were sitting on the board of directors of a major corporation, one would have to weigh whether the corporation should continue what it is doing, because of the revenue and profit attached to the operation, with the size of the fine and the size of the penalty.


An hon. Member:: Hang them.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I must say I would not go quite that far. I am still consistent on the matter of capital punishment. I believe that a very serious review should be made of the bill's penalty sections. There is a two-year sentence provision upon indictment-I was not glossing over that-but in practice, where there are two provisions, one for a summary conviction and one relating to indictment, the normal situation is for a prosecutor to lay the charge under the lesser penalty. That has been the practice in our courts for many years.
In many cases, where the charge is laid under the minor section calling for summary conviction, nothing more is given than a slap on the wrist, while in fact they might have made immense profits, quite often fantastic profits, as a result of the new substances that are coming in. I think in particular of the phenoxy herbicides or agricultural pesticides that are being developed every day, which bring immense profits to the agricultural industry. On balance, the pressure to use these herbicides and pesticides because of the world food shortage and because of
December 12, 1974

our need to increase productivity, is immense. Those who are on the environmental side of this issue have a great deal of difficulty in presenting evidence and arguing against these new substances being used.
I would suggest that there is another very serious defect in this bill, and that is that the investigation is provided for under the authority of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). As I recall, the Minister of National Health and Welfare found that he did not have a sufficient number of people to find out whether or not hamburger in Canada was contaminated. How he will have enough people in his department to go across the country and look into every little manufacturing plant and chemical laboratory to investigate new substances that are being created, I do not know. I submit that this is almost impossible.
When we measure promise against performance, we find that the promises are great but the performance is not there. I welcome the intention. I think the idea of prevention instead of cure is a worthwhile one and certainly it is a beginning in looking at our environment in a serious way. However, it simply does not do the job. I realize that you might want to rule me out of order, Madam Speaker, but I must say, without dealing specifically with the amendment before the House, the arguments that were in the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South are very persuasive in terms of the validity of the amendment.
Let us ask ourselves, are there solutions? What should we really do? First of all, we do not have meaningful national standards to combat pollution. Second, we continue to overconsume useless products such as aerosol bottles, about which I know the minister is concerned. I know that investigations are taking place with regard to potential risk to the ozone layer from the use of aerosol bottles. But in fact the use of the bottles themselves is a terrible waste of our economy. The contents of these bottles are rarely worth more than the containers which hold them. This waste of material and money in a resource-starved world is a tragedy, and the same is true of all the stupid and costly packaging. We are all guilty of this.
The minister, quite properly, some time ago in a speech-and, again, her record is excellent-called upon psychiatrists, in an article that I read in the Vancouver Sun, to help people to live in an ecologically sound way or in a way that is in harmony with their environment. I must congratulate her on that. I think that was a very forward and progressive statement and I should like to read more of it. The minister said:
"To do this we need your help," she told the psychiatrists at the opening of the Canadian Psychiatric Association's annual meeting.
People will have to revise their aspirations and life style to deal with the grim realities of the future, she said:
"It is probable that within the next ten years 300 million people will die from malnutrition and starvation,"
She cited the prospect of climatic changes and fertilizer and energy shortages. Within that statement there is a grain of new thinking that is very necessary-that we are all to blame for the environmental mess in which we find ourselves and in order to change we have to think about changing our life-style. But we need some leadership, and we are not getting it from this government. We talk about conservation of energy. Where has there been a piece of
Health and the Environment
legislation that would discourage the use of energy; the use of gasoline, for example? In fact, it is the other way: we are rushing around, so worried about our economy and so worried about the fact that car sales may be down. But perhaps we should look at a few of these matters as blessings in disguise and start reducing some of the wasteful consumption that goes on in this country.
Certainly, one of the most progressive steps that this government can take in terms of the environment is to provide massive funding for rapid transit and eliminate the wasteful line-ups of cars on every freeway and in every major urban centre in the country. Do you know that it takes longer to drive from where I live in Port Coquitlam to Vancouver than it does if you take the slowest transit vehicle every morning? Because of habit, people line up on that freeway-the same thing is true in Toronto and Montreal-and proceed at 10, 15 or 20 miles an hour.
I suggest that in terms of changing our environment, this government should take leadership in making people change their habits. But that takes courage and money, and it may even take some form of penalty imposed on those who continue to drive cars at a time when they should not be driving them, when they should be using rapid transit. Certainly, rapid transit is a step in the right direction. I suggest to the minister that if the federal government funded rapid transit in the middle of freeways, so that all drivers of cars that were lined up and moving at only ten miles an hour could see the train or bus moving past them, it might change some of the bad habits we have developed on this continent in our wasteful consumption of energy.
The last point I want to make is with regard to onus: the onus continues to be upon the regulatory agency to determine whether something is bad. The result is that we are using human beings as guinea pigs in testing new substances. For example, in terms of phenoxy herbicides, there is some evidence that it causes mutation and birth defects. The debate has raged for a long time among scientists on both sides of the issue. On balance, it looks as though those who claim it is safe probably have more evidence, but there are specific instances of birth defects which are highly suspicious in terms of the use of phenoxy herbicides for eliminating weeds, and so on.
The onus is wrong. What we are saying is, "You humans wait until you get cancer. Wait until the damage is done." It seems to me the onus should be on those who are introducing new and probably dangerous chemicals to justify those chemicals. We should not have to concern ourselves with the question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare investigating and determining these things. Madam Speaker. I see the minister has just come into the House and I am glad to see him. He has great capacity and has done a remarkable job in some areas, but I do not think he is perfect enough to carry out this immense task of determining the very real hazards produced by the use of chemicals that are strongly suspected of increasing the disease of cancer in the world.
We must look at the rhetoric in the Speech from the Throne, and some very progressive statements made by

December 12, 1974
Health and the Environment
the Minister of the Environment, and balance them against an inadequate performance. We cannot improve the environment unless we change the manner in which we conduct ourselves. We are looking for leadership, Madam Speaker. We are looking for somebody who will take the initiative and say, "There is no way you will drive that car between certain hours."


Mr. Darling:: Change human beings?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: You can change human beings from time to time. My Conservative friend has hit a philosophical concept that is totally fundamental. I have confidence in human beings and think they are capable of changing, but he does not.


Stan Darling: I did not say that.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I have confidence in human beings and their ability to change, and I am waiting for that.


Mr. Roger Young (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to address the House, 1 should like to make a few opening remarks in reference to the person of His Honour the Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Her Honour.


Roger Carl Young: I am referring to His Honour the Speaker at this moment. I have many friends in Sudbury and they tell me of the great esteem and high regard they have for His Honour's person. We find now that such esteem and high regard is not limited to Sudbury but spreads across the length and breadth of this great country for the way in which Mr. Speaker carries out his duties. I would extend those remarks to the deputies of Mr. Speaker-yourself, Madam Speaker-because of the high regard in which we hold you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roger Carl Young: It is a pleasure for me to stand and support Bill C-25 this evening, Madam Speaker. If I refer to my constituency by way of some prefatory remarks, I hope you will not find me guilty of straying from the essence of the bill itself, but rather by way of building the base from which I speak. I am explaining to you the impetus which gives rise to my desire to speak.
This legislation is of the utmost importance to my riding. I come from an area which is rich in the early development and history of this country, an area which is resplendent in natural beauty. When we speak of the natural environment, Niagara people know very well whereof they speak. We have in our area Lakes Erie and Ontario, the Niagara River, the Great Falls themselves, the beginnings of the Niagara escarpment and the commencement of the Bruce trail. We are the heart of the Canadian fruitlands where we produce great crops and very good wines. Because we have this great environmental habitat in the Niagara area, we also know whereof we speak when we mention the protection of our environment.
In the past we have viewed with alarm the pollution, the build-up of algae in Lake Erie, and when we peer over the brink of the great cataracts themselves we notice with
[Mr. Leggatt.)
some shame and disgust the foaming, brownish-yellow froth at the base of the falls. This is not a natural, sparkling, clear, bubbling froth but one which arises because of chemical pollutants and sewage. Yes, Madam Speaker, we are well aware of environmental concerns because admist our natural beauty we also have a very heavy industrial development. We have abrasive plants, manufacturers of heavy industrial products, and giant chemical plants. We have seen clouds of chemical smoke emanating from them. We have gone out to our cars in the morning and found them covered with a film of chemical dust, and we breathe very nauseous odours from some of these plants.
My remarks are not meant to malign these industries, Madam Speaker, because we know very well what they have meant to the economic welfare and social well-being of our community. They provide us with jobs, they bring in money and make products which are useful and without which life would be much more difficult. When we speak of the trade-off which must be considered, the balance which must be reached between environmental and economic forces, Niagara people know precisely whereof we speak.
Our industries have made creditable attempts to clean up their local environments, but in many cases there is much more to be done. I do not cast blame, because if blame is to be cast for our environmental problems it does not fall upon the government alone, or individuals alone or municipalities alone. If it falls, it falls on each of us as citizens, because it is we who have reaped the benefits of our great surge toward industrial growth, toward development of our economy in our great rush toward progress. Because we did not foresee with enough clarity the dangers involved and did not realize that our resources were not limitless but limited, we are now paying the price. We are now involved in enormous expense. In spite of the costs, however, we look forward to the day when our corrective measures will have cleaned up the mistakes and messes left in the wake of our earlier development.
It is from the base that I have just established that I now project my remarks specifically to Bill C-25, a bill, to protect human health and the environment. I am greatly taken with the preventive nature of this bill-


John Allen Fraser: Oh, oh!


Roger Carl Young: -by the screening process that it would set up. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) coughs. I listened very intently to his remarks and those of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), Madam Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Read the bill.


Roger Carl Young: I have read the bill.


John Allen Fraser: Read it again.


Roger Carl Young: The hon. member for Vancouver South dwelt upon one word this evening. Throughout the whole of his speech he dwelt on the word "suspicion". But he did not read the whole of clause 3. He read, "Where the minister or the Minister of National Health and Welfare suspects", and stopped there. But the section does not just
December 12, 1974

say "suspects"; it goes on to say, "suspects a substance is entering". He stopped there again. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I did not hear the hon. member read these words:
.. . suspects that a substance is entering or is likely to enter ...
One must read clause 3 in its entirety. The clause deals with suspicions. What is a suspicion but a thought or idea? How can any act arise unless it is preceded by a thought? The hand which acts moves because of a thought, because of an idea, perhaps because of a suspicion which has emanated first from the mind. How can one act before an idea occurs, before a suspicion arises? I suggest that the hon. member plays on words, deals largely in semantics.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


Roger Carl Young: Madam Speaker, I prefer to finish my remarks. Perhaps after I have finished the hon. member can ask his question. The hon. member equates the word "suspects" with the word "knows." He attempts to equate words which are not synonymous. The bill does not say that the minister may act if she knows; she may act if she suspects. I am pleased to note that the bill uses the word "suspects." This means that the minister, on the smallest hint, on the smallest suggestion, on the slighest idea that environmental contamination can take place, can initiate action.
I am also pleased with the umbrella approach this legislation adopts. Under that approach we are to solve th ese difficulties in a spirit of co-operation. There is to be co-operation between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of the Environment; between the federal government and the provincial governments; between the government and industry. This legislation will give us the chance to check products and substances in the developmental stages, before they enter into mass circulation. If I may use an analogy, I suggest that this legislation will help to prevent, in the environment, the sort of thing which happened when thalidomide was introduced on the market. I cannot see how this legislation is objectionable because it casts upon industry the responsibility for vetting new products.


John Allen Fraser: That provision is not there.


Roger Carl Young: The cost of investigating a new product will be borne by industry. We are continuing our philosophy, namely, that those who produce the product shall pay the cost of analysing it and shall show how we are to avoid risk. We are talking about man-made chemical substances, things which are not found by themselves in nature and are poisonous and harmful to our natural environment. We are talking about substances which, once released into the environment, are not degradable, do not break down and return to a natural state. These new substances are produced almost daily.
No one knows the long-term environmental effect of these substances. No one knows how they will affect environmental balance. The spin-off from space technology, from warfare and defence production and from our need to find synthetic substitutes for dwindling natural resources has resulted in enormous development in our
Health and the Environment
chemical-type industries. Hundreds of these artificial, chemical compounds play a part in our daily lives and we do not yet know what the ultimate effect of even the most seemingly innocuous of these substances will be.
When we note that compounds which are seemingly helpful and socially pleasant to use-compounds such as contained in a can of underarm deodorant spray which make it possible for us to rub shoulders with our neighbours without being self-conscious, without being offending or being offended-may be dangerous, may be creating harmful side effects in our atmosphere, should we not ask ourselves if there are not many more items which are capable of being equally destructive? If these small items are so dangerous, what about the larger ones? What about those substances which are building up and accumulating until we shall once again be caught up in a giant battle to undo wrongs we have brought upon ourselves.
I suggest, in concluding, that if we thought the clean-up of Lake Erie was a giant task, one of enormous cost, the task of cleaning up our atmosphere on a global environmental basis will be much greater unless this legislation is passed. Can we even begin to comprehend the size of the task? Would we even begin to be able to do that kind of job; or, more importantly, will we be too late? I consider it a great privilege, on behalf of my constituents, to support this legislation. I suggest to all hon. members that this is not just good legislation; it is an absolute must.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question? I suggest that the hon. member's sentiments about the necessity for protecting the environment are exactly the same as mine. The hon. member suggested that I dwelt too much on the word "suspect". May I ask him this: can he point to any part of this bill which makes it mandatory for industry to tell the government, in advance, that it is manufacturing or producing a certain harmful substance? Until such provision is included in the bill, the government will labour under a severe disadvantage as, according to the present wording of the bill, the government can only act once it finds out something is harmful. As the hon. member suggested, it can only act once it is possessed of a thought, of a suspicion that something is wrong. Can the hon. member point to any part of the bill which requires industry to tell the government that it is producing a substance which is harmful? Where does it say industry must impart this information before the government suspects something is wrong? That is the question.


Roger Carl Young: Madam Speaker, without attempting to use a debating ploy, I suggest that we are dealing with the bill on second reading and will have ample opportunity to deal with it in detail when it is considered clause by clause in committee. Secondly, may I attempt to answer the hon. member's question by asking him this question: how could the hon. member act, if he were charged with the administration of this legislation, without first thinking, first suspecting, first being possessed of an idea?


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I will be pleased to answer the question-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.

December 12, 1974
Adjournment Debate


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I am in your hands and the hands of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


John Allen Fraser: I wish to answer the question but government supporters do not wish me to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 22, as recorded in Hansard at page 1575, I put this question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the many references made on November 5 and November 6 during the recent debate on the Veterans Land Act to the possibility of introducing veterans' housing legislation, which would be even better than the provisions of the Veterans Land Act, could the Minister of Veterans Affairs now say whether such legislation will be introduced in the near future?
The Minister of Veterans Affairs replied:
Mr. Speaker, as was indicated by myself and also by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, this proposal is still under study, and I feel good progress is being made.
A few days ago, because of my continuing concern about this matter, I put another set of questions on the same subject to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. The questions and answers are found in Hansard for December 9 at page 2057. The initial question and answer were much the same as those I have already quoted, but as a supplementary question on December 9 I put this to the minister:
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which relates to the fact that the right to make applications under the Veterans Land Act will expire on March 31, 1975. Will the new legislation be ready by that date?
It was at that time the minister gave an answer which gave me some concern. All his previous answers had indicated that something definite was coming in terms of veterans housing legislation to replace the Veterans Land Act. His answer to my supplementary question on December 9 was in these words:
Mr. Speaker, I feel that whatever is going to be done will be made known before then.
That, of course, is before March 31, 1975. The minister ended with this sentence:
I am not endeavouring to leave the impression that it will be in the form of legislation.
I confess to great concern over that reservation which the minister made. When we were debating this matter on November 5 and November 6 on the basis of a motion
which I made arising out of arrangements we made in the last parliament, a motion seconded by my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the line from the other side for two full days was that the Veterans Land Act had been an excellent piece of legislation, but it had served its purpose and now it was time for it to be replaced by something better, something that would fit today's needs. When taking part in that debate, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said that the Veterans Land Act had fulfilled its purpose, and so on, but what was needed now was something of greater relevancy. He said:
... that a study has been undertaken to examine whether special arrangements should be made to assist such veterans. Because discussions are still in process, I am not in a position to comment further at this time. I am hopeful, however, that it will be possible for me to do so in the not too distant future.
Those words of the minister were spoken on November 5, 1974, as recorded at page 1072 of Hansard when he was taking part in the two-day debate on my motion. The speeches from the other side-and I am happy to use this example tonight because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Cullen) is here for this late show-is he listening? I am trying to catch the ear of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Cullen:: Sorry.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was saying that the speeches from the other side against my motion culminated, I thought, in a statement by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance when he said, as recorded in Hansard of November 6, at page 1128:
I have no hesitation whatsoever in voting against this particular motion. Nor will I be ashamed to go back to the veterans in my riding and indicate to them, as I am doing publicly here in this House, that I am against this motion because the act has done the job it was set up to do. Let us now get on with some new legislation. For the reasons I have stated, I am voting against this particular motion.
But now, after the Liberals had all been persuaded to vote against an extension of the Veterans Land Act because new and better legislation was coming, the Minister of Veterans Affairs says, "I do not want to leave the impression that there is going to be new legislation; I have been talking about arrangements; I have been discussing the matter with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs." Some of us contend that this is not good enough, and that if the Veterans Land Act cannot be continued, the arrangements promised us should be implemented and legislation on this matter should be introduced so that it can come into effect before March 31, 1975.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question and the concern felt by the hon. member. In my remarks I said I did not want to leave the impression there would be new legislation. On previous occasions I had referred to special arrangements. I did not state there would be new legislation. The hon. member, in questioning me, was very emphatic, but all I am leaving is the impression that things can be done sometimes without legislation; possibly by making use of existing legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell that to your colleague.

December 12, 1974


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I have no control over what my good colleagues may say in this great, democratic country of ours, with free speech and what have you. What they say is their choice and it is all said in good faith. Last November 5 and 6 I mentioned a study which was being undertaken by my department in conjunction with other departments. I said the study had been undertaken to consider whether special arrangements should be made to assist, in particular, veterans with low or modest incomes with respect to housing. The housing requirements and preferences of veterans vary in nature. On the one hand, we must recognize the housing needs of many veterans living on low or modest incomes. On the other hand, the average age of World War II veterans today is approaching 60 and many of them are interested in acquiring a retirement home located in an urban area.
A housing program with provision for the requirements and preferences just described is not consistent with the provisions of any existing legislation for veterans. In recognition of the current housing requirements of veterans, it is considered that the provisions of the National Housing Act have greater relevance to these needs. It is with these factors in mind that a study has been undertaken by myself and my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). Good progress is being made on this study, but I am not in a position to comment further this evening. I expect, however, that it will be possible for me to do so in the not too distant future.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I simply add that I stand by my word.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are no points of order at this stage.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-SURVEY OF VETERANS' HOUSES IN NEWFOUNDLAND-POSSIBILITY OF ASSISTANCE FOR IMPROVEMENTS
Jack Marshall: Madam Speaker, from my experience in the service it appears that we cannot make a direct attack on the minister; we have to do it by flanking-from the left by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and by myself from the right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is not that far to the right.


Jack Marshall: I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in an attempt to make an impression on the minister. Tonight I would refer the minister to the wrongdoing of his government in adopting the attitude not to extend the expiry date of the Veterans Land Act beyond March 31, 1975.
In order to impress upon the minister the lack of rightful consideration as expressed in my supplementary question on November 22, let me say that it is completely amazing to me how the minister could condone such a decision by his colleagues in cabinet, when at the same time he was instrumental in achieving the approval of
Adjournment Debate
funds to the extent of $38,000 to allow the provincial command of the Newfoundland and Labrador command of the Canadian Legion to conduct a survey to determine the standard of housing of veterans in that province and, hopefully, as a result of the survey to provide funds to rehabilitate the housing to an acceptable level, which I am sure the minister wants to see.
If it is worth while to expend that amount of financial assistance in undertaking such a survey, surely it would be justifiable to bring that survey to its successful conclusion and to provide the funds necessary through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), in his responsibility for housing, to allow those veterans on fixed incomes to bring their homes up to a standard of reasonable comfort for the future of themselves and their families.
Not only was this project worth while; its results, as I have seen them-and certainly as the minister has seen them-would point out the similar needs of veterans in like circumstances not only in Newfoundland but right across the nation. I would like you to take as an example one case I have read about in the report following the survey. In this particular case, as a result of inadequate toilet facilities, one veteran-who happens to be a double amputee-has to be carried out by other members of his family to an outhouse several times a day. If this is an example of our Canadian way of life which we accept, then I wonder what Canada is all about.
I have come to the very sorry conclusion that as a result of the apathetic and complacent attitude of this government, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), although I am sure he wants to, cannot convince his colleagues in cabinet that rather than phase out the Veterans Land Act, with promises to the opposition that a housing program will be forthcoming to replace that act, we will sorrowfully arrive at March 31, 1975, when thousands of veterans will again express their sorrow at being denied their rights under the veterans' charter.
As chairman of my caucus in respect of veterans affairs, I have gone beyond my capability under the rules of parliamentary procedure to impress within that capability the need for protecting many thousands of Canadians who will be denied their rights under the veterans' charter. If the minister, as he has said on many occasions, feels that this is to the benefit of that segment of our Canadian population, being the veterans, then so be it. I say that with only one qualification, and that is that there are only three months remaining until the expiry date, and I hope that with the support of veterans and their organizations, they will take up once more, after so many years, the battle to recover, with respect for Canada, their rights which are being denied as a result of the decision of the government to phase out the act.
Certainly we should be at a stage not only where the Newfoundland and Labrador provincial commmand should determine the question of a survey of substandard housing, but where we can allow and provide funds for a survey of the housing for all veterans in Canada which, if the minister is sincere, and I am sure he is, would be a humane consideration to Canadians. The government should extend the VLA until every veteran in Canada has

December 12, 1974
Adjournment Debate
been humanely considered, and I am sure the minister feels humane in that regard.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Madam Speaker, this question would appear to be in two parts. I suggest that I have answered the latter part of the question and I believe that answer should suffice. There is no change in the rules in respect of the latter part of the question of my hon. colleague from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). In respect of the first part of the question, mention has been made in the House of a survey conducted by the Newfoundland and Labrador command of the Royal Canadian Legion. This is a study of the housing conditions of disabled and indigent veterans in Newfoundland and Labrador. This study is being completed in phases over a period of time. The final phase has not yet been completed. When the study has been completed, it will be fully studied by my department. If there is policy which could be derived from the report, there will be an announcement in due course.
The study by the Royal Canadian Legion, which concerns only Newfoundland and Labrador, is not related to the study which is under way in my department in cooperation with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson). Any proposals resulting from the study in my department will be equally applicable to all veterans in Canada, regardless of their province of residence.


FINANCE-EFFECT OF BUDGET PROPOSALS ON SIZE OF PUBLIC SERVICE-CONSULTATION WITH STAFF ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, on November 19, 1974, I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) respecting a reference contained in the budget wherein the minister said that as one of his assaults, or as one of his weapons in the wrestling match against inflation-which wrestling match finds the minister on the ground-we must do all that we can, in these circumstances, to restrain the growth of governmental expenditures. He went on to say that the government had sought and would continue to seek ways to cut out waste, to place limits on the growth of the public service and to approve only the most essential new programs. The next day I asked him what he really meant by that, and he said he meant that there would be restraints on the increase of growth of the public service.
Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about how this program will be implemented. I believe it is easy to say that we will use the number of public servants, or an increase in the number of public servants as the battleground in the fight against inflation. This is easy for the government to do. My respectful submission to this House and to the Parliamentary secretary, through you, Madam Speaker, is that there are some very constructive things one could do in respect of restraint on governmental expenditures.
One would be to stop hiring consultants which cost the government $750 million in one year. We should stop this wasteful practice and remember that there are men and women in the public service of this country who are skilled in their work and who have the capability to perform the jobs which consultants are now doing. In fact,
(Mr. Marshall.]
the object of the government ought not to be to restrain the public service as such, in terms of size, but to challenge the public service in terms of the ability of the service to meet this challenge.
The difficulty with respect to the public service is that there is now, as described by Mr. Wilson in an article in the Ottawa Journal, a malaise in the bureaucracy. The public service suffers with respect to job security in a way in which it has never suffered before. PSAC representatives before the Finkelman committee today told us that the greatest problem is erosion of income. They have been badgered by the traumatic experience with respect to the implementation of bilingualism. They have been red-circled, green-circled and blue-circled until they are tired of it. They are suffering from slow, unresponsive bargaining practices. The wage settlements which they are getting now as a result of arbitration are insufficient to meet the erosion of wages. A spread is developing in the salaries at the top level of the public service and the lower levels.
All these are matters which can discourage people not only from entering the public service but from staying in it. To the extent of the discouragement and threat to careers that exists, I say to you that not only does the public servant himself suffer, but the people of Canada are not as well served as they might be by contented, reasonably well compensated public servants who are neither ahead nor behind the public sector but at parity with it. It is for this reason that I rose to ask the minister for the reassurance which he did not give me in answer to my question on that day, and it is for that reason that I raise the matter in this debate. I hope to have that reassurance from the parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Finance): Madam Speaker, I might say that I am responding tonight on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). I think that the hon. member's position would be better served if the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) did not place questions on the order paper asking how many civil servants are receiving salaries in the range of $20,000 to $30,000 or $50,000 to $60,000, because I think it has the effect of placing a false image on what the civil service in this country is earning.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in his budget speech on November 18 dealt at length with the problem of inflation and the necessity to sustain demand. It was in this context that he referred to the government's intention "to place limits on the growth of the public service." He did not say then or at any other time that it was the intention of the government to reduce the size of the public service. The hon. member may have been confused by press reports about thee budget that spoke of cutbacks and freezes, but these were inferences drawn without any basis.
The President of the Treasury Board, the minister with direct responsibility for departemental establishment, also had occasion to deal with this question recently before one of the standing committees of the House. He indicated that there was no intention to impose a freeze or institute any process of cutting back the size of the public service. He said that the government has decided to slow down the
December 12, 1974

rate of increase. The hon. member may be aware that the growth in the number of man-years-this has been called the most reliable unit for measuring the size of the public service-has been 6 per cent or more in each of the last two years, as measured from the published figures at the time of the tabling of the main estimates. The government hopes to keep growth between the fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76 noticeably below the level of 6 per cent. Its success in this regard will only become evident at the time of the tabling of the next main estimates which are now in the course of compilation.
Hon. members should not be left with the impression that a reduction in the rate of growth is all that easy to accomplish. They should be aware of a wide range of essential labour-intensive services which the federal government now provides. For example, more letters, more
Adjournment Debate
postmen, more travel, more air traffic controllers-one could give a long list of examples.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), acting on his assumption about a reduction in the size of the public service, has asked whether there had been consultation with representatives of staff associations. Since I have made it clear that the assumption was erroneous, he will be able to see there is no need to talk about staff associations in this connection. If there are more and more questions about the size of salaries and the number of people who are making their living in the civil service, it will do a disservice to and will discredit the civil service of Canada, which I submit, with respect, is the finest in the world.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Friday, December 13, 1974