1974-12-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS	[English] REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN THIRD REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
[English] PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS	On the order: Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees:
Second report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Blaker.	December 4, 1974-Mr. McCleave (Joint Chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments): That the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented as the third report, in English, on Thursday, November 7, 1974, and as the fourth report, in French, on Tuesday, December 3, 1974, be concurred in.
[Editor's Note: For the text of the above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings]	Mr. Speaker: This may be the order of the day for discussion later on and therefore will stand until orders of the day.

THE ROYAL ASSENT	MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate passed Bill S-18, an act respecting International Air Transport Association, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.

[English] Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received from the Senate:	FINANCE TABLING OF REPORT OF SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE ON SMALL LOAN COMPANIES FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1973
Ottawa, December 13, 1974	Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the report of the Superintendent of Insurance on small loans companies and moneylenders for the year ended December 31, 1973.
Sir, I have the honour to inform you that His Excellency the Governor General will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 13th December, at 11.45 a.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
[Stage Direction]
I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, Andre Garneau Brigadier General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General	PROPOSED REFERENCE OF ACTIONS OF MEMBERS OF PRESS GALLERY TO STANDING COMMITTEE-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S O. 43 Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce): I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
['Order, please. As I have endeavoured to indicate to the hon. member, I take it he has raised a question of privilege at this time personally. I would prefer to reserve on it. This is a matter of some importance and I could perhaps make a decision on Monday. If other members want to make a contribution to the point they might be prepared to do so on Monday.']
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 13, 1974
Actions of Members of the Press


Mr. Douglas (Bruce):: I hope you keep it up.
Following the comments made last night by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Crawford Douglas: Would some of you fellows like to do it? The motion reads:
That the questions and accusations raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that comparisons may be made in the attitude and coverage they received by the parliamentary press gallery contrasted with the attitude and coverage given by the parliamentary press gallery to charges recently made by an hon. member of the provincial house of Ontario regarding some members of this House.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How could the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) second the motion if he is not in his seat? Oh, touche, Monsieur l'Orateur, he got there while I was speaking.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I looked in that direction when I heard the name of the hon. member who was seconding the motion and just as he was seconding the motion he was leaving his seat, but I thought he was there long enough to comply with the Rule.


Mr. Baldwin:: Would Your Honour repeat the motion? We did not quite catch it as the hon. member was interrupted from time to time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Douglas) moved, pursuant to Standing Order 43, a matter of urgent and pressing necessity:
That the questions and accusations raised by the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that comparisons may be made in the attitude and coverage they received by the parliamentary press gallery be contrasted with the attitude and coverage given by the parliamentary press gallery to charges recently made by an hon. member of the provincial House of Ontario regarding some members of this hon. House.


An hon. Member:: Is that urgent?


An hon. Member:: It is perpetual.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to say that since the matter casts reflections on the practices of some members of the House, and because it is a recent allegation and was raised again last night on a question of privilege, it does have some immediacy. It certainly has importance. Although it may be classified as important, it could be raised in other ways perhaps if hon. members wanted to take objection or wanted to proceed by way of a question of privilege. I have to confess to some reservations about the nature of the pressing necessity and the setting aside of the order of business in order to debate a matter of that sort. In order to be consistent with other rulings I have made, I must say I have doubts that the motion is of pressing necessity.



Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like to point out that I will readily support the motion in view of what the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) said very clearly in his speech last night and I quote:
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.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that his insinuation is unacceptable in my case. I trust the House will ask the hon. member to be more specific and make his accusations in the public forum and not take shelter behind parliamentary immunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member brought up the question of privilege. If other hon. members wish to contribute to the debate, it might perhaps be preferable to delay a final decision and consider this very important matter on Monday.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would just point out, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) having risen now, it might be presumed that he has reserved the right to bring up the matter and move a motion, perhaps on Monday or Tuesday. In that case, he would have to send Your Honour notice. By rising as he has now in respect of the allegation which he has charged appear to have been made against him, he has, I believe taken the proper course, and has reserved his right to make a motion later.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have endeavoured to indicate to the hon. member, I take it he has raised a question of privilege at this time personally. I would prefer to reserve on it. This is a matter of some importance and I could perhaps make a decision on Monday. If other members want to make a contribution to the point they might be prepared to do so on Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House could revert to motions. I should like to ask for a special order to deal with the supplementary estimates to be introduced on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that yesterday I said, in connection with the government's decision not to press forward before the end of the fiscal year with
December 13, 1974

the petroleum administration bill, that it would be necessary to provide moneys to pay the subsidy and maintain the equalization of oil prices in eastern Canada. The government will ask for special funds to meet the cost until the end of the fiscal year. I would, therefore, ask that a special order be approved in the following terms:
That a supplementary estimate presented to the House on Monday, December 16, 1974 shall not be referred to a standing committee but a minister of the Crown may move a motion to concur in such a supplementary estimate and any bill based thereon may be read a first time immediately the said supplementary estimate is presented; and
The said bill may be advanced any number of stages in any one sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I assume, after the slight difficulty the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) experienced the other day, that this bill will deal only with the matter proposed and that no extraneous and unusual clauses will be inserted in it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I shall endeavour to see that this is so.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance who is in charge of the informal discussions which have taken place on the achievement of consensus, discussions which the minister anticipates will resume early in the new year. Is the Minister of Finance responsible for these discussions, or is the Prime Minister, or are they so confidential that they are in the hands of the RCM Police?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is completely a governmental initiative and the Prime Minister therefore will have the responsibility. I will have, also, a general overview of general economic aspects. Much of the discussion will be conducted by ministers with particular responsibility for the sectors being talked about.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility seems to be well spread around, particularly since the Minister of Finance does not intend to carry the can. Has any structure been established which is to be responsible for planning and developing the approach to consensus? Has any bureaucratic structure been established for this purpose. If so, who is at the head of it?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, yes, a special unit or task force has been established to co-ordinate and set up the schedule for this exercise. I do not know at the moment whether I am at liberty to describe the personnel of the structure, but I will consider that request.


INFLATION-TYPE OF GROUPS WITH WHOM DISCUSSIONS HELD IN SEEKING CONSENSUS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Obviously, this operation is being conducted with a great deal of security, even though it is not being conducted by the RCM Police. Perhaps the Minister of Finance can say with whom discussions are being held, with what sorts of groups. Have they been held with separate individuals, or with groups representing principal elements in the economy. One is under the impression that there have not been discussions with Mr. Morris, the head of the CLC. With whom have these discussions or meetings taken place?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, several discussions have been held with leaders of several major unions in this country and also a representative selection of business leaders. When the exploratory stage begins in January, we will be able to convey to the House and to the country the form these conversations are taking and with whom they are being held.


INFLATION-PROPOSALS TO INDUSTRY IN SEEKING CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a further question to the Minister of Finance. I would like him to be a little more specific concerning meetings with industry. How many meetings have been held? In those exploratory talks, did the government make any suggestion, or do they intend to make any suggestion, to industry that price increases should be limited in future to cost increases and no more?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the parameters within which we are going to be working will be made clear to the House when the exploratory stage is completed.


INFLATION-POSSIBLE INCOME TAX CUT TO RESTORE BUYING POWER TO CONSUMER
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of widespread forecasts of economic slump in Canada and with retail sales, seasonally adjusted, down for the last three consecutive months and in view of the minister's own forecast in his November 18 budgetary papers that revenue from personal taxation will jump 43.5 per cent in the two years ending in fiscal year 1976, almost twice the projected increase in personal incomes, will the minister indicate if he is considering giving a tax cut or some other relief to personal taxpayers in order to restore more buying power to the consumers of this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, substantial tax cuts were announced in the

December 13, 1974
Oral Questions
November 18 budget. I wish the hon. member would read that budget carefully rather than playing his usual game of selective statistics.


FINANCE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the announcement by Premier Lougheed of Alberta that his government intends to reduce the royalties on oil and gas and to increase the price of oil next spring. Since the federal government has contended it has the power to set the price of commodities that enter into interprovincial and international trade, have there been any negotiations with the province of Alberta and were any informal understandings arrived at by which the federal government is concurring in an increase in the price of oil next spring?


John Napier Turner: The answer to that question is no, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since Bill C-32 seeks to give the government power to fix the price of both oil and gas and since the Alberta government has indicated its intention to raise the price of oil, is it the government's intention to remove these mandatory provisions from Bill C-32 or am I to understand that the government of Alberta announced this increase without any agreement, understanding or indication from the Minister of Finance that the federal government would agree to such an increase?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the bill to which the hon. member refers remains on the order paper. It is the government's intention to proceed with the parliamentary disposition of that bill. The announcement of the intended price rise on the part of the province of Alberta was made without any agreement from the federal government.


ALBERTA ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL-POSSIBLE CONCESSIONS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have one final supplementary. The Minister of Finance has repeatedly said that in the matter of resource taxation the federal government has moved 25 per cent. Since the Alberta government has indicated its willingness to make some concessions, is it the minister's concept that the provinces should move the other 75 per cent or does the Minister of Finance now intend to make some concessions, such as removing the non-deductibility in order to avoid a constitutional impasse in the future?


John Napier Turner: The position I have taken throughout the discussions is that this is not a constitutional matter; it is a matter involving the sharing of revenues. As a result of the budget of November

18 we pulled back 25 per cent, as the hon. gentleman suggested, which reduced our share of revenue from production profits at the wellhead over a mature taxation period, say, from 1975 to 1985, from roughly 23 per cent down to 18 per cent. The action announced yesterday by the premier of Alberta would pull the provincial share back by a substantial amount. In total, we moved the industry's share from 24 per cent to 29.5 per cent on November 18. I would think, now, on preliminary analysis of the figures, that the industry's share is somewhere between 33 and 35 per cent of production profits at the wellhead, perhaps more, and that the petroleum industry now has sufficient funds available to it to get down to business and bring in the reserves and new development that the country needs.


SUGGEST REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES RATHER THAN GRANTING SUBSIDIES TO PURCHASERS OF HOMES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urbain Affairs, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Finance.
Owing to the information that the federal government could be granting subsidies of up to $50 monthly to lower income families to help them pay the interest on mortgage loans, can the minister tell the House when the government will reduce the interest rates and refrain from indirectly subsidizing the finance companies by helping citizens pay usurious interest rates which are more profitable to the lenders than to the borrowers.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, it is a rather complex question to be answered during the question period, but perhaps my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs could give a detailed answer to the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Considering that the United States senate has just passed a bill by a vote of 68 to 27 unilaterally extending U.S. jurisdiction over fishing stocks from 12 to 200 miles offshore, would the minister advise the House why a similar action would not be a useful stand as a means of demonstrating Canada's resolve to get international agreement in Geneva, and why Canada is waiting until next March to take a firm position?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: assume the hon. gentleman is referring to the same article as I have read. The resolution to which he refers has come
December 13, 1974

from the Senate. However, there is considerable pessimism as to its prospects of getting through the House of Representatives before adjournment. Even if it does, it would be subject to presidential acceptance or veto. The indication from the authors of the resolution is that they were looking for ways and means of strengthening the hand of U.S. negotiators. I can say to the hon. member that we have given a very firm and strong instruction to our delegation that we want a 200-mile economic management zone. This is still our position and we still believe we should go the multilateral negotiations route to protect species such as salmon which we could not protect by making a unilateral declaration.


NEWFOUNDLAND-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AID FISHERMEN
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: In view of the fact that the fishing industry in Newfoundland is on the verge of total collapse because of a decline in catches resulting in a concomitant decline in revenues as a result of our failure to protect our offshore fishery, I ask the minister what immediate interim steps the government is prepared to announce to save the industry and the 21,000 jobs involved in Newfoundland?


Roméo LeBlanc: While I do not fully accept the pessimistic view taken by the hon. gentleman, I do recognize that there are some difficulties. However, they are not all attributable to the problem of the regulation of the offshore fishery. Some weeks ago I asked for an internal task force to come up with some recommendations. These recommendations are now ready. I hope to discuss these with my colleagues. I hope to have some better news next week.


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the report of a conciliation board in Newfoundland which stated that the industry was facing immediate total collapse because of declining fish catches to which I have referred, and which went so far as to recommend nationalization as a means of providing immediate emergency relief, is the minister prepared to announce now that the government is going to give emergency interim financial assistance to the industry in order to keep it going until his task force report can be properly studied and long-term measures implemented?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to use the other official language because perhaps I would not stumble on my words. We are looking at the implications of this report. I do not think the hon. gentleman would want us to stand between the companies and the unions in their attempt to come to an agreement following upon this conciliation board report, and we will try not to do that. On the other hand, we recognize that the situation is one of very serious urgency in the short term, and I hope I will have some good news within the next few days.
The task force or working group which will be reporting to me has also been asked to look at the medium term and long term situation, which we are also discussing with the
Oral Questions
responsible authorities in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, in so far as the offshore industry is concerned.


POSSIBLE JOINT ACTION WITH UNITED STATES TO EXTEND OFFSHORE JURISDICTION TO 200 MILES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the fact that the United States evidently recognizes that there is a continuing depression in the industry, is the minister taking up bilateral discussions with the United States with a view to taking bilateral action in extending the limits both for the United States and Canada, in order to bring about some settlement or agreement at the next Law of the Sea Conference?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we obviously rejoice that the United States authorities share our view that we should have an economic management zone to protect our fishery. In that sense, the co-operation of this very powerful nation would be extremely useful to us at Geneva. But again I remind the House that the 200 mile limit will not solve our problems, and in fact could jeopardize what is at the moment our healthiest fishing industry, which is the salmon.


Jack Marshall: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that even at the next Law of the Sea Conference we are not sure there will be an international agreement, and in view of the fact that discussions might go on for five years yet, would the minister advise, since he must be thinking about this himself, what immediate action we can take? Because if we do not take immediate action, the fishing industry will become obsolete in the next five years.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the immediate action is for us to go to the ICNAF countries. This we are doing, and we had some success at the meeting in Miami some weeks ago. There is a further meeting in Bergen in January and in Edinburgh in June, I believe, and we will endeavour to convince the nations of ICNAF that they must reduce their catches in this area; otherwise, we will find some of the major stock becoming as badly depleted as haddock, for example, has become.


ALLEGED LACK OF ACTIVITY IN DEPARTMENT IN DEVELOPING MARKETS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I always find myself in this situation where I have to remind the House that there is another province- British Columbia-which has fisheries also.
I would like to put a question to the Minister of State responsible for fisheries, since his department has just given a new impetus to a $4 million program for the financing of inventory and cold storage, seemingly in order to provide the fishermen with a stable market on the current level. Since current fresh and frozen fish stocks are excessively high, and since fishing boats remain berthed, is this program not an unfavourable comment against his department's direction, and particularly

December 13, 1974
Oral Questions
against its inactivity in the search for new markets, both domestic and external?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the other official language is so very well represented on the other side of the Rockies.
I shall reply to the hon. member that this program is aimed at discouraging companies from throwing pell-mell their surpluses on the market. Implemented at a time when inventories are somewhat high, it was precisely aimed at avoiding dumping which would have had a depressive effect on prices.
I suggest to the hon. member that this program applies only to species of fish whose turnover is somewhat slow on the market and for a few months only. This does not mean that we are trying to discourage the search for new species or the development of those which sell well.
May I remind the hon. member that our bigger buyer of fish, namely the U.S. market, is faced with a decrease and a slow-down period. We shall have to work harder.
In fact, we intend to set up, together with other countries, an advertising campaign aimed at promoting the sale and consumption of fish.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Ou'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago I asked the Minister of Justice about the quarrel between the provinces and the federal government over royalties. In regard to this negative decision taken by the Queen's Bench court in Saskatchewan, I asked the minister whether the government of Canada was going to join with the oil company in appealing the case to the appeal court. In view of the constitutional implications of this matter for both levels of government, has the minister succeeded in making contact with the government of Saskatchewan and arranging for counsel to expedite the hearing before the appeal court, say in February or March?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, again the hon. member has put it quite wrongly in his use of the expression that we were joining with the oil company. It is our intention, because of important constitutional issues, to intervene in the case. There has been contact between counsel on behalf of the government of Canada and counsel involved in the case. Certainly, it is our hope to expedite the case in every possible way.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Justice, with his considerable knowledge of constitutional law-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -have a chat with the Minister of Finance, who just said in answer to a question this morning that this was a sheer matter of distributing income or revenue, not a constitutional matter, and explain the facts of life to the Minister of Finance?


FINANCE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the very important initiatives announced yesterday by the premier of Alberta, demonstrating that province's concern for the security of oil supplies for Canadians, would the Minister of Finance soon be making similar announcements or alterations in his tax proposals, therefore demonstrating to the oil industry and the country that the federal government shares similar concern for the security of oil supplies for Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, when I learned yesterday of the premier's move I said it was a substantial move in the right direction toward restoring the health of the petroleum industry in this country, that, taken together with the initiatives here on budget night on November 18, the petroleum industry was now in a situation where it could have sufficient cash flow to explore, develop and bring in the reserves that Canada needs. We have made a preliminary appraisal of the figures given by the premier and have worked them through the computers. I hope that the industry will do the same thing, and we will try to ascertain whether, on the basis of the initiatives of November 18 taken by the federal government and the initiative announced yesterday by Alberta, the industry is in the state of financial capacity that I think it is.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, or should know, the very substantial decreases in spending on exploration and development are a result not only of what industry perceives as greed on the part of the government, but are also alarmed at the principle of double taxation which is inherent in the minister's budget tax proposals. Certainly, that is the reason behind the drop in exploration and development in federally administered lands. In view of the Alberta government's very significant initiative announced yesterday, will the minister undertake to at least consider altering his proposals about the tax deductibility of royalties.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly analyze the figures very carefully to see what the situation is.
December 13, 1974


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or in his absence to whoever has been delegated to speak on his behalf. I should like to ask the minister whether he is examining the marketing agreement between Philco-Ford Corporation and Fleetwood Corporation, the purpose of which agreement is to remove family home entertainment products from the Canadian market, to see whether this agreement to restrict competition is in contravention of the Foreign Investment Review Act.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of that question for the attention of the minister.


COMBINES
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Will that minister also examine the particular agreement I am bringing to his attention to see whether, in fact, there is a contravention of the combines legislation in an effort to restrict competition in Canada between these two corporations?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the last part of the question. I will look into it in Hansard and surely follow it up next week.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I wonder whether the minister or the government are considering legislation to restrain consumer commodity speculation which I suggest is a greedy practice and has a fair amount to do with the high cost of food?


André Ouellet: This question is under study, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications whom I welcome back from the Maghreb. Has the minister studied the very serious allegations of bias and manipulated news reporting of Middle East events by the CBC as documented in an open letter from Mrs. Donna McDuff to the CBC president and made available to all members of this House. Also can he advise if he has inquired of the CBC concerning these allegations and that a prominent CBC officer replied to this citizen's program inquiry by calling her anti-semitic.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the question is not directed to the proper minister. The one who replies in the House on behalf of the CBC is the Secretary of State of Canada. I can say, however, that when an investigation is indicated, as has been the case in the past, on some aspect of the activities of the CBC, the CRTC can carry it out at the request of a citizen, a member of parliament or any group in Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I think sometime ago the minister or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources talked about the different scales of taxation for the Syncrude development. Would the minister now, when discussing the Syncrude project consider giving a tax holiday and also allowing the price of that crude petroleum to rise to an economic level so that the participants can afford to develop it and continue to guarantee a supply of petroleum rather than rely on taxpayer's money in the participation where you would likely gamble it on a high-risk and also, at the same time, it would be inefficient.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources had conversations two or three days ago with the remaining partners in the Syncrude proposal and reviewed with them what they felt in their minds was necessary for the continuation of the project. Insofar as taxation is concerned I gave an undertaking to the Minister of Finance for Alberta when we met a day or so ago on the Syncrude proposition that the tax situation would remain firm. After my budget of May 6, and again after the November 18 budget, I again repeated what I had said that the budgetary provisions and changes would not affect the arrangement I had made with Alberta on Syncrude.
2234

December 13, 1974
Royal Assent


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF HOCKEY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for disturbing the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is in conference somewhere. As he has now resumed his seat I will put my question to him.
As the Hockey Players' Association of the National League has the day before yesterday asked the federal government to appoint a powerful commission to remove "injustices" against hockey players and settle disputes in the whole field of sports, does the minister intend to give special attention to this representation and can he, today, if it is not too soon, tell us when he intends to deal with the claim of the Hockey Players' Association of the National League?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Eagleson's brief was brought before a Senate committee. Parliament and the Senate are now considering concise legislation to regulate competition in Canada. It is obvious that I will have to look into the recommendations of Parliament before taking a position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, I have the distinct impression that the proceedings are about to be interrupted by a messenger. In view of the fact, that before we are officially advised of that fact there are about 15 minutes remaining in the question period, perhaps hon. members would want to be assured that when we do return to the chamber we would resume the question period for that 15 minutes.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-12, an act to amend the Immigration Act-Chapter 9.
Bill C-214, an act to amend the electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Chapter 10.
Bill S-13, an act respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia-Chapter 11.
Bill C-18, an act to amend the Fire Losses Replacement Account Act-Chapter 12.
Bill S-ll, an act respecting British Columbia Telephone Company (private bill).


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister who is also the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the withdrawal of all UNESCO funds from Israel and the denial to Israel of a place in UNESCO'S regional structure, both of which seem to be very much alien to the purpose of UNESCO, is the government reconsidering a contribution to UNESCO or taking some vigorous action?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like members of both sides of the House we deplore the politicization of UNESCO represented by the resolutions passed at the eighteenth general conference concerning the withholding of cultural assistance to Israel and Israel's exclusion from a regional group. Canada opposed this resolution but is not contemplating withholding any part of the Canadian contribution from UNESCO. We understand the new Director General attaches importance to depoliticizing the organization, a development we welcome.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary. Does the government of Canada intend to take any initiative to indicate strongly its view and displeasure over what has taken place?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, what I have said now indicates the view of the Canadian government, and this will be conveyed at an appropriate time to the organization itself. We have already opposed the resolutions that were approved. I can say very firmly now that Canada deplores this kind of action and believes it could have the effect of destroying what are very useful international organizations.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF GUIDELINES ON EXPORT OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND REACTORS-INFLUENCE OF VISIT OF PRIME MINISTER OF IRAN ON DECISION ON GUIDELINES
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that cabinet has approved a policy on safeguards respecting the export of nuclear fuel, technology, reactors and other equipment and in view of the concern of many Canadians about our
(Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).l
December 13, 1974

role in the export of nuclear fuel and technology, would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared, with unanimous consent, to table a copy of the cabinet's policy guidelines at this time rather than waiting until next week to make a statement on this very important matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can accept the suggestion of the hon. member. There will be no secret about the rules we are applying, and I am hopeful they can be made public at an appropriate time. Perhaps I should point out to the hon. lady and other hon. members that there is a very serious dilemma involved for Canada. At the present time, there is a shortage of energy in the world and I do not think it would be in the best interests of mankind for us to deny, particularly to developing countries of the world, the opportunity of increasing their energy supplies by denying them either our technology or our uranium. I believe what we should be doing is trying to insist upon safeguards that will do everything possible to avoid either our equipment, our technology or our resources being used for purposes of destruction.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Acting Prime Minister for his answer but to ask if he can give us a specific date when the statement will be made, and also to say if the current visit of the Prime Minister of Iran to Canada and his comments about Candu reactors had any bearing on the speed or substance of cabinet decision on this matter?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we knew about the interest of Iran, and I cannot deny that this did expedite our consideration. This was not the only application we had before us however, and I think it was desirable that we should settle upon the safeguards we considered desirable. In that sense, perhaps the Prime Minister of Iran did have some effect upon the priority we gave to this matter in cabinet.


REQUEST FOR ADVANCE COPY OF STATEMENT ON GUIDELINES FOR EXPORT OF NUCLEAR FUEL AND REACTORS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Acting Prime Minister say if the statement on this matter will be made to the House on motions, and in view of its great importance could the substance of the statement be conveyed to the different parties in the House so that they may have time to study it before being required to comment on it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have great sympathy with this suggestion.


PROPOSED ENRICHED URANIUM PLANT IN QUEBEC-DATE OF GOVERNMENT DECISION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Acting Prime Minister a supplementary question. Has the government made any decision with reference to allowing a French company to establish a uranium enrichment plant in the province of Quebec and if so, what decision has been reached? If no
Oral Questions
decision has been reached how soon does the government intend to acquaint the House with this decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to answer this question because I am not absolutely sure about the state of play so I will pass it on to my colleague.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and I do not know whether it should be directed to the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Finance, but I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture at this time. Has any consideration been given by the government to introducing certain amendments to the small farm improvement plan whereby certain grants are available from the federal government to the purchaser when an addition is made to existing land which a small farmer holds, so that young farmers just starting out who do not hold any possessions might also fit into the plan, thus assisting young farmers to get started?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have an advisory committee on this made up of people from every province where they are using the small farm loan program. I am not aware that this has been suggested but I will bring it to their attention. If the hon. member will give me his idea in more detail and in writing, I will be glad to look at it.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Since the estimates of the Public Works Department have increased by 38 per cent over previous years and since contracts being let by the Public Works Department since the passing of the estimates a few months ago in this House averaged 20 per cent above those high estimates, would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions to indicate to the House how he is going to keep the public works budget in line or what cuts are going to be made?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman will have to be patient and wait until the tabling of the estimates for the next fiscal year early in the new year. It will be apparent in some detail then just how the accommodation of increased demand to increased costs is going to be made.
28626-7/4

Oral Questions POST OFFICE


POSSIBLE CLOSURE OF OFFICES IN MOUNTAIN AND INKERMAN, ONTARIO-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Could the minister advise whether it is the intention of his department to close post offices in the villages of Mountain and Inkerman in the county of Dundas and open a centralized post office in the town of South Mountain? If that decision has now been made, would he reconsider it?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not like closing post offices and I must confess I am unaware of the situation. The hon. member has two choices, however; first, to phone my office and I will get him the information in the next 15 or 20 minutes or second, put the question on the order paper, which is the proper procedure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we get into further consideration of this, although I do not like to stifle those kinds of questions which are of immediate concern to all members, I think all hon. members will realize that if we start to open up that kind of subject there is scarcely a member in the House who will not want to add, by way of a supplementary, his concern over matters of a similar nature in his own area.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Several weeks ago, answering a question I asked him about the milk policy, he stated that the officers of the Canadian Dairy Commission and his department officials were reviewing the policy. Can the minister tell the House whether he is now in a position to bring in the changes he is to propose to improve the condition of industrial milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the new dairy policy is to be announced in the new year. We had hoped the new program would be ready sooner than that. We met with the dairy farmers of Canada and with the Dairy Commission this week and discussed costs of production. We have made no decision as yet.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, 
may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question concerns the serious situation in which the Canadian primary textile industry finds itself. Faced with critical decisions of lay-offs of thousands of workers before Christmas throughout Canada, especially in the province of Quebec and in my constituency of Vaudreuil, involving the possible cancellation of a $40 million construction program, is the minister considering immediate action to bolster this sector of the economy and to avoid turning the coming festive season into a sad occasion for so many families?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of my colleague who, I know, is concerned about the situation in the textile industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with the Soviet KGB agent Alexander Gresko. Since the Prime Minister said a few days ago in the House that when the RCMP tells him something he listens, and assuming that that statement is government policy, could the Acting Prime Minister explain, particularly as at the time in question he was secretary of state for external affairs, why the Soviet spy Gresko was allowed entry into this country on numerous occasions, despite RCMP recommendations to the contrary?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the decisions in these matters are not made by the police. The police may advise, but the decisions are made by the Department of External Affairs. I do not think this House would want the police to exercise a veto over government policy or decisions of the Department of External Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about limousines?


Mitchell William Sharp: The RCMP are providing security for the Prime Minister. They were consulted; in this particular case the Department of External Affairs considered all the factors and decided that it was best to permit Mr. Gresko to enter Canada in his current capacity as chief liaison officer of the Soviet Sports Committee of the 1976 Olympics and as his country's attache to the Olympics. If any further action is to be taken, and I cannot speculate on that, it will be taken by the Department of External Affairs or the RCMP, if necessary.
Mr. Jelinek. Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? It is too bad the Prime Minister takes RCMP advice about automobiles but ignores other advice concerning national security. Not-
December 13, 1974

withstanding RCMP recommendations, Gresko will have access to the Olympic Games security arrangements.


An hon. Member:: Ask your question.


Otto John Jelinek: Will you listen to me?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House if Alexander Gresko will be declared persona non grata in Canada and refused entry to this country. If not, why not. He is a Soviet spy and not wanted in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any such undertaking. No such decision has been made. The authorities in this country, the Department of External Affairs and the RCMP, have been consulting on this matter and they believe that the security of Canada is not affected by the entry of this man in his official capacity. Needless to say there can be differences of view, but judgments must be made in these matters. When I was Secretary of State for External Affairs there were many occasions when we knew that certain agents were in offices here, in Canada.


An hon. Member:: They belonged to the CIA.


Mitchell William Sharp: This was considered to be not inconsistent with the security of Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, may I direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. On December 10 I asked whether the CN chain in Canada is to be sold or whether it is intended to place any particular hotel under different management. The parliamentary secretary indicated that he did not have the answer to the question but would take it as notice and obtain a reply. I ask, what is the rationale behind the proposed change of management. In responding, would the parliamentary secretary also say if costs associated with any change of acquisition are included in the Air Canada budget for this year.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change yet, although consideration is being given to changing the management of CN hotels. This arises out of discussions in the transport committee last year which recommended that this change should be considered, but it has not taken place yet. If it does take place the hon. member can be certain that it will be announced in the House in due course.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary says that no change has been made, but has implied that one may take place. Since it is
Statutory Instruments
rumoured that the Conrad-Hilton hotel chain may take over CN hotels, I ask, is consideration being given to enabling a Canadian hotel chain to take over these hotels, as such action would enable these hotels to remain exclusively part of a Canadian chain instead of part of an American-owned hotel chain.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, negotiations are not going on with any particular hotel chain. I may advise the hon. member that negotiations are continuing with more than one chain. I am sure members of the House as well as CN would wish the hotel chain to remain under the control of a Canadian-controlled company.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved: that the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented as the third report, in English, on Thursday, November 7, 1974, and as the fourth report, in French, on Tuesday, December 3, 1974, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, since this happens to be a day on which one can rapidly lose one's audience, perhaps I should imitate certain commercial establishments and begin with a quiz. I propose to ask a question. Unfortunately, there are no door prizes or other gifts for the correct answer. My question will interest those who are concerned about the other government which exists in Ottawa, the government of the ministry and civil servants combining in the making of rules and regulations, orders in council and the like which affect our lives substantially. The question is: which minister is given the most awesome powers by act of parliament? One would think the answer would be "the Prime Minister" or perhaps "the Minister of Justice" who advises the governor in council with regard to the War Measures Act. Indeed, the War Measues Act provides:
The governor in council may do and authorize such acts and things, and make from time to time such orders and regulations, as he may by reason of the existence of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection deem necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order and welfare of Canada . ..
Those would seem to be awesome powers indeed. The key words are "deem necessary or advisable". The fact is that one minister possesses even wider powers: this is the one-and I am afraid I do not know who it is-who looks after the Migratory Birds Convention Act. It was decided, in the wisdom of parliament of that particular day, that

December 13, 1974
Statutory Instruments
under the Migratory Birds Convention Act the following powers be given:
The governor in council may make such regulations as are deemed expedient to protect the migratory game... that inhabit Canada during the whole or any part of the year.
The word "expedient" confers wider scope than the word "necessary". Whoever administers the Migratory Birds Convention Act has the power, by regulation, to shut down any industry the smoke of which threatens the flight or nesting habits of migratory birds. I suppose the minister could do almost anything imaginable to protect a species which seemed to be declining. There is my quiz; I am sure nobody has answered it. I would not have been able to answer it had I not turned to the excellent report submitted to parliament on October 22, 1969, by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He was in charge of the committee and thus submitted the report. That report can be said to be the grandfather of the statutory instruments committee which exists in parliament today. It is a very lengthy and learned document. It is a report that members who are interested in this field must turn to at some time because it is the source of a great deal of information on the subject and it gives one an idea of what is being done in other jurisdictions.
This year, the statutory instruments committee is a joint committee. My counterpart in the other place is Senator Eugene Forsey. The committee has been meeting once a week, at 9.30 on Thursday mornings, generally in room 112-N, to consider orders in council and regulations which come within its purview. This involves a substantial number. I will be informing the House, in a few minutes, of the size of the undertaking. We have counsel, Mr. Eglington and Miss Mayrand, who are familiar with the regulatory process. In the new year we will undoubtedly be looking for a specialist in taxation matters if at that time there is a deficiency in the expertise available to the committee within the realm of income tax, excise tax and other taxation matters. However, we do not have to worry; our plate is more than full when we meet each week, because we are not only dealing with the regulations which come from government departments each week-this is a flow of between 10 and 15-but we are trying to catch up with all those passed since January 1, 1972.
It may interest hon. members to know that if all goes well and we hold 30 to 36 meetings a year, by the end of this parliament-that is, in the magic, election year 1978- we probably will have had a go at all the regulations passed since 1972. I do not know how large a shelf these regulations will require, but my suspicion is that it will make the famous 30-foot shelf of classics that one of the American universities published a few years ago look rather small.
Regulations may come in a variety of ways. One way is by the exercise of the royal prerogative. I suppose in these days in Canada one would call it the prerogative of the Governor General. Her Majesty's representative enters into the field of regulations when he proclaims a holiday for school children. I am sure this is the most popular method of pronouncing regulations. By and large, we are concerned with-and we would never dare question His Excellency's granting of holidays to school children-the

regulations made by His Excellency the Governor General; that is, really, by cabinet or by various government departments, certain Crown corporations and the like.
These regulations, properly drafted, have the force of law. In effect, they are a legal process which exists, in a way, side by side with what we do in our legislative capacity. More and more it has become the practice of government departments and those drafting our laws to be considered as having the right to make regulations.
What are the reasons for granting such powers? I wish to refer to page 8 of the report of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. I am sorry I do not have the Votes and Proceedings of that day to make the comparison more meaningful. However, the quotation will be found in the preface to the report which was set forth in Votes and Proceedings of October 22, 1969. It states the reasons usually given to justify the delegation by parliament of the power to make laws. These are, lack of parliamentary time, lack of parliamentary knowledge on technical matters, the necessity of rapid decisions in cases of emergency, the need to experiment with legislation, especially in a new field, the need for flexibility in the application of laws, and unforeseen contingencies which may arise during the introduction of new and complex pieces of legislation. It also seems that the force of precedent has some bearing on it; sections conferring powers in respect of delegated legislation now tend to be considered standard clauses by the draftsmen of statutes.
That there has been an awesome growth of delegated legislation can be seen from the report of the MacGuigan committee, if I may use the name of a member in an adjectival sense. The report states that 6,892 regulations, covering 19,972 pages, were published in the Canada Gazette during the period January 1, 1956, to December 31, 1968. This was an average of 530 regulations a year. It does not take into account those regulations which are expressly exempted from publication or documents which are in fact of a legislative nature but are not officially considered to be so by the regulation-making authority.
That was the situation up to the time the report was presented in 1969. I turn, now, to the second report of the Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, page 31, where a Mr. Eglington is explaining to the committee what he, Miss Mayrand and six temporary legal assistants-they were law students-had accomplished in their review of regulations and other statutory instruments.
Approximately 1,900 instruments for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974 have received an initial examination, a preliminary report being prepared on each questionable, dubious or objectionable instrument. Final comments for submission to the standing joint committee have been prepared in respect of approximately three-fifths of the instruments which fall into that class.
One is reminded, by that passage, of the words used by Lewis Carroll in "Alice in Wonderland," or maybe "Alice Through the Looking Glass":
If forty maids with forty mops swept it for half a year,
Do you suppose, the Walrus said, that they would get it clear?
It is an awesome task indeed, and it continues. During the summer, when the law schools are not in operation, it is expected that a few more students will be employed to
December 13, 1974

help in the work of cleaning up all the regulations which need to be examined under our terms of reference. One of the pioneers in this field is the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), of course, is another. Very early in his career, when he was just a young lad, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had a bash at some of these problems. My vice-chairman is the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), and other hon. members have made substantial contributions to this work.
I should like to mention one member in particular, my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who has carried out an examination of statutory instruments with a view to ascertaining that government departments are, indeed, responsible to parliament. Speaking in a debate on transportation in this House on January 12, 1967, as recorded at page 11709 of Hansard he had this to say:
As a result of the immense growth of government activity, obviously one can ask whether expert public servants are becoming the masters of the people they are employed to serve. Several other questions arise at the same time. Are not many administrators vested with authority to act as legislator and judge?
I say, parenthetically, that this is indeed so.
Is this not a violation of the principles of separation of powers and natural justice? Perhaps the main question is that which involves the fundamental principles of democracy. Does not the growing pattern of administrative regulation undermine the ideal of representative government expressed through a popularly elected legislature?
The hon. member for Peace River put it very well indeed. Over the years, particularly in this century when the growth of the regulation-making authority has been exceptionally pronounced, many people have given their minds to devising means of coping with this problem. For example, there is a school of thought which maintains that a regulation should never be accepted unless it has been laid before parliament and approved by parliament. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, what would happen to this place if we had to deal with two or three regulations a day and approve them?
A second school of thought suggests that regulations be laid before parliament, after which they would become law unless they were attacked by a motion or resolution of this House, the other place, or both places, seeking to negate or amend them. Again, Mr. Speaker, this is a subject to which very careful consideration ought to be given. We might find that a large part of our time was spent considering motions to negate or amend regulations, and since time is perhaps the most precious commodity we have in this place we must be extremely careful, before taking any steps which it might be desirable for this House to take as part of parliament, in dealing with delegated legislation. On the other hand, we must make a review.
I believe the hon. member for Greenwood will be referring in the course of his contribution later today to some of the things which have been uncovered in the committee. I believe he will be making a strong case in favour of devising some method of correcting these situations. My purpose is to provide an overview and to draw attention to certain difficulties which have arisen in the course of our investigation so far, and then to ask for opinions from hon. members and from the public.
Statutory Instruments
Our order of reference is the most generous, in a certain sense, that we could possibly have. We are not obliged to go around being nice to the House leader, to the cabinet, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) or to anybody else. Our order of reference is set forth in the law of the land in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1971-72, chapter 38, where section 26 provides:
Every statutory instrument issued, made or established after the coming into force of this act, other than an instrument the inspection of which and the obtaining of copies of which are precluded by any regulations made pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 27, shall stand permanently referred to any committee of the House of Commons, or of the Senate, or of both Houses of Parliament, which may be established for the purpose of reviewing and scrutinizing statutory instruments.
This, in effect, means that everything since January 1, 1972, or thereabouts stands permanently referred to the joint committee. Unfortunately, the act does not contain a further paragraph setting out what would happen once the committee had uncovered something about which it wanted to raise a commotion. Since the act is silent as to our procedure we are, in effect, making our own way. We can scrounge certain rights from the present Standing Orders and we can make reports to the House. Not all of them will be reports that we can move, but we shall be able to report from time to time as to the manner in which, in our view, the ministry is exercising the power to make regulations, and we can make certain recommendations. I think that some day we shall have to come to the House and ask that a new procedure be followed, but I shall deal with that aspect later.
In the report tabled in the House on October 22, 1969, by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, the chairman of the special committee, this point is made:
Your committee's contention is, therefore, that there should be, as a general rule, public knowledge of the processes of delegated legislation before, during, and after the making of regulations, and that any derogation by government from this rule requires justification.
Your committee adopts this position for five reasons. First, the people cannot control their government without knowledge of its actions, nor can parliament fulfil its role of responsibility with respect to legislation without being fully informed on the operation of those legislative powers which it has delegated to others. Second, the existence of secrecy is likely to lead to popular suspicion of wrongdoing by government whether or not there is any genuine reason for suspicion.
I would say here, Mr. Speaker, that to the best of our knowledge there are no secret orders in council that the public should know about but do not. I think we are fully satisfied of that. The original schools of thought which dealt with statutory instruments were really concerned about the power that the King and his advisers had to make regulations, which in effect are laws, without making the laws widely known. That is to say, there tended to be a great deal of secrecy in the operations of government in centuries gone by. As a result, this cloud of suspicion tends to come down to us today when we deal with statutory instruments. From examination both in the committee headed by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville and in our examination since, I think I can make the unequivocal statement that there are no secret orders in council that should be known to the public. Back again to the MacGuigan report of five years ago:
Third, we are living today in a period in which the validity of authority

December 13, 1974
Statutory Instruments
can no longer be taken for granted but must be constantly demonstrated. Governmental systems which do not take this new attitude seriously are apt to find public confidence in them diminishing rapidly. Obviously a continuing demonstration of justice of the system necessitates an opening of the processes and products of delegated legislation to the light of publicity. Fourth, your committee has been able to find no reason, either theoretical or practical, except the force of tradition, why there should not be publicity in the making of regulations. Canadian governments appear to have remarkably little to hide, and therefore nothing to lose, from openness except their psychological investment in existing practices. Indeed, publicity can have the positive value for administrators of helping them to improve weaknesses in their system. Fifth, since regulations have the force of laws, they should be made by processes which as far as possible approximate the openness of the general legislative process.
Based on some of the points to which I have just referred, among the views and recommendations of the committee at that time was the suggestion that a regulatory process should start with a government department telling the public what it is trying to do, getting feedback and then making regulations. This is a commendable objective and some day, if we ever have time to catch our breath in the committee, we should turn our attention to the philosophical implications of this, especially when we have witnesses from government departments before the committee. But given the great flood of regulations and the fact that some of them are very technical indeed, I do not think this could be regarded as an overriding approach to the matter.
What I am asking the House to do today, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the committee, is to approve the criteria that the committee have adopted for the consideration of statutory instruments. To the best of our knowledge, these criteria encompass, in the form in which we have presented them, all the criteria now existing in all jurisdictions in Canada, in the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom and in the jurisdictions of other countries of the Commonwealth where this sort of overview, this review and study of regulatory instruments, has been going on for some time.
We think we have everything in here, though it is possible we have not. We are a committee that cheerfully looks for advice from all corners. If, on reading my words in Hansard, people think we should add to our study, then I ask them to send along suggestions either to me or to another member of the committee and we will consider whether those points of view should be added to our criteria. However, in effect, these are what we have accepted as our criteria and they are what I am moving, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore.
I might just mention that in the French version of the report which I presented there were some technical errors and we decided to represent the French version of the report. This work was done by Mrs. Morin, Mr. Pelletier at the table, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Hes-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), and perhaps others. The revised French version of the report is to be found in Votes and Proceedings for Tuesday, December 3.
With regard to the English version, I must pay tribute to the law counsel of the other place, Mr. Hopkins. It was his work that went into what I think is a really excellent piece of draftsmanship, one for which we in the committee have thanked him, and I hope others will also pay their respects for what he has done. This is our report:
Your committee reports that the criteria it will use are the following:

Whether any regulation or other statutory instrument within its terms of reference, in the judgment of the committee:
(1)	(a) is not authorized by the terms of the enabling statute, or, if it is made pursuant to the prerogative, its terms are not in conformity with the common law, or
(b)	does not clearly state therein the precise authority for the making of the instrument. ..
This, by the way, is perhaps the one ground that we find most commonly missing when we study statutory instruments. I imagine this problem will correct itself when government departments are advised by the Clerk of the Privy Council, Mr. Robertson, of the existence of this committee and our criteria. I think that those who draft orders in council from this point on will make this correction themselves.
(2)	has not complied with the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act with respect to transmittal, recording, numbering or publication;
(3)	(a) has not complied with any tabling provision or other condition set forth in the enabling statute; or
(b) does not clearly state therein the time and manner of compliance with any such condition;
(4)	makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute or by the prerogative;
(5)	(a) tends directly or indirectly to exclude the jurisdiction of the courts without explicit authorization therefor in the enabling statute; or
(b) makes the rights and liberties of the subject dependent on administrative discretion rather than on the judicial process .. .
I think the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore and other members taking part in this debate will bring forward some examples that we have found in this particular field.
(6)	purports to have retroactive effect where the enabling statute confers no express authority so to provide or, where such authority is so provided, the retroactive effect appears to be oppressive, harsh or unnecessary;
(7)	appears for any reason to infringe the rule of law or the rules of natural justice;
(8)	provides without good and sufficient reason that it shall come into force before registration by the Clerk of the Privy Council;
(9)	in the absence of express authority to that effect in the enabling statute or prerogative, appears to amount to the exercise of a substantive legislative power properly the subject of direct parliamentary enactment, and not merely to the formulation of subordinate provisions of a technical or administrative character properly the subject of delegated legislation;
(10)	without express provision to that effect having been made in the enabling statute or prerogative, imposes a fine, imprisonment or other penalty, or shifts the onus of proof of innocence to the person accused of an offence;
(11)	imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payment to be made to the Crown or to any other authority in consideration of any licence or service to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment, without express authority to that effect having been provided in the enabling statute or prerogative;
(12)	is not in conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights.
I might say here that the Bill of Rights embodies a duty upon the Minister of Justice to examine regulations and ascertain whether they are offensive within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. It may be that after we have had some experience in the committee, the Bill of Rights should be altered to give this particular jurisdiction to the committee. I am not sure how we could do that, but at
December 13, 1974

least it is one of the matters I leave as a question at this time.
(13)	is unclear in its meaning or otherwise defective in its drafting;
(14)	for any other reason requires elucidation as to its form or purport.
Because I am speaking of another person's work, I can say that I think these are the most advanced criteria in the world. I do not think there is any question about that. And they are made in Canada. The Mother of Parliaments in the United Kingdom has a procedure which in my opinion is not as advanced as the one we have in Canada, so we can take comfort from the fact that once in a while we blaze trails. I hope we blaze a rather wide one in this particular field.
Then there is the question of remedy, once we have found a defect within the criteria I have listed. What should it be? The committee will have to consider this question and in one of its subsequent reports to parliament make its own suggestions. There are a number of possibilities which now exist and I shall outline them in the few minutes I have left. It could be done by requiring regulations to be laid before parliament and made subject to annulment within 40 days. There could be the requirement that regulations be laid before parliament before becoming operative. I have already dealt with that point. The difficulty here is that the number of regulations is so great that I do not think it would be good for this parliament to tackle the problem in that way. In Saskatchewan there is a procedure under the Regulations Act of the province which provides:
17. Where under the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly or in accordance with the procedure otherwise prescribed by the Legislative Assembly, a member of the Executive Council or other authority making a regulation, or, in the case of a regulation made by order in council, the member of the Executive Council recommending it, receives from the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly a copy of a resolution of the assembly showing that the assembly disapproves the regulation or any part thereof, or requires it to be amended, the member of the Executive Council or other authority or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as the case may require, shall revoke the resolution in whole or in part or amend it as required by the resolution.
Somewhat the same provision is found in the Manitoba Regulations Act. In other words, it is a suggested procedure. How one initiates such a motion in the assembly is very important. How any motion can be initiated, and where and how it is debated or brought to a conclusion is the problem. But the negative resolution approach, to my mind, is perhaps the procedure we will have adopt.
At this point I will discuss the way in which acts of parliament have dealt with regulations. The Admiralty Act, for example, provides that a joint resolution of both Houses may suspend or repeal rules and orders made under that act. The Defence Production Act provides that a notice of motion signed by ten members and, of course, carried shall be debated within a certain time. If it is carried, of course, the offending regulation has to be invoked or amended. The Exchequer Court Act covers an address of either House to repeal all or part of the rules made under that act.
The Maintenance of Railway Operation Act provides that a regulation becomes effective within a certain time unless a notice, which must be signed by ten members, has passed the House. The Maritime Transportation Union's
Statutory Instruments
Trustees Act provides that a proclamation can be challenged by notice given, signed by ten members, which must be debated within 48 days thereof. There are also provisions in the National Energy Board Act, the United Nations Act, the Export Act, the Customs Tariff Act, the War Measures Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act dealing with specific changes, repeals or amendments to the regulations.
That is an overview of the problem which existed until the MacGuigan report was submitted in 1969. There are more current examples. We have had, possibly, one each year but I have just mentioned acts before 1969. I wonder whether the House would be good enough to give me two more minutes; I believe I could finish my speech within that time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the House, through you, Mr. Speaker. One of the questions to be faced in the committee is whether we should substitute our own opinion for that of the regulation-making authority in dealing with this matter. In other words, should we deal with policy matters? So far, I think we have managed to steer away from that particular course. The MacGuigan committee report suggested that the committee be given the power to refer regulations to the standing committees of the House in cases where it thought a policy question of considerable importance was involved. This is one of the open questions. I presume the committee will make known its opinion in this matter in its next or subsequent report to the House.
I have given an overview of the problem and my colleagues will follow it up. We are still having birth pains early in our procedure, but I think the work we are doing is important. Perhaps it is not very spectacular; I do not think we intend to make it so. We will not raise a cry of alarm in respect of everything we examine. We are trying to arrive at an accommodation with government departments and those who draft regulations. We are trying to carry out a responsibility on behalf of those in whom parliament entrusts powers under legislation, so that those who are far from being under our control will at least see that these officials take into account the spirit and intent of legislation that is being passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, and it is a particular honour for me to follow the distinguished chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). He was very eloquent this morning and made an excellent speech. One point about which I was concerned dealt with the criteria to
2242

December 13, 1974
Statutory Instruments
which he referred. In my view he put the whole matter in proper perspective. I am sure that other speakers, such as the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and other hon. members, will be commenting on the work of the committee in the past few weeks.
At the outset, I must confess that when I first became a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments I did so with some feeling of trepidation. The not very exotic title of the committee is, in itself, enough to strike fear in the heart of even the bravest bureaucrat. When I became concerned with the great volume of regulations which have accumulated over the years and the need for their scrutiny, I conjured up an image of myself pouring over mountains of documents written in a somewhat less than tantalizing legal, technical style. Needless to say, such an image did not fill me with rapturous joy.
However, as with many things, once I began to work with the committee and acquired some limited knowledge of delegated legislation, my interest in the subject and appreciation of the work of the committee increased immeasurably; so, too, my respect for those members who over the years have spent so much time and energy trying to obtain greater parliamentary supervision over regulations and statutory instruments. Most notable of these hon. members are the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) who for over ten years led the fight for closer scrutiny of delegated legislation, and my colleague the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). He was chairman of the special committee whose recommendations were the basis of government action, which included the setting up of the committee whose report we are now discussing.
We are indebted to all those who made contributions in this regard, for Canada until 1970 lagged far behind other Commonwealth countries such as Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand in terms of parliamentary supervision of the use of delegated legislative power. I do not think it is necessary to take up the time of the House by giving the history of developments in these countries. However, I would like to point out that the British House of Commons has had, since 1944, a select committee on statutory rules and orders, commonly referred to as the scrutiny committee, and the Senate of the Commonwealth of Australia established, as far back as 1931, a standing committee on regulations and ordinances to examine regulations. In New Zealand, standing order 360 provides for the esta-blishement, at the commencement of every session, of a statutes revision committee to consider all bills containing provisions of a technical, legal character to determine whether a certain regulation should be drawn to the attention of the House.
These measures, which were just the beginning of the action taken by our government in 1970 in response to the recommendations of the MacGuigan committee, reflect the concern over one of the major problems facing democratic governments in the twentieth century-the problem of controlling governmental authority. The immense growth of government activity caused by changing attitudes, circumstances and needs which encourage the expansion of the public sector into areas once considered the preserve

of private enterprise, create the dangers that the expert public servants required to operate the expanded government service may become masters of the people they are employed to serve. The problem is how parliament can control the vast administrative system of the government in a practical way without undermining the effectiveness of the public service.
It is not possible, and not even desirable for parliament to control in detail all administrative, regulative and other activities of government. Parliaments are not composed of specialized experts-although there are a few exceptions- but, rather, are composed of generalists who must be able to find out what people want, or at least what they will accept, and express the views of the people whom they represent. Not only do members lack the expertise necessary to supervise closely the full-time experts of the public service, but they also lack the time to grind out all the detailed laws and amendments which are required in a modern, democratic state.
For these reasons and others, considerable legislative authority over the past half-century has been delegated to the executive. However, having delegated legislative power to be used under the terms of parent acts, parliament still has the responsibility to ensure that these powers are not abused. The possibility of abuse of these kinds of powers should not be underestimated. John Ker-sell, in his book "Parliamentary Supervision of Delegated Legislation", while rejecting as "sheer melodrama" Lord Hewart's representation of civil services or any considerable part of them as dark and insidious conspiracies, warned that:
The government official, like a good many other people in this imperfect world, is to be watched most carefully when he is acting with the best intentions.
This should be in no way interpreted as lack of confidence in the men and women of our public service. Canada is fortunate in having a public service which has a long and honourable tradition and is composed of hard working people who have not only gained the respect and trust of most Canadians but also the admiration of many outside our borders. Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that administrators, however well intentioned and however much they may consult persons and interests directly affected by their particular departments, may be out of touch with the needs and wishes of ordinary men and women in the general public. That is to say that the community as a whole, in certain instances, is as profoundly, if not directly affected by sublegislation as particular persons and interests habitually consulted by department officials.
There is no problem when the effect on the particular individuals and the community is a positive one. However, when there is conflict there arises a need for an institution which has the authority to correct the situation. Parliament possesses not only the needed authority but is composed of members who should be in touch with the needs and wishes of the ordinary people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to review some of the major developments which have taken place since the tabling of the third report of the special committee on statutory instruments. On June 16, 1970, the then president of the Privy Council announced that after careful
December 13, 1974

analysis of the recommendations, the government would proceed with implementation of the committee's recommendations by, first, legislative action by parliament to replace the existing Regulations Act by a new Statutory Instruments Act; second, a number of cabinet directives to implement several of the recommendations which cannot be dealt with by general legislation; and, third, amendment of the Standing Orders for the purpose of establishing a scrutiny committee to review regulations.
On November 3, 1970, the then minister of justice introduced a bill in the House entitled "an act to provide for the examination, publication and scrutiny of regulations and other statutory instruments" and on January 1, 1972, the Statutory Instruments Act was proclaimed into force. The bill reflected the acceptance "to the fullest extent possible" by the government of the recommendations of the MacGuigan committee. It was designed to make it much easier for citizens to find out what the law is, and created an opportunity for parliament to study and criticize troublesome or controversial regulations.
The act ensured that all regulations would have to pass through the hands of the Department of Justice, which would be responsible for their legality and the standard of draftsmanship. The regulations would be kept in a central registry by the Privy Council office and would be codified and consolidated periodically. The act further stated that all regulations except those the cabinet decided to keep secret would be published in the Canada Gazette and would be available on request to any citizen who asked for a copy. Finally, a standing joint committee, previously established by a motion to amend the Standing Orders of the House, was empowered to review regulations and other statutory instruments.
Perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Statutory Instruments Act was the widening of the definition of "regulations" under the act. Included as regulations are the following:
Any rule, order, regulation, ordinance, direction, form, tariff of costs or fees, letters patent, commission, warrant, proclamation, bylaw, resolution or other instrument... made in the exercise of a legislative power conferred by or under an act of parliament or for the contravention of which a penalty, fine or imprisonment is prescribed by or under an act of parliament.
Madam Speaker, I have strayed somewhat from the strict subject of the criteria to be used as proposed in the third report of the standing joint committee. However, I feel it necessary to provide an overview of the background in which the committee has operated. I suspect other speakers will give a detailed description of the operations of the committee to date and explain some of the difficulties and problems which have arisen.
I would like to say, in regard to the criteria, that in one sense they are a reflection of many of the weaknesses and abuses in statutory instruments which the committee has found already, as they are a proposed guide for the committee to use when examining future regulations. The criteria will act as a more formal framework for the committee to use when studying regulations and will provide for members of both Houses who are not committee members a clearer understanding of the operation of the standing joint committee.
Statutory Instruments
I would like to see the terms of reference of the committee widened so that if it is felt necessary, it could go back and examine regulations and other statutory instruments prior to 1970. Also, I would like to see the committee meet more frequently, including times when the House is not sitting. I mentioned when I begin my remarks that originally I was somewhat wary of my role in the committee. Perhaps a little of the zeal of the members I previously spoke about has rubbed off on me. In any case, I have become convinced of the need and importance of greater scrutiny of delegated legislation.
Finally, I should like to pay tribute to the two joint chairmen of the committee, Senator Forsey and the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants. Both these men, by their knowledge of the subject, their hard work and devotion have won the admiration of all members. I would like to personally thank them for the patience they have shown with me.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Speaker, the report that we are discussing deals with the criteria or guidelines under which the committee operates. I wish to spend most of my time talking about that, but I should like to precede it by saying a little about the committee which I do not think is well understood by the House. I may be wrong about that, but from some comments I have heard I think people wonder what it is all about. It sounds a dry, legalistic sort of committee, but in fact it is most important and interesting.
The plain fact of the matter-and it is absolutely inevitable that it should be so-is that the vast amount of legislation which governs us is not promulgated by parliament but by a series of departments, ministries and other bodies to whom the power to process delegated legislation is given by parliament. The purpose of the committee is to oversee this. This is no small job because there is a tremendous variety of regulations and statutory instruments. The amount of paper involved is formidable. The validity of these innumerable regulations is of the utmost importance to our citizens, and it is right and proper that parliament should know what is being done in its name and under its authority, and exercise some controlling jurisdiction. That is the purpose of the committee.
Let me mention, as an example, regulations in the field of immigration which affect immigrants coming to this country, the relatives of immigrants coming to this country and the economy of this country. The vast body of immigration law is not encompassed within the Immigration Act, which has not been revised since the 1940s. It is contained in the regulations which are passed from day to day and which set up policy whereby people are allowed to come in or are kept out. Of course, there are statutory prohibitions, but the ordinary rules are what concern most people in the field of immigration.
I know that for every once that I consult the Immigration Act, I must consult the regulations 25 times in order to determine what is the state of the law. I am sure that members interested in other subjects will have encountered precisely the same situation. They will have found that the law passed by parliament often is not detailed but gives authority to some other body to work out, by order
2244

Statutory Instruments
in council or regulation or other statutory instrument, how the law is to be administered or enforced. We need a watchdog. The terms of reference of the committee-the criteria, as they are called-should be broad enough to give it full rights. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has already read to the House the proposed criteria. I will not repeat them but I shall refer to some of them. My colleague for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) pointed out that in the field of unemployment insurance, the innumerable regulations are important. Recently the House passed the foreign investment review legislation. The real principles of the law are not set out in the act but are contained in the regulations under the act. The same is true of DREE and many other programs and laws passed by this House; these laws are administered under a system of discretion and regulation. I refer to the actual terms of reference of the committee. The first reads: is not authorized by the terms of the enabling statute, or ...
It mentions certain prerogatives with which I shall not deal. This provision is most important. Quite often one finds powers with respect to regulations being sub-delegated. In my view, this is done quite illegally and is not authorized by parliament or by enabling statute. Let me give an example of what I mean. One finds that enabling legislation delegates power to the governor in council or minister; in turn, the governor in council or minister delegates authority to some official whose decisions may affect the public of Canada. Item (4) reads:
makes some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute .. .
This is a broad but useful provision because it gives the committee the right to say," We do not think parliament ever intended that sort of use of the powers conferred by the enabling statute. What you have done is unusual or unexpected. We are not saying it is illegal, but we think it should be reviewed." Item (12) reads: is not in conformity with the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Of course, the Canadian Bill of Rights speaks for itself. Section 1 provides:
(a)	the right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law;
(b)	the right of the individual to equality before the law and the protection of the law;
(c)	freedom of religion;
(d)	freedom of speech;
(e)	freedom of assembly and association; and
(f)	freedom of the press.
I will not read the other sections. I hope members of the House are familiar with the Canadian Bill of Rights. The point is that the terms of reference of the committee give it the right to scrutinize the great mass of delegated and sub-delegated legislation and ask, is it in accordance with the fundamental principles set out in the Canadian Bill of Rights? I know that section 3 of the Bill of Rights gives the Minister of Justice some powers in this field, but I am sure the Minister of Justice must delegate them to people in his department. An official would deal with these matters, not elected representatives in parliament. I think this is a great move forward; it is good that independent minds, possibly sharpened by membership in opposition parties, 
should be given the opportunity of scrutinizing the regulations and determining whether they conform with the principles of the Canadian Bill of Rights. Item (13) of the terms of reference reads:
is unclear in its meaning or otherwise defective in the drafting.
In my experience, 99 per cent of all laws passed by this House and other legislative bodies is unclear in meaning and defective in draftsmanship. Perhaps the figure of 99 per cent is an exaggeration; nevertheless, the committee must look at delegated legislation and see if it is unclear in meaning or defective for any reason. The last item reads: for any other reason requires elucidation as to its form or purport.
If people are to be governed by laws, those laws must be clear and intelligible. Some committee of this House should assume the responsibility of calling attention to laws which are not clear and require elucidation. The criteria which I have mentioned are broad in scope. I agree with the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants; I think this Committee should be given explicit authority to refer regulations on specific subjects to other, appropriate committees of the House. We are now discussing fisheries regulations. It might be a good idea to refer those regulations to the fisheries committee of the House, the members of which presumably are more expert in that subject than members of the general committee who cannot claim to be expert. Such authority should be granted.
The work of the committee has only just begun. We have an efficient staff which has been helpful and has delved into aspects of life with which many of us are not familiar. For example, the committee is considering the Migratory Birds Convention Act. We have looked at the regulations passed under that act and have found that section 1(2) provides for a non-refundable fee of $60 to be paid for a permit. The act, I might say, covers a larger variety of birds than I ever knew existed: we had them recited to us the other day.
According to our counsel, and we are looking into this, no authority is given by the act to prescribe and collect a fee. Who are the people concerned? I imagine most of them are Indians, Innuits and others whose livelihood is concerned in this matter. Without the authority of law, some official may pass a regulation saying, "We will make you pay a non-refundable fee". I thought it was basic that taxes should be imposed by parliament and not by somebody who has not even been authorized by parliament to collect such a fee.
The northwest Atlantic fisheries regulations have some rather extraordinary provisions, as was pointed out by our counsel. Under subsection 16(4), when a temporary seizure is made of fish that supposedly have been taken in contravention of the regulations, and they impound the boat, a judge is given the authority to change that decision. This is the extraordinary feature about it:
Where any vessel or goods have been seized under subsection (1) and proceedings in respect of the offence have been instituted, the court or judge may ...
Here are the key words:
... with the consent of the protection officer who made the seizure, order the vessel or goods to be returned . ..
December 13, 1974

That, in effect, says the court must get permission from the prosecutor, the person who made the original search. In a sense, that is a form of contempt of court. I am quite sure parliament would never authorize any such thing. I quote the guarded language of our counsel:
It might be thought thoroughly objectionable to render the jurisdiction of a court and of Her Majesty's judges dependent upon the discretionary decision of an administrative officer, especially the very officer who, having effected seizure, initiated that exercise of jurisdiction and may well appear to have an interest in the hearing at the conclusion of which an order may be made.
That it might be thought thoroughly objectionable is a very mild comment. Most of us here would say it is thoroughly objectionable. There is another extraordinary provision under the same regulations. This is section 16(5) which provides that seized goods and vessels-and they can be seized upon suspicion of some petty offence against the regulations-can be detained for up to three months. This does not only apply to the goods. Perhaps fish were taken by an illegal method or in an area where they were not supposed to be taken. Perhaps they were too small, or too large. Not only can the goods be seized, but the vessel can be detained for up to three months if no proceedings are instituted.
It is bad enough to have the catch seized and the matter held up for three months, but what about the livelihood of the person whose vessel has been seized for three months by some official? Without a charge, hearing or anything of that sort, his whole livelihood can be ruined. There is no indication in this regulation that if this happens and he is subsequently acquitted of any offence, he will thereby be recompensed for the loss of his livelihood. The loss of his boat for three months may represent half of his whole earning season.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants who is the co-chairman of our committee said we have not yet worked out adequate powers of enforcement. I should point out to the House that the main method of enforcement will not be to issue an edict or make a report. It will surely, be to consult with ministers, officials and others concerned within the department to point out the deficiencies, of which there are many.
We have only scratched the surface. Our legal counsel found for us many instances, of which I have only given a sample or two this afternoon, where regulations are abusive, arbitrary, vague, meaningless and need to be changed. Our main method will be to try to persuade the regulation-making authority to withdraw, amend and improve the regulations. We believe they would prefer to do that rather than have the subject matter of their defective regulations brought to the attention of the House. However, it is still necessary that when an extreme case arises we have a clearly understood procedure whereby this House, and I hesitate to say the other place as well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't.


Francis Andrew Brewin: They are still part of parliament, as I understand it. Either this House or the other place should have authority to review the regulations and amend or rescind them where there are clear cases of abuse under the criteria laid out in this report. I think this committee is off to a good start. I invite hon. members who are not
Statutory Instruments
members of the committee, when they run into regulations-as I am sure they will-which they feel are defective, unsatisfactory, arbitrary or infringe the Canadian Bill of Rights, to make sure our committee is aware of this. We do not represent ourselves on the committee; we represent parliament. Every individual member of parliament cannot be doing this job; therefore the committee has an important job to do and it can be assisted by other members of parliament. Indeed, it would be of assistance if members of parliament told others their complaints. We established a new dimension of parliamentary democracy when we established this committee, and we want to make it work.


Gerald William Baldwin: Madam Speaker, I thoroughly agree with everything that has been said in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and Senator Forsey. I also want to pay tribute to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who was co-chairman last year. In addition, I pay tribute to hon. members who have spoken today. There is a very great deal of importance to be attached to this committee. I pay a general tribute to the government with regard to this legislation and the more relaxed and appropriate attitude they appear to be taking toward private members, private members' public bills and the fact that at long last there is dawning on the government the recognition that there is some degree of intelligence and understanding of the affairs of the public outside the four corners of the cabinet. It has taken eight years for that to happen. It is fascinating to know it is happening, and I give the government very much credit for it.
I do not have all the time in the world; I work here all day. However, I was determined to appear in this committee for some time while it was suffering growing pains and getting under way. It has been a tremendous experience. Some mention was made of my interest in the committee. It was about ten years ago in this House that I asked the then prime minister, the late Mr. Pearson, about the government's intentions with regard to the growing threat presented by statutory instruments and government by decree and order in council, a disease which has come to afflict most democratic countries. It is possibly an unavoidable disease, but nevertheless a disease. The then prime minister was sympathetic, but he thought the appointment of an ombudsman would deal with the situation. I took exception to that position and I think I was right.
As hon. members may know, the meetings of this committee are held downstairs in room 112. One goes into that small, cluttered room and hears the droning of the discussion, and it does not make much sense to those who are not acquainted with what is really going on. But to me the light seems a little brighter and the atmosphere in this parliament a little clearer because of what is happening in that room. We are building up in the committee a jurisprudence and a practice under the skilful guidance of the

its forces and challenge it, if it wants to. But that right must exist because it would have a salutary effect on the bureaucrats. I do not use that term in any offensive way. I see in the House today a few of them who have been quite mellowed by their experience in this chamber-at least, I hope so. I can only suspect they are different people now from when they first came here.
I suggest it will take little more than a telephone call from the officials or some discussion with the joint chairmen to persuade a particular department that a regulation as drafted is offensive and that it will be regarded as offensive by members of the committee. It may well be that the department concerned is able to persuade the officials or the joint chairmen that there is a satisfactory reason for the regulation; we have had a number of cases of this. My guess is that of all the orders in council that are drafted, less than 10 per cent will come to the committee and probably less than 1 per cent will ever reach the House for discussion. However, as I say, so long as the department and departmental heads know that this power exists, I am satisfied that in drawing up the terms of orders in council they will be looking over their shoulder at this committee and this parliament, and that is all to the good.
For these reasons I support this motion. I hope it will carry and will receive not only the unanimous but the wholehearted support of every member of the House. Sometimes the greater battles are not between those who sit to the right of the Speaker's chair and those who sit to the left of it, but are between private members of parliament acting for their constituents in the constant, unceasing struggle to try to rectify the evils of regulations and orders in council that are passed by the people who occupy the chairs of the officials. In that struggle, which will never cease, this act and this committee constitute a very powerful weapon.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I take part in this debate, and I want to assure this House that my comments will be very brief so as to allow the Minister of Environment (Mrs. Sauve) to see through the bill that will be discussed immediately after.
It is all the more a pleasure for me, Madam Speaker, to take part in this debate as I had the opportunity in the course of the preparation of this bill, Chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada (19-20 Elizabeth II), and its progress through the various stages of its passage by Parliament, to work in close co-operation with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), then Minister of Justice, who piloted this bill and allowed for the creation of the committee whose report is being submitted to us today.
As one of my colleagues pointed out earlier, our committee was very slow to start his work. As a matter of fact, the first wailings of the newborn, Madam Speaker, were so long in coming that at a certain moment I wondered if it was not stillborn. It must be said, Madam Speaker, that the delivery was long and painful, as for that matter its conception had been. So it is with hesitation and uncertainty that the first steps were made, but I think now after a couple of years I can say the committee is on the right track. Its members are becoming increasingly familiar
Statutory Instruments
with the work they have to do, particularly the procedure to be followed in the performance of their duty.
May I be allowed, Madam Speaker, to pay a very special tribute to the committee advisors, Mr. Eglington and Lise Mayrand. Without their competence, their stick-to-itness and their patience I think I can say that our committee would not have made such progress.
At the outset it must be recognized that the field of operation in which the committee must work is vast and particularly quite barren. The very name of the committee alone is enough to frighten the best intentioned member. Incidently, the name of the committee is the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
However, the usefulness today of such a committee in a democratic parliamentary organization is undeniable.
For the benefit of those among my colleagues who were not here at the time, it would be appropriate to mention that the existence of this committee is due to a recommendation to the House contained in the third report, known as the MacGuigan report, of a special committee established to review the regulations and other statutory instruments, which was presided by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan).
The increasing interference of the state in the daily lines of citizens, the multiplicity and complexity of the areas in which it interferes in a constantly changing society prompts the government to use its legislative powers in a way which is sometimes abusive and even abnormal. On the other hand, citizens are ever more reluctant to allow themselves to be bounced about at will by their governing bodies.
This government and those that preceded it are and were aware of this. Many legislative measures were initiated through a process of legal reform established by the present prime minister of Canada aimed at protecting the rights and freedoms of individuals against a modern, powerful and sometimes distant government.
The act which established our committee was therefore designed to protect the public against abusive or abnormal use of the powers conferred to the executive by Parliament. Let us now see how this protection is ensured under the act; First, most of the proposed regulations must be forwarded to the Clerk of the Privy Council, who, with the Deputy Minister of Justice, is responsible for ensuring that they comply with the following conditions:
(a)	That the statute pursuant to which they are to made authorizes them explicitly;
(b)	That the said regulations do not constitute an unusual or unexpected use of the authority pursuant to which they are to be made;
(c)	That they do not trespass unduly on existing rights and freedoms and are not, in any case, inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Canadian Bill of Rights, and
(d)	That the form and draftsmanship of the proposed regulations are in accordance with established standards.
Experts from the Department of Justice must examine all regulations to ensure that they meet the conditions I have just enumerated.

Statutory Instruments
In addition, the act of 1971 gives the public the right of access to statutory instruments, that it might be better informed about the provisions of the law which concern them more specifically, that is the standards that become law because they are statutory instruments or regulations adopted by virtue of enabling legislation passed by act of Parliament.
The third means of ensuring more protection to the public against the regulatory powers of the state is that most statutory instruments are permanently subjected to the control of the committee.
To perform that useful and really efficient task, and to respect the legislative spirit, the committee, following long and serious discussions, agreed to formulate the criteria that will guide it throughout its evaluation and appreciation of the statutory instruments it will have to study, criteria that are subject to the approval of the House.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks to give an idea of the work we are doing in this new committee-my colleague from Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) outlined a few aspects of it a moment ago-to bring it further to hon. members' attention.
For example, I am thinking of an amendment to the regulations on the zoning of urban development in Banff. This may seem unimportant. The cadastral map of urban development in Banff, to which the annex gives legal force, is printed. These are the comments that were made to the committee because the annex was said to be on so small a scale as to be a considerable inconvenience to those who will use it.
I repeat that it may seem trivial to bring this matter to the attention of the committee or the members of this House, but anyone who is interested in or affected by these regulations needs more than a pair of glasses to discover the number of a given lot, to know where it is located, whether there is a street at some place and what is the name of that street. It is illegible. It may be a small thing, but without the possible consequences of other regulations.
My colleague from Greenwood already drew attention to an amendment to the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Convention Act Regulations. The committee was made aware of certain relatively grim remarks on these regulations, and it is doubtful whether such regulations are legally established.
May I also refer to the Canadian Wheat Board Regulations, SOR 74-571. They are not very long regulations, but it was found that the preamble makes no reference to the section of the law under which they are established. Sometimes the subsection may not be noticed. One might think this is of no consequence, but if by any chance there is no authority in the act for establishing regulations, if the authorizing subsection does not exist, then we are faced with a situation quite harmful to the rights of citizens.
Such are, Madam Speaker, my comments on the report by the co-chairman of our committee. Incidently, I want to congratulate the chairman, Senator Forsey, as well as our co-chairman the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for their good work. I wish also to congratulate the former co-chairman, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal
[Mr. Bechard.)
(Mr. Fairweather), who was one of the first leaders of this committee.
I concur with the remarks made by hon. members who spoke before me, and ask the House to approve the report submitted by the chairman.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, December 12, 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.
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, my comments this afternoon are without prejudice to the ruling which might very well be expected during the afternoon or early next week regarding an amendment that was placed on the table yesterday.
The notions underlying this particular legislation are important. They reflect directly popular fears and misgivings. They are notions which find expression vocally more and more frequently among people of all ages and of all walks of life across the breadth of our land. These notions, of course, centre on matters related to pollution. In an earlier intervention in this particular matter during a previous parliament I became confused between pollution and contaminants. Therefore, for the purpose of this discussion I propose to consider the two words as virtually synonymous. Our generation, or perhaps I should say those who live in today's world of all generations, those who have been brought up on the works of Rachel Carson, and Thor Heyerdahl on the ocean and oceanography, are acutely aware of the dangerous situation pollutants of fill sorts inflict on our way of life.
We are polution conscious these days, and I think it is high time that this is so. We have been highly sensitized and we respond, which is all to the good. If at this stage I may be permitted a marginal comment of a broad philosophical nature, let me say that whenever I think of
December 13, 1974

pollutants or contaminants I think of those who make the biggest fuss. There are many who make a great many noises about the problems of the contamination of our atmosphere and the litter that we see in our communities.


Mr. Paproski:: I think of Liberals.


Donald W. Munro: We can think of those too. When we pass a picnic ground, for example, or a playgmnnd and even, deplorably enough, as we walk down the street or outside the Houses of Parliament within the precincts of the hill, we see litter. I feel that in the course of time, if we are to be honest with ourselves, in deploring the pollution that is assailing us each of us must remember that we are the polluters.
The young, who claim that we are not doing anything about it, are perhaps some of those who scatter cigarette packages in every direction, as well as candy bar wrappers and malted milk cartons, and contaminate and pollute our atmosphere. What prompts me to make these comments is my belief that really effective anti pollution measures will have to await profound changes in attitude. Changes as profound as the ones I have in mind do not come about as a result of legislation, but until attitudes are changed through education and proper example, we must legislate. We have to indicate, as the legislators in this country, that we are aware that there are some things that can and must be controlled.
My colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), in his intervention yesterday made reference to the suspicion-that is the actual word in the bill-that is in the minds of either the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) that substances of a noxious nature are being or are about to be released into our environment, and the action that they may take at that time.
I suggest that it is already known that there are contaminants that should be included in a schedule to this bill. As we all know there is reference to a schedule, and presumably a schedule will be drawn up in the course of time and will contain the names of substances likely to contaminate our atmosphere, our land or our water.
We have just listened to a debate on the importance of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I suggest that schedules might very well be included among statutory instruments. As we proceed with examination of this bill we will hear about regulations, which also may have to be examined by the committee. Having been an administrator of governmental regulations during part of my life, I know how binding they can be on an administrator. There is always a danger that regulations can be so binding that they prevent the full expression of a person who is, for example, applying for a passport. This is one of the regulations that can foul people up on occasion.
I had occasion only this morning to make some inquiries about a passport application, wondering why one cannot send one's passport application from the city of Victoria to Vancouver. The regulation is that the applicant must apply in person, or through a travel agent. Regulations of this sort can be very binding and inflexible. Therefore I suggest that we should have some sort of notion or a set of criteria within this legislation on the basis of which regu-
Health and the Environment
lations and schedules will be drawn up later. I have no idea, for example, whether there is any intention to include in these schedules or regulations known contaminants.
Unfortunately we have a long history of releasing substances into the air and into the water. We know about them and we are aware of them. We know their nature. We are not yet quite sure how to control them and still carry on with our industrial life. It would be my hope that these substances with some sort of cumulative effect would be included in the schedule or in the regulations.
There is, of course, the other matter, not only of the type of substance but the level of what has been called toxicity or noxicity, the level of contamination that is released by the abuse of a particular substance in our environment, air, land or water. A great deal of research has been done in this area. I know that our National Research Council has been working on one or the other aspect of this for years. We are given no indication in this legislation that that wealth of research material will be at the disposal of those who are drawing up the regulations and the schedule.
I have mentioned the problem of inserting too many regulations, and have suggested that we could probably get around it in this bill by including somewhere a set of criteria on the basis of which the regulations could be drafted.
I am also concerned about developments in technology which might permit certain things-now thought to be contaminants if used in the industrial process-which are forbidden under regulations or because they are in the schedule, to be removed from the schedule if technology can satisfy the employer or developer of a process that they would not have a noxious effect. There is no evidence that it is going to be easy to have some of these contaminants decontaminated, if I might coin an expression, in order to get them off the schedule. We have the danger of the schedule being in the hands of people who are used to making regulations that are inflexible. Scientific proof could be brought forward to justify the removal of contaminants from the schedule in cases where it is warranted.
One element of this bill delights me. In an earlier debate I indicated that I found the overriding nature of the legislation then before us to be quite dangerous. I should like to congratulate the minister and the drafters of the bill now before us because in clause 5(1) we find a requirement to consult with the provinces. This is not going to be a matter of overriding whatever the provinces want, as was the case in the previous bill; here the requirement is that the provinces shall be consulted in those areas where they may have jurisdiction.
I am somewhat confused by a couple of references to the establishment of the Environmental Contaminants Board of Review, mention of which reference is made in clause 6 and clause 7(5). I am not sure whether the board will come into existence through the application of clause 6 or of clause 7. Although I acknowledge the need for such a board, why not just make provision in the bill that it be brought into existence, rather than that it be brought into

Health and the Environment
existence upon receipt of notice of objection? The way the bill reads now it seems to say that only if it is demonstrated that it needs to be brought into existence then appropriate action will be taken.
The complexity of the problem of contaminants commends to me the amendment that was proposed yesterday that this bill be referred for further study rather than be proceeded with as it stands. I do not think the bill was well thought out-there are these two references to the board in two different places, for example. Aside from anything else I think the bill is untidy. We should look at it again-decontaminate it, if you like, and come back with a decontaminated anticontaminants act. How would that suit? Unfortunately this piece of legislation is typical of many, and of the action or inaction which characterizes the government.
When thinking of pollution and contamination I think again of the maritime carriage of goods. From almost the first day I came to parliament as a member I have been urging that action be taken to make sure that the dangers in the maritime carriage of certain goods are avoided. Of course, my interest was in tankers, and it still is. But very little has been done, Madam Speaker, and there are so many things that could be done by regulation. The power already exists. There probably are already regulations in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) concerning the proper conduct of vessels through dangerous waters.
As I have said many times, an example is in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. It would be the simplest thing in the world to avoid the problems of contamination there if we were to arrange with our American neighbours, who are just as interested in this, a starboard in and starboard out passage with a "no ship water" in between, so that ships coming in will ply to the south and ships going out will ply to the north, thus avoiding the risk of collision. I do not know why it has taken so long to get these measures through, but we do not seem to be making much headway.
We could require that ships coming into our waters carry certain equipment. At one stage there was talk of double skinning tankers, but the requirement seems to have been withdrawn and I wonder if we are going to stand idly by. Why should we not insist that tankers entering our waters be constructed in this way? There are all sorts of things we could do. We could insist that the space between skins be filled with sop up material so that if there is an accident-and accidents can still happen even with double skinning-the ship is carrying something like sphagnum moss or peat moss, or some other clean-up material. The Department of Transport could draw up regulations for submission to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments if necessary.
Let me refer also to some self-contained container equipment. The device which I have heard of is fairly simple and can be carried on any ship. It is rather like an admiral's barge, with a couple of tanks fitted at the back. It will provide its own boom. As I understand it, if there is a spill it can be contained almost immediately. Over the side goes the admiral's barge, the boom being created by a
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).J
mixture of chemicals, and the spill is contained. Of course, one must also use peat moss to mop up the spill.
The government has at its disposal a whole army of people who have worked on such problems. I do not know why it does not accept some of their ideas and use them, instead of proposing legislation like this which, I suggest, is not carefully drafted.
I support my colleague's amendment which asks that this matter be referred to a committee for further study. We do not object to what the bill attempts to do, although in legislative terms this is not a good bill. It contains a good notion. It starts off on the right foot, but somewhere on the way gets lost and does not do what I think it should. I will not put words into the minister's mouth; perhaps she would like to see this matter approached differently. We are prepared to help her with that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Last evening the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) proposed an amendment to the bill we are now debating, Bill C-25. At that time the Chair sought the agreement of the hon. member and the House to continue the debate and to reserve judgment on the acceptability of the amendment from a procedural standpoint. The Chair now thanks all hon. members for the co-operation extended to it in this matter. Unless others wish to speak further to the point of order which has been raised, the Chair is prepared to rule on the amendment.
As all hon. members are aware, the possibilities of amending a motion at the second reading stage of a bill are extremely limited because of the very nature and wording of the motion itself, namely, that a given bill be now read a second time and referred to some specified committee.
It is my impression that the hon. member has put forward an amendment which he deems to be a reasoned amendment, as referred to in citation 386 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition.
In the time available to me I have had occasion to review precedents dealing with reasoned amendments over the years which proposed to refer the subject matter of a bill to a standing committee. In no case have I been able to find that it was possible to refer the subject matter of a bill while at the same time also proposing that a standing committee undertake special studies which may, or may not, have been covered by the provisions of the bill itself.
In this regard I need only refer hon. members to prior rulings which the Chair has given, and which are to be found at page 2378 of Hansard for January 13, 1971, and again in the Journals for May 14, 1971, at pages 563 and 564, and also in the Journals for May 20, 1971, page 569.
It seems to me that the hon. gentleman may propose the reference of the subject matter of a bill to a standing committee, but if he wishes to propose the reference of certain substantive proposals which may or may not be in the bill, it seems to me that he must give notice of his proposals in order that they may come forward in the ordinary course.
In support of my thinking in this regard I again refer hon. members of the House to the provisions of citation
December 13, 1974

386 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition and to the decisions of the Chair, to which I have also made reference.
All this having been considered, I must conclude that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver South goes too far and attempts to do too much to be procedurally correct at this stage of the bill. It is therefore with regret that I must advise the hon. member that his amendment is not in order and cannot at this time be accepted by the Chair.


Mr. Fraser:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling and regret if the form of the motion I proposed last night has caused Your Honour and others undue concern. However, as hon. members will realize, there was a definite purpose to what was done. We, on my side of the House, feel that the matter ought to be studied further, and that is why I moved the motion asking that the subject matter of the bill to be referred to the committee. I now ask for permission to move a second motion, and hope that it will meet with your acceptance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: As hon. members know, the hon. member for Vancouver South has already spoken on this stage of the bill. He now wishes to propose another amendment which he deems to be in order. He may only do that by leave of the House. Is it agreed that he be allowed to present his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: There is not agreement.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the parliamentary secretary did not see fit to agree to some perfectly civilized procedure. It is therefore with great pleasure that I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
this bill be not now read a second time but the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
The tradition, since I have been a member, is that members shall co-operate readily with each other.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker,
although I am not aware of the significance of the amendment just moved, I think the NDP will find it possible to support this bill. As it may be advisable for the committee to make recommendations to the minister in this area, I will wait to hear what other members of my party, who have been more closely connected with the subject than I, have say about it before making any commitment.
This bill deals with substances which may be created in the future. Certainly we are dealing with a subject which is behond the technical competence of members of parliament. We are considering the regulation of substances which advanced technology will make available. That being so, perhaps the minister is inclined to accept the general suggestions which have been made. Their import is not to water down the legislation, but rather to expand
Health and the Environment
it. I understand that hon. members want to expand the requirements of the bill.
I recently received a number of letters from young people concerning pollution and contaminants, a subject about which I do not know very much. Surprisingly, when you inquire from departments of government concerned with this, you find they do not know anything about it either. I would like to refer to this country's educational system which tells young people that the world will burn up in a very short time if something is not done about the contaminants and aerosol spray cans which, it is claimed, will break down the ozone belt that protects the world from the full pressure of ultra violet rays.
The CBC provides a good deal of balance. Last night an English scientist appeared on one of its programs. He has written extensively about the rapid coming of a new ice age. The CBC balanced that with a weather report from western Canada which indicated that part of the country is experiencing unseasonally and totally unexpected wild weather conditions. The grass is still growing, and cattle are still grazing on ranges which at this time of the year have normally been covered by snow for at least a month.
On one hand the scientists are saying that an ice age is upon us. On the other hand people are saying they do not understand why a part of the country is experiencing unseasonable weather which they appreciate, but do not comprehend. This surprises me. Obviously we have some technical knowledge about weather. Canada probably has better technical knowledge with regard to forecasting weather than most countries. We are a leader in this field. For that reason it should not be too difficult to understand whether the weather in western Canada is exceptional, phenomenal or freakish, or whether the doctor in England is correct in indicating that our temperature is dropping 10 degrees a year and Canada will soon be covered with ice.


Eudore Allard: In one hundred years.


William Arnold Peters: All right, 100 years. Maybe the 10 years should be 100. It is only a matter of degree.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: If there is going to be an ice age, it does not matter if it comes 50 years from now, or 5,000. I am only indicating that there appears to be a trend of a long term nature, that has suddenly accelerated. The world was very simple when man built his first fire. That small fire probably polluted the air, but it did not make any difference. Since then we have increased pollution phenomenally every year, and this will continue. That is why I have some sympathy for the idea of expanding this bill which is probably the scientists' answer to some of the problems that are now facing us. It should also give us some information about providing protection in those areas where no protection is available. This is very important to my part of the country.
Very shortly in the Sudbury basin, and probably within a radius of 200 miles of Sudbury, we will be developing cancer producing gases and radiation. The people of that area have been exposed to lethal doses of radiation and

Health and the Environment
other contaminants in the air about which they know nothing. It is interesting to note that in Elliott Lake there are contaminants in the air as a result of the mining of uranium. These people did not know this would happen, nor did the mining companies.
Percentage wise, cancer in that area is much more prevalent than in other areas. This can easily be checked by visiting the Toronto General Hospital and asking the patients where their homes are located. A large number of them will reply they are from an area within 100 miles of the Sudbury basin. This must have some relationship to the environment in the area, because obviously they are the same kind of people as others who live in other areas.
I wish to go back to the thalidomide problem, and some of the other problems to which we reacted very quickly. We usually react on someone else's information. When looking at contaminants I wonder whether the minister gave any consideration to cyclamates. I am interested in diets because I should be on one perpetually. I remember when cyclamates were used in diet soft drinks. They were fit to drink. With the substitutes now being used, such drinks are very bitter. They are not at all enticing. I wonder whether any work was done to determine whether cyclamates really have a bad effect.
The cyclamate scare came soon after the thalidomide problem. Cyclamates were immediately taken off the market. I do not know whether any research was really carried out on that occasion. Much of what we do is done by reaction. This bill is oriented in that way.
We are asking the companies to tell us what they are going to do in the development of a new product. We ask them to tell us the results of that new product on the market, what they anticipate its capabilities are, and what contaminants it may produce about which we are not aware. If universities are conducting research which tells us how to develop new substances and so on, they should be able to tell the government and watching groups what the development will be in terms of contaminants.
I started to say earlier that recently our educational system, and I presume this is at the university level, is telling us that we are destroying one of the major protections of the world by the use of high speed supersonic jets and aerosol sprays. If that is so the government should tell us that. It should not come from the educational system.
It seems odd that by the use of a deodorant we can destroy an ozone belt that has been in the stratosphere for many millions of years. It is hard to understand how we can destroy that by the small addition of some inert gas. If this is true, we should be told. We should get away from substances such as freon that are used in aerosol sprays. Although it would be clumsy, it would be possible to use C02 as an aerosol. It produces the same effect, but with a great deal of weight. Under high pressure, C02 has to be kept in a very strong container. It would not be near as handy as carrying around a small aerosol can of deodorant.
If it is a fact we are destroying the ozone layer, we should be told so, and we should be told so by the federal government not by the universities and the schools. I, as a Member of Parliament, should get this information from

the department. Instead I get it from the students in my area who are scared that I may not be taking action to prevent the world from being destroyed, thus depriving them of their opportunity to lead satisfactory and productive lives.
There has been a lot of discussion about a young person who, a few years ago, developed here in Canada a battery using sugar rather than acid. I imagine it was a carbohydrate cell. It was said at the time to be completely revolutionary-a cell which would enable the human body to operate by means of its own sugar resources, thus allowing the battery to supply power for pace-makers. It was also said that the battery could be important in helping to prevent pollution.
One of the best means of lessening the pollution associated with transportation will be by the use of electric cars, which would obviously benefit from the development of a highly efficient sugar-based battery. If this is so, why has the department of science not released any information concerning the matter? Is it a fact that they have allowed the oil companies to buy up this invention rather than put some money into the development of a service which might have eliminated a large part of present day pollution?
The whole question of pollution by motor vehicles should be looked at far more seriously. Today we are talking about plans for using catalyst exhaust systems to control the escape of polluting gases into the atmosphere. These systems are only 50 per cent effective, yet automobile manufacturers continue to manufacture 450 horsepower engines which obviously cause pollution at a rate four or five times higher than is necessary.
I am fairly sure, Mr. Speaker, that a few years ago you had a car equipped with a 65 horsepower engine which would drive at 125 miles per hour. But you probably had to shift the gears by hand. I suggest there is no way that suph a car would have used as much gasoline as the modern 450 horsepower cars are using today, regardless of the emission control system used. If we really intended to take seriously the pollution problem facing us we would devote greater attention to pollution from motor vehicles and the high cost of fitting attachments to expensive, large cars. What we should really be developing is a 25 horsepower car with a gear train enabling it to fulfil any reasonable driver requirement. To hell with the pollution coming out of the back, because it will only amount to 5 or 10 per cent of what the big cars would be putting out anyway.
The auto manufacturers do not tell us that the $200 or so spent on fitting emission control devices will be spent on equipment which will not be really effective. They do not give this information, I suppose, because if everyone decided that the use of small car engines would be a good way of cutting down pollution, the Japanese would probably be making most of them, because it takes a long time-


Mrs. Sauve:: What would you do in the case where a small car was used often and a big car once a month.


William Arnold Peters: I agree there is a problem here-we have got to the stage of owning a luxury car which we use relatively rarely, and we run around in our Volkswagens most of the time. In fact some of us have got to the point at which

we have got rid of the big car and drive a Volkswagen most of the time. The attitude appears to be that when immediate problems become apparent only the auto manufacturers are in a position to tell us what types of pollutants are offensive, and how to control these noxious gases and substances. I do not think this should happen.
After all, large sums of money have been devoted to research in universities and elsewhere, and we should be able to develop our own machinery on the basis of scientific papers put out by the universities. This should place us in the same position as the companies, from the point of view of developing new products. I do not think we have done this, though it is clearly in line with our responsibilities, and I say this on the basis of reports we are getting from the department. I say we are not ahead of the developments in this field. We are always following, we are always behind, and the reports I read are so cautious and bureaucratic that they really do not say very much.
It would not be a bad idea if the minister were to agree to this amendment. I do not think she is particularly wedded to this piece of legislation, although I am sure there are officials of her department who are wedded to it. I am sure she would agree that the field we have been discussing is an immensely important one. Moreover, it is a field which no one really knows much about. It is surely reasonable to ask that the subject matter be referred to a committee-I have no objection to passing the bill, as well. Somewhere along the line the subject of pollution and our ability to set acceptable standards for the purity of our water and air must receive 100 per cent of our attention.
As I call it four o'clock, I repeat that when young people write to me telling me they are unlikely to have any future because I am not doing anything about a particular problem which they are outlining to me, and about which their teachers have told them, I think it is time to do more than consider the technical or bureaucratic side of the bill before us. It is time to examine the whole proposition. May I call it four o'clock?


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


Mr. Lefebvre:: I think Your Honour will find there is general agreement to proceed with Bill No. C-218.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie) moved: that Bill C-218, to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo employment authority in order to permit a more efficient attack to be made upon a problem of which members of the House are aware. I refer to the extremely high unemployment rate among adult Indian males, and to a lesser degree among adult Eskimo males.
The percentage of unemployment or underemployment has been in the 50 per cent range for as long as I have been in the House, which is almost 12 years now. I have a letter that I wrote in March of 1965 to the Hon. John Nicholson, the then minister of Indian affairs, in which I proposed at least a partial solution to this problem.
I suggested at that time that by bringing together representatives of the Indian people, industries active in the north, labour unions with members in the north, and the various governments and departments of government concerned with the employment of Indians, namely, the departments of Indian affairs, manpower and labour, it would be possible to expose them to some of the success stories of Indian employment in the north, which in turn would breed a better appreciation of the way in which industries in the north could absorb more of our Indian labour population.
It is ironic that in most of the major developments that have occurred in our northland, whether in the territories or in the northern sections of our provinces, 90 to 95 per cent of the people employed have been brought into the north from the south at great expense. They are kept there at astronomical cost to the companies involved, whereas often in the immediate vicinity there are numbers of unemployed Indians.
It seems to me, as it seemed to me at that time, that if somehow we were able to make company foremen and personnel managers aware of success stories of Indians being absorbed into northern industry, workers who stay on the job year after year, both to their advantage and to the advantage of the companies hiring them, this exposure would make other companies more willing to hire Indian labour for the great variety of opportunities that have been opening up in the north during the last 10 or 12 years but which, to a large extent, have not been filled by Indian people.
What was the result of the representation that I made, Mr. Speaker? There was a polite letter which I received in reply. I have been making representations to every single minister of Indian affairs since that time in regard to this matter. I have also made interventions in the House on at least eight or ten occasions. But we still have a 50 per cent unemployment rate among our Indian people. My suggestion is as valid now as it was then.
Since that time there has been a great deal of support for the idea. In 1969 the Indian affairs committee of this House made the following recommendation, which I should like to read into the record again so as to remind hon. members of it:
The Committee urges that regional conferences be held, bringing together all the elements capable of solving the unemployment problem. These include representatives of federal and provincial departments and agencies directly concerned, organized labour, industries

December 13, 1974
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
located in the general areas of high Indian and Eskimo unemployment and of the Indian and Eskimo people.
Such conference would permit:
(a)	the establishment of better lines of communication and co-ordination among all the parties involved;
(b)	the exchange and sharing of information concerning successful employment programs involving Indian and Eskimo people and northern employers;
(c)	underlining the crisis proportions of the Indian and Eskimo unemployment and under-employment problem.
The Committee also urges the government to exercise more authority in the application of conditions relating to the hiring of northern residents contained in the Northern Minerals Assistance Program.
What was the result of that recommendation, Mr. Speaker? The same thing. Everyone agrees with it when you talk to them about it, but nothing happens and we still have this 50 per cent unemployment rate. The committee report was ignored.
Having ignored the 1969 committee report, the Indian affairs committee of the House made another recommendation in its report dated June 30, 1971. This report refers to the earlier report:
In its report to the House dated May 30, 1969, this committee urged the convocation of regional conferences including representatives of federal and provincial departments directly concerned, organized labour, industries located in the general areas of Indian and Eskimo unemployment, and of representatives of the Indian and Eskimo people, to permit, among other things, the exchange and sharing of information concerning successful employment programs involving Indian and Eskimo people and northern employers. The committee is very disappointed that the government failed to act upon this recommendation and notes as the committee predicted in 1969 that the unemployment problem among Canada's Indian and Eskimo peoples has, if anything, grown worse. Industrial attitudes, although improving, are improving too slowly. Since the government appears unwilling to act to convoke such regional conferences, the committee now suggests that the task of organizing and convening such regional conferences should be handed over to the appropriate regional Indian organizations and that the Government of Canada, through either the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Department of Manpower, provide the necessary funding.
The committee is convinced that much greater use should be made by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in particular, and other government departments as well, of the willingness of provincial regional, and national Indian organizations, to collaborate with government in evolving vocational programs and employment programs attuned to the needs and skills of our Indian people and to the needs of industries located in the regions where our Indian people live and are available for work.
Vocational programs for Indian youth must not only be integrated with local industrial needs but should include on-job training as a major part of any vocational training course. In addition to the obvious benefits of improved practical training and increased employment opportunities which would flow from such an approach there would also be a useful pressure on vocational school programs to develop the types of training and course needed by industry.
What happened that time? Again nothing. Every time I have talked to the officials of Indian affairs they have said: "Yes, we have all kinds of new programs that are successful". But the rate of unemployment or underemployment still hovers around the 50 per cent level. This very simple, down to earth solution that I propose, though obviously not a total solution but which is at least an attack upon the problem, has yet to be followed. The solution is so obvious, Mr. Speaker, that I am afraid that this may be its weakness.
Somehow, if you want to convince government that it must do something, you must submit a complicated brief

written in elaborate sociological terms. Certainly the very simple suggestion I have made which has a great deal of merit-something I have yet to hear anyone deny-is a useful approach to the problem, but it is not acted upon.
I would urge the government and the new minister to give consideration to what should have been done ten years ago. It should have been done in order to make a serious dent in the terrible unemployment problem. Any member of this House who speaks to employers in the north will find, unfortunately, that there is a fairly general reticence in respect of hiring Indians because they have had some unsuccessful experiences. There does not seem to be an understanding that when one hires people who have been accustomed to a traditional form of life, such as the Indians who live off the land, some flexibility is required on the part of industry and not only on the part of the employee so that the employee might fit into the work patterns of the particular industry.
One must be fair in respect of an Indian who wishes to take off a few days to fish or hunt. This must be built into a program. There have been success stories where foremen of companies have been somewhat flexible in giving their Indians employees more leeway that they would give to other employees.
Where rigidity has not existed there has been success and excellent results. The end result with regard to the Indian people, the companies involved, and the country, has been good. I suggest that in the long run we must think in terms of the development of our north with much greater emphasis on employment of the people of the north in the industries that are exploiting whatever is to be exploited, be it the mineral resource, the fishing resource, the tourist resource or the forestry resource.
The other day in the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development I referred to the Diefenbaker-Otto Lang concept of filling up the open spaces in the north. I suggested that we do not need a lot of people up there, but rather that the people who should be used for the exploitation of the resources of the north should be the Indian and Eskimo people. We are not doing a proper job in absorbing these people into industries. We are not doing what we could to develop these people so that they might be absorbed into industries and be prepared for the types of jobs that are available. This is the other terribly frustrating aspect of the problem.
Despite the report of 1971, which recommended changes in our approach to vocational training and which recommended that the training of Indian and Eskimo people be based on the qualifications required for the type of jobs that will be available to them when they graduate from school, to a large extent the curricula in the north are still based on the curricula of schools in southern Ontario, southern Quebec and other provinces.
The curricula are not based on the job availability situation in the north. These people are not being trained in prospecting and the various other aspects of the mining industry or the forest industry, or in the skills related to tourism or even trapping and hunting. This is the situation in respect of the northern curricula. There are exceptions, but they are not general. One begins to wonder just
December 13, 1974

what it would take to move the government in the right direction.
There has been a great improvement with regard to Indian affairs over the days of the 19th century and the situation that existed when I first came here. The idea contained in this bill is important. It is a good idea. It is the simple idea of bringing people together and exposing them to success stories. I am convinced these success stories will influence industries in the north to change their hiring practices and attitude toward the hiring of Indians.
We should encourage these industries, financially if necessary, to be more flexible in allowing days off and so on. Instead of hiring 12 men they might hire 18 men, and allow some rotation. One thing the public service seems to forget is that once an Indian or Eskimo male is in receipt of a regular salary his wife becomes accustomed to that regular salary, and it is merely a matter of time, when this regular salary is coming in, until there is pressure from the other side of the household for the man to continue in his job. This pressure in time would be much greater than it would be after a month or two of employment.
If one succeeds in employing an Indian for a year or so, then the wife takes over acting as the pressure on his man to continue working for industry. There is no doubt in my mind, if we can get more people into the labour force in the north by exercising more flexibility on the part of management, that we can substantially reduce the number of unemployed Indian and Eskimo males in this country.
I hope that finally, after ten years of suggestion, the government will take some sensible action. If the government does not wish to do the job itself at least it should offer the National Indian Brotherhood the money so that it can handle the program. Surely we can move on this suggestion now. Whether or not this bill passes today is not important to me. However, I think at least the subject matter of the bill should be referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I would be satisfied if the subject matter of the bill were referred to the committee because I believe, although I am not sure, the committee is seized of the annual report of the department, and therefore it really has the latitude now to go into all the matters about which I have been speaking.
So long as there is agreement in the House today, I would be satisfied with either the bill or its subject matter being referred to the committee. I want some action from the government on a matter that is long overdue.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to kill this bill. I think its passage is long overdue, and I congratulate the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) for introducing it. I have long known of his interest in the subject of the proper education of people in the north who will later be employed. I am sure that the government will accept his suggestion and the bill will be referred to the committee.
I would just like to say, in relation to the training and employment of people in the north, particularly Indian and Eskimo people, that in my view we have always imposed on them our type of education so that we could
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
get the most use out of them, and so that the development of the north could provide them most effectively with jobs. In effect we have provided employment in the high Arctic only when it met our needs, and was to our advantage rather than theirs. We have trained bulldozer operators and all sorts of construction people, but when a job is over, unless a person is willing to move out of that area he can find absolutely no other employment.
I find also that we have never really considered the work ethic of the native population in the north. I believe that it is considerably different from ours because their background is different. They are nomadic people, closely associated with nature and living in and from their natural environment, which results in a different work ethic than ours.
I would like to make a suggestion for the committee to consider. I suggest that we establish a work pool, either through a co-operative or some other agency, which would provide those people with a work force and the authority to allocate employment. It seems to me that this would give the opportunity to some people to work for two or three days, after which another person might take over the job for another two or three days. In this way these people would be able to carry on their hunting or fishing on alternative periods. This might be a way of working that they would prefer. We should establish an agency which would allow them to provide employment, and which would make decisions as to who goes to work on what day. In this way we would not be destroying the ability of the native people to look after themselves when a particular job is finished.
I have known persons who have been employed, particularly in construction, who have not been able to obtain employment in any other field when the construction was ended, and it was not possible for them to go back to earning their living as they did previously.
I think we should establish industries specifically designated for the undeveloped areas of the north. We should develop work opportunities, associated with our reservations, that are oriented toward the wishes and lifestyles of those people so that they can develop in their own environment and earn a living in their own area, not in our manner but in the manner which they choose. I hope we will give some consideration to letting them work according to their own work ethic, and that we will establish an agency which will be able to tell the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its provincial counterparts what type of assistance they need and what type of help we can provide for them with regard to employment.
I agree with the hon. member for Laprairie that we should not provide our native people with what suits us only, but rather give them the type of training opportunities that best fits their need. It seems to me that no one can make that decision for them better than they themselves. So I hope that this bill is referred to the committee and that we will consider the points I have made.
I have been here for quite a number of years, and I have always been shocked at our failure to provide for the needs of the indigent people in the north when we go there to develop the area. We make pious resolutions that 50 per cent of those employed in the north will be native people, but we have never lived up to them. This has not been

Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
acceptable to the people in the area, nor has it been acceptable to the government nor to the contractors who go there. In most cases we destroy what they have, and leave nothing in its place. We have never solved long term problems that we encounter there, such as making people in those areas better able to look after themselves than they were before we went there.
There is only one area in which we have been able to assist people in the high Arctic, and that is in the development of artifacts. We worked with the people and we assisted them to develop their own cultural abilities, and to market the products of their art in a way that has served their needs. The co-operatives that have been developed under Canadian patent of Indian and Eskimo craft in the Arctic have been one of the few bright spots that I can look back to over the years. I believe that this was more by accident than by design.
If we were more willing to ask the people in the north what their needs and what their methods of work are, we would find that many of their artists are willing to work long hours but prefer to do their work at their own pace. They do not punch a clock, nor do their work the white man's way, and they have been highly successful. Whenever we have tried to make them adapt to our way of working we have been less than successful; in fact we have often been destructive.
In the light of the fact that these people cannot speak for themselves, that in many cases they are divided in their organizations, and that they are not able to present the case to us, we should take advantage of the opportunity to institute, through the committee, a study of this matter which will allow us to help the native people in the north. I think that this bill merits our support, and will provide the kind of vehicle we need to achieve this.


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


Some hon. Members:: 
Mr. Art Lee (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment my colleague on his initiative in presenting this bill to the House. The high rate of unemployment among native people, not only in the north, but throughout Canada, is a concern we all share.
The Department of Manpower and Immigration and other departments have developed various programs to ensure native people the opportunity to participate in the labour market. With these, we have met with relative success. Undoubtedly improvements can be made. The bringing together of representatives of Indian and Eskimo people in Canada with industries, labour unions, and representatives of federal and provincial departments as proposed in this bill, is worth noting. I am in firm agreement that the co-operative efforts of all facets of labour and industry, both private and public, to deal with this specific problem can have immeasurable benefits.
We have made real progress in developing federal-provincial mechanisms for joint planning and co-operation in the manpower field, and will continue our efforts in this regard. Furthermore, our talks with business and labour
(Mr. Peters.]
leaders encourage me to believe that they are ready for a new partnership in Canada, with government, to produce a healthier work environment. As a result I can strongly support my colleague's contention that more can be done.
However, mechanisms presently exist in the Manpower and Immigration Department to establish the kind of consultative body that is being proposed in this bill. In the department the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council has, as one of its functions, the responsibility to advise the minister on all matters pertaining to the effective utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada. Furthermore the council has authority to set up committees or boards nationally, regionally and locally to deal with specific areas of concern.


William Arnold Peters: It sure has been a dismal failure.


Arthur John (Art) Lee: Recently a task force on manpower services to native peoples has been set up in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to respond to many of the issues my colleague has identified. Within the structure of the task force the department has developed the means whereby native organizations will play an important role, both at the national and regional level. With this kind of involvement I am confident that positive developments will result.
Under the auspices of the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council advisory boards are set up to deal with adult occupational training, adjustment of immigrants, the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons, and manpower and immigration research. Perhaps the establishment of an advisory board on the unemployment problems of native people can be incorporated as well within the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council. This board can then be incorporated within the council, providing for a more effective and consistent vehicle for the achievement of those recommendations outlined in the bill under our consideration.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this bill would perpetuate the distinction between native people and other Canadians. I am opposed to another distinction because I believe this would result in unwarranted discrimination between native people and others. Certainly the native people have different cultural backgrounds, and for that I am grateful. They should be encouraged to sustain their heritage, but at the same time they should be regarded as Canadians first.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding which to a large extent is an ethnic one, so I am well aware of the cultural shock that many landed immigrants have to deal with when they first come to Canada. I suspect that to a certain extent this cultural shock also applies to many of our native people.
Just this week, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) made some statements regarding the whole issue of assimilation, which statements could be construed as racist against Asians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur John (Art) Lee: I, for one, believe the hon. member when he says, "I am not a racist". Having read his speech, however, I firmly believe that his statements were made out of
December 13, 1974

ignorance. Asiatics, whether they be from China or East India, have made and will continue to make, solid contributions to life in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr. bee: Certainly there is a cultural shock that all new immigrants have to deal with when they first come to Canada, and I would encourage all levels of government to do everything within their power to help new immigrants overcome this. To stop immigration completely, or even to curtail it greatly is not the answer.
New immigrants are willing to work and live in conditions that may be considered substandard by other Canadians. Because immigrants have a sincere desire to become part of the Canadian way of life they will live in such conditions so that they can save to send their children to university that they may have a better way of life. Is that so terribly wrong?
The hon. member for Capilano labels the places where Asiatics live as "pockets" or "ghettos". Certainly in many communities there are distinct areas which one could label, for example, "Chinatown". New immigrants tend to live where their language is spoken. This is as natural as breathing. These so-called pockets or ghettos help new immigrants adjust to the cultural shock. I would ask the hon. member for Capilano whether the word ghetto or pocket is the proper word for an ethnic community which helps people adjust to cultural shock?
I would add that, as time goes on and the new immigrants adjust, they usually move from these so-called ghettos to other areas. Mr. Speaker, the process of adjustment to the Canadian way of life does not happen overnight for many Asians. It takes time.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that the bill seeks to improve training and employment opportunities for Indians, Eskimos and Metis, and seeks to involve representation from the various national and regional native organizations, it may be valid. It is clear that more needs to be done, and can be done, by government to promote the training and employment of native people, and this problem has been clearly recognized by government.
The native people themselves have on many occasions stressed the need for their direct participation in the development of programs designed to meet their training and employment requirements. It is clear that success in eliminating this problem will be directly related to the extent to which the native people take an active part in the resolution of their problems.
The bill proposes to establish an employment authority which "shall make recommendations to the Governor in Council" on the subjects of reducing unemployment, hiring and employment practices. It is not clear, however, just what recommendations such an authority could make, nor is there any indication of whether the findings would be binding. Most probably the body would function in an advisory capacity. If the latter is indeed the intent of the bill it is open to question how effectively such advice might be developed in a committee of some 50 people, and whether it would be administratively feasible or, more
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
important, within the responsibilities of the federal government to implement the necessary changes.
It should be noted that there are many different agencies involved in training and employment programs for native people. In the north, for example, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has an overall policy responsibility and plays an active role in dealing with resource oriented industries. On the other hand, much of the responsibility for the development and implementation of employment and more particularly training programs rests with the territorial governments. At the same time the services of Canada Manpower are made available under many different programs to native people, and the Department of Labour has an interest in ensuring the rights of the native workers are upheld. The Public Service Commission also has an interest.
It is questionable whether the very large body envisaged in the bill would have any more significant success in analysing the many complex factors involved in native training and employment, and whether they would be able to agree on any concrete recommendations which could usefully be considered by the Governor in Council. Smaller bodies working with specific expertise in well defined areas have proven to be more productive than groups with only general interests.
Finally, it is particularly difficult to see what influence the authority could have without adequate funding to support its activities. It is extremely unlikely that the native organizations would be willing to support their participation from existing funding, and the government would be most reluctant to ask them to do so as the money absorbed by the authority could certainly be spent more usefully. Also, there are already too many bodies and agencies working in this field, a view which is shared by native organizations.
The northern program has established a training and employment liaison division to maintain a close liaison with major employers, both public and private, in the north in an effort to increase interest in and awareness of the government's policy toward the training and employment of native northerners. Specific activities include, in the private sector, the conclusion of training and employment agreements such as that just signed with Nanisivik, and participation in industrial committees such as the petroleum industry committee on the employment of northern residents, and the Northwest Territories mining industry committee on the employment of northern residents, which can serve to increase industry awareness of training and employment opportunities for native people, and work to encourage and develop concrete programs to this end. Such committees are found to be much more productive than the kind of proposal made in Bill C-218.
The division also encourages and sponsors research into specific aspects of native employment, and the results of the studies are then analysed for their policy implications and made available to all interested groups. In addition, the division has assisted Innuit Tapirisat in devoting part of its last annual conference to a discussion of the employment of native people in the public service. In the public sector, as well as encouraging employment of native

December 13, 1974
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
people within the public service, the division is active in promoting native employment as a result of government expenditures, the most significant example of which is the Mackenzie highway.
Hire North has been established under the territorial government, and is now involved in employing native people on a seasonal basis to perform all of the clearing for the highway, and is involved as well in a year-round operation of training native heavy equipment operators and constructing a section of the highway so as to give trainees realistic experience. With the help of the Indian Loan Fund, the Dene-Matt Co-operative was established and is being assisted to bid on a number of contracts for work on the highway and other government contracts.
The division has also established a very successful on-the-job training program with some 50 trainees now placed with government, private industry and native organizations. The program is intended to prepare mature northerners for middle management, paraprofessional and technical operations.
The Eskimo Loan Fund is also designed to promote entrepreneurship and employment opportunities among the Eskimos, and has proved so successful recently that the fund has been doubled from $1.8 million to $3.6 million. Its objectives are, first, to assist Eskimos to better their economic circumstances by providing them with financial assistance on a repayable basis for the purchase, construction, or repair of vehicles, vessels, canoes, aricraft, commercial buildings, furniture, shelters for fishing, hunting or trapping, repair of buildings, purchase of food, camping supplies, formation of co-operatives, business operations or purchase of tools, materials, engines, machinery, equipment or any other worth while endeavour. Second, all loans are made to improve the economic circumstances of Eskimos or to help them become established in, or expand their current capacities in commercial activities of benefit to individuals, groups or communities.
Many activities of the two territorial governments are directly involved in promoting employment opportunities for native people in accordance with their responsibilities. Special programs have been developed to encourage native people to enter the territorial public service; special vocational training programs are developed and administered and on-the-job training programs are initiated wherever a need is identified.
The education branch of the Indian and Eskimo affairs division has many programs available, directly or in association with Manpower and Immigration, to increase employment among native people. Training on-the-job provides for up to 50 per cent of salary for the first 12 months of employment training with private industry, and up to 100 per cent of salary with governments. Other programs involve payment of tuition and allowances at Canada Manpower rates for those attending university or taking professional training courses. Students who do not meet Canada Manpower criteria for training under the Canada Manpower Training Program are sponsored on these courses by the department.
Placement assistance, relocation grants and employment exploratory grants are available for those seeking employment. The off-reserve housing program enables the department to assist Indians to purchase a home where continu-

ing employment has been obtained. Counselling services are provided by this department, as well as by Outreach workers in many areas. The Outreach program is financed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. This department has, for each of the past three years, made $500,000 available for the employment of high school students.
The Indian-Eskimo economic development branch, under its mandate to improve employment and economic opportunities for Indians and Eskimos, in an endeavour to improve their standard of living has supported many economic ventures in a variety of ways over the past years.
Help and advice can be provided at any stage of a venture, that is to say, the branch can arrange for or provide valuable expert advice and assistance during the initial planning stage, or after it has become operative. The branch has been and can become heavily involved at any stage between these two particular points. This can take the form of financial aid, as well as technical and/or managerial assistance. Further to departmental assistance available to the Indian businessman, the branch can make available services and facilities from agencies or organizations outside the government operations. A good example of outside assistance which can be recruited is the wealth of expertise and experience available through the Canadian Executive Services Overseas Organization. This agency represents a vast sea of knowledge which, when efficiently utilized, provides invaluable support to a business especially during the start-up years.
Great emphasis has been placed on independent business ownership and operation in the hope that, with the growth of this independence, the Indian people will in fact be creating more job opportunities for their own people. This hope can be seen in the sectoral programs encouraged by the department in areas such as agriculture, forestry, arts and crafts, commercial fishing and trapping, and in the recreational field for which $65 million has been approved in principle for the next five years. In order to assure the orderly development of these sectoral programs, ancillary and supportive programs have been initiated.
Band economic development committees, with the help of the department, are being formed across the country. As these committees are activated and begin to identify and define the economic potential of an area, it is important to have programs and services in place which will enable an orderly plan to be formulated for the development and exploitation of the known potential. This can be very critical in the more isolated areas of the country in view of the very limited employment and income opportunities.
The Indian fishermen's assistance program in British Columbia is another prime example of where government can nurture an industry. Through this program, Indian fishermen become independent and, in doing so, reward themselves with greater economic returns for their efforts as well as creating more employment. It provides a vehicle whereby the Indian fisherman can become an important factor in the fishing fleets of British Columbia.
I suggest that it would be superfluous to establish special agencies for East Indians or Chinese immigrants in British Columbia. The other day the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) said:
December 13, 1974

The government has had many opportunities to solve the problem of our native people, but new ghettos are being created all the time. Chinese people and Indian people who cannot be absorbed properly into the country, and who cannot find jobs suitable to them, are being admitted under the act. So are people who advocate the forceful overthrow of the country ...
These people are coming in so rapidly that they are not fitting properly into the fabric of Canadian society. They are locating in ghettos, dozens to a house. Does this give them respect for the Canadian system and our government? It does not. It just creates cells for further reactionary groups to work against the fundamental principles for which this House is supposed to stand.
I wish to dissociate myself from these statements, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member also stated, as recorded in Hansard:
Do not label me as a racist.
I think the words of the hon. member will be judged on their own merits. Why these two groups of immigrants to Canada were chosen for comment are best known only to the hon. member. This government is aware there are problems that new immigrants have when first arriving in Canada, but this is true of all immigrants, not just East Indians and Chinese.
Perhaps the most important factor in economic development is the part played by the Indian-Eskimo Economic Development Fund. This fund, which is a refinement of the old Indian Loan Fund, was introduced in 1970, and offers a wide and varied program. A tremendous array of potential development projects, small and large, have been brought about because of this fund. There has been a steady upward trend to venture realization, with the only limiting factor being the people and dollar resources available to take care of the accelerated demand on the fund. From 1970 to November 30, 1974, the fund has grown from $6,050,000 to $60,000,000, and approved 2,629 applications for $65,302,190, producing a potential of 6,437 jobs. In addition, 847 offers for $11,786,502 through grants and contributions were approved for the same period. There are many examples of the fund in action.
An experimental oyster rearing industry has been in operation on the Eskasoni Reserve in Cape Breton for quite some time. In the province of Quebec a fish plant was established at Mingan in 1973. This plant, P.M. Packers, was originally started as a crab-packing operation but is changing to the freezing of shrimp and groundfish.
In Ontario a number of interesting and potentially profitable enterprises have been started. In the Kenora district a mink coat manufacturing plant is in operation. Another quite successful operation has been the Ojibway Ski Resort at Thunder Bay. Membership continues to grow with each passing year, and the ski resort has been able to compete, quite successfully, with other winter sport operations in the area.
In Manitoba the Pas Band has started construction on a new $6 million shopping centre complex which should provide income for the band as well as providing jobs for band members.
In Saskatchewan, there is a very successful scrap metal operation known as Native Metals. This business turns scrap metal, from old railway cars, into money and jobs. In Alberta, a very successful 30-unit motel business, complete
Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority
with dining and lounge facilities, is operating in Lesser Slave Lake. This motel has been so successful that 28 more units and a tavern are being added. In British Columbia the Bella Bella Band has become involved, with the advice and help of the department, in a number of enterprises such as a general store, a fuel company and a laundromat operation.
The Northwest Territories can boast of a very successful construction company in that the Dene Matt operation is progressing at a rate greater than anticipated. Old Crow Co-op in the Yukon does quite an adequate job of servicing that northern community.
To sum up briefly, outlined are only a very small number of the many businesses the department has had a hand in assisting at various stages of development. It is hoped, as more successes are brought about, that these successes will provide incentive which will encourage more Indian people to become actively involved in the business world.
Finally there is the work opportunity program. The prime objective of the work opportunity program is to increase individual and community autonomy. The program also seeks to coordinate the use of capital and operating funds in such a way as to increase the availability of employment opportunities for Indian people in their own communities. In addition the program aims at providing facilities and services required in Indian communities but which ordinarily have a low priority.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure no one would want to talk out this very important bill, would you now put the question?


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We heard a long list of government efforts on the job front by the hon. member who has just spoken. It so happens that the unemployment rate among Indian males remains at 50 per cent in spite of all these programs. That is why we should do something about this bill today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The hon. member is aware that that is not a point of order. He is participating in the debate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hollering from across the aisle. It always happens on occasions like this when members get up to speak and perhaps run out the time during private members' hour.
There is some real concern. I do not know about the House leaders on the other side, but there has been concern on this side about the number of items that can be referred to a committee for study. The subject matter of the hon. member's bill is, no doubt, serious, but it is broad. Just because this particular bill does not get referred to committee at this time does not mean the subject matter cannot be discussed.
The hon. member has a very good reputation for diligence. When he was chairman of the Indian Affairs committee he brought in a very good report on Indian educa-

December 13, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Hargrave
tion. It was eventually adopted by the National Indian Brotherhood and by the Canadian government. It is now the cornerstone of that policy of the Department of Indian Affairs.
The fact that this bill will not go to committee at this stage does not mean the whole subject will not be discussed. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs is negotiating to have the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs referred to it, in order that we can discuss a number of issues. Unemployment is one of those issues.


William Arnold Peters: This is an emergency.


Len Marchand: This bill will not overcome that emergency. The subject is much wider. There are also the matters of housing, education and many others that need to be discussed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member who is speaking, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It deals with the fact that at 2:30 this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) called a press conference at the National Press Club. The purpose of the conference was to announce a very important and significant new policy dealing with a program of deficiency payments for a cow slaughter plan for all of Canada. My question of privilege deals with the very obvious method the minister used to make this important announcement. Very simply, I suggest it should have been made in this House so that all members could have had an opportunity to hear it and allow for appropriate responses to be made on behalf of opposition parties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: If timing were of such importance, and I concede it may have been so as to follow the closing of most of the cattle markets in Canada, the House should have reverted to motions for that purpose.
It was just by accident that I heard of the press conference, and I attended in person because of my obvious interest in any policy matter having to do with the Canadian cattle industry. The minister is well aware of this interest, and might well have drawn my attention to the fact that a press conference was being held. However, I maintain that the House of Commons is the proper place for such announcements.
If the minister had made his remarks in the House I suggest that my response might have surprised him. Without going into detail about his interim subsidy program announced this afternoon, I would point out that most of the features it contained were my own personal recommendations made in the emergency debate last October 31, to deal with the cow-calf crisis in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) was good enough to let me know it was his intention to raise a question of privilege. I thought I should hear from him as to the specific nature of his grievance related to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) outside the House, but having heard from the hon. member I would refer to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker on Friday, November 1, 1974, as recorded in Hansard at page 957:
There are numerous precedents which indicate most clearly, that statements made outside the House of Commons do not constitute a breach of privilege . . . hon. members may be critical of statements made by ministers or others outside the House and they may legitimately be the subject of debate or questioning, but they do not constitute a question of privilege.
The citations are numerous, and I do not propose to take up any more of the time of the House by reading them. I therefore rule that a prima facie case of privilege does not
exist.
At 5.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 16, 1974