1974-04-24

BEEF PRICES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The devastating effect of the unprecedented floods in the western provinces upon thousands of prairie residents and municipalities is now clearly recorded. Federal and provincial authorities, and the people themselves, are fighting to contain the damage. There are joint federal-provincial partial compensation programs which will come into effect after the floods recede and the damages are assessed in each and every particular case. However, there is an urgent and pressing necessity for a program of immediate financial aid to carry these thousands of citizens through the crisis-


Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion arising from the continued uncertainty in the matter of beef prices and the urgent need for a statement on government policy in this regard. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney):
That this House direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make an immediate statement on motions with respect to beef prices.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate the importance and urgency of the matter to which the hon. member is referring, but perhaps at this point he would come to the motion he proposes for the consideration of the House.


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will get to my motion. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government, out of moneys available in the contingencies or other fund, provide immediate interim financial aid to the citizens and municipalities suffering financial hardship and loss from prairie flood conditions; and, in view of the devastating and unforseeable force of these floods, be prepared to supply additional financial aid to the prairie provinces over and above the present federal-provincial disaster compensation scheme.


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


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43 that may bear some striking similarity to the motion the hon. member for New Westminster endeavoured to introduce yesterday. In view of the fact Bill C-27 will permit the federal government to aid in the relocation of railways, the rerouting of rail traffic and the improvement of rail safety and security at railway grade crossings, and in view of the fact that this assistance is desperately needed by all Canadians, particularly, I might say, within the Sudbury riding, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That consent be granted by this House for the passage of all stages of Bill C-27 today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, we are in favour of moving this bill forward quickly but it should be done in the proper

April 24, 1974
Order Paper Questions
way by the government through the House procedures. Why did they turn down our motion yesterday?


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Mr. Leggatt:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to correct the obvious misunderstanding of the House leader for the Conservative Party in indicating that the motion presented yesterday to the House was from the Conservative Party. That motion was moved by me and was from the New Democratic Party which is very willing to see Bill C-27 pass all stages right away.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Rowland: What measures has Canada recently taken in an effort to persuade Portugal to grant independence to the country of Guinea-Bissau and the other African territories which Portugal claims as its own?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The Canadian government has expressed its conviction on numerous occasions that Portugal should grant self-determination to all its African territories. This viewpoint was conveyed directly to the Portuguese Foreign Minister during the December 1973 NATO Ministerial Meeting in Brussels. The Canadian attitude was repeated in very clear terms during the recent sessions of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Rowland: Is it the intention of the government to acknowledge, through diplomatic recognition or other means, that the country of Guinea-Bissau has effectively achieved independence from Portugal and, if not, for what reason?


Mitchell William Sharp: Canadian practice is to grant recognition to sovereign states which have governments able to exercise effective control over the territory which they claim to represent and who are able to discharge their international obligations. The Canadian government is prepared to recognize Guinea-Bissau when the Canadian Government is assured that these criteria have in fact been met.


Mr. Ellis: Has the Unemployment Insurance minute 69-121, regarding attendance of third parties during interviews of claimants by investigators, been certified by the Deputy Minister of Justice?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Unemployment Insurance Commission Minute 69-121 is the record of an administrative decision, which does not require certification by the Deputy Minister of Justice. Solicitors of the Department of Justice are consulted on all matters having legal implications and the commission has been advised that there is no legal objection to following the practice adopted.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has Mr. Martin O'Connell, principal secretary to the Prime Minister, attended or appeared before any groups, meetings or gatherings of any kind in the constituency of Scarborough East in the past six months and, if so, what were the locations, dates, times of day, purpose and nature of each such occurrence and by what specific person in government was each authorized?
2.	On any of these occasions, did Mr. O'Connell show or display to those present, pictures of the Prime Minister, including pictures of the Prime Minister's visit to Communist China and, if so, what was the general subject-matter of all such pictures, by whom were they taken, by whom were they supplied to Mr. O'Connell and what is the name of the specific owner?
3.	Were any of these pictures shown in schools and, if so, what were the names of the schools, who were all persons involved in making arrangements for such showings and, in particular, who was the specific person initiating such gatherings in each case?
4.	How many and which of these gatherings took place during normal business hours, was the Prime Minister aware of such gatherings and did Mr. O'Connell receive his usual government salary for the days on which they occurred?
5.	Will the Prime Minister either instruct or permit Mr. O'Connell to undertake further showings of such pictures in (a) Scarborough East (b) elsewhere?
6.	Has the Prime Minister been advised or made aware in any way that Mr. Martin O'Connell will resign his present position for the stated purpose of seeking the Liberal party nomination in the constituency of Scarborough East in the next federal election?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1. Mr. O'Connell was appointed under Section 37(1) Public Service Employment Act, and is therefore a member of ministerial exempt staff. Meetings and gatherings he has attended in evenings and on weekends have not conflicted with the duties for which he was appointed and are his personal affair.
2,	3, 4. During school hours on two occasions and therefore during conventional office hours, Mr. O'Connell visited West Hill Collegiate Institute, Scarborough College, R.H. King Collegiate Institute, Sir Wilfrid Laurier Collegiate Institute and Woburn Collegiate Institute to give a talk on "Impressions of China" relating to his trip there in October, 1973. The talk was accompanied by slides taken personally by Mr. O'Connell showing the Great Wall of China, a Ming Dynasty tomb, the Forbidden City, traditional and modern modes of transportation, housing, a school, people in the streets and in the fields, the interior of various caves, scenery along the River Li and other
April 24, 1974

scenery. Some pictures included the Prime Minister. In two instances, the arrangements were initiated at the request of students; and others by Mr. O'Connell. In all cases, arrangements were concluded with the school authorities. Mr. O'Connell is paid on a monthly basis without deduction for time missed during conventional office hours nor with any additional compensation for evenings or weekends worked.
5.	The Prime Minister will leave the matter entirely to Mr. O'Connell's discretion.
6.	See answer to question No. 2311 on page 5960 of Hansard for July 25, 1973.


Mr. Howie: Have any studies been authorized or completed concerning the amalgamation of the Turks and Caicos Islands with Canada and have the potential off-shore mineral and resource benefits of these islands in this region been considered?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The question of a political association of the Turks and Caicos Islands with Canada has been reviewed and a statement of the government's position on this matter was tabled in the House on April 10. No study has been made of the potential off-shore mineral or other resources of these islands.


Mr. Howie: 1.	On what date is construction on the extension to the Combat Arms Training School facilities at CFB Gagetown, New Brunswick planned for commencement?
2.	On what date is the tender expected to be called and what is the estimated value of the project?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. No date has been set for the commencement of construction on the extension to the Combat Arms Training School facilities at CFB Gagetown, as the development of the project is only in the preliminary stages.
2. In view of the above, the date when tenders will be called and the value of the project, cannot be stated at this time.


Mr. McKinnon: How many total nautical miles were flown by all our Argus aircraft, for any purpose, during each calendar year 1963 through 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: The Department of National Defence does not record or calculate distances flown by military aircraft in miles but in terms of hours flown. The following table gives the hours flown for the years in question and an approximation of the mileage based on an average true airspeed of 180 knots.
	Order	Paper Questions	
Year	Hours Flown	Calculation	Approximate Mileage63-64	25,375	= 180 =	4,567,500 nautical miles64-65	22,382	= 170 =	4,028,760 nautical miles65-66	21,738	= 180 =	3,912,840 nautical miles66-67	21,523	= 180 =	3,874,140 nautical miles67-68	24,234	= 180 =	4,362,120 nautical miles68-69	24,937	= 180 =	4,488,660 nautical miles69-70	28,040	== 180 =	5,047,200 nautical miles70-71	28,511	= 180 =	5,131,980 nautical miles71-72	26,951	= 180 =	4,851,180 nautical miles72-73	25,871	= 180 =	4,656,780 nautical miles


Mr. Blouin: With the completion of construction of the Telesat onshore stations in Sept-lles and Fort Chimo, in the constituency of Manicouagan, on what date does CBC expect to have a television station in Sept-lles with a French and an English network and is an extension of these networks planned east of Sept-lles i.e. on the medium and lower North Coast?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the CBC as follows: The French transmitter CBST Sept-lles came into service on October 23, 1973, but the construction of studios is dependent on the eventual acquisition of a site in that town. The French TV network will be extended eastward towards Riviere-au-Tonnerre next September. Revised applications for VHF channels at Natashquan/Aguanish and La Romaine have been forwarded to CRTC, together with an application for Baie Johann Beetz. In addition, the municipality of Blanc Sablon is included in the Accelerated Coverage Plan and a rebroadcast transmitter will be established there later. As for the English network, the CBC intends to submit applications to the CRTC in 1976 for the establishment of stations at Sept-lles, Harrington Harbour, La Tabatiere/ Mutton Bay, St. Augustin/Saguenay, Old Fort Bay and Blanc Sablon.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	What was the expenditure for food at federal penal institutions in 1973?
2.	What was the expenditure for kitchen and dining hall staffs in 1973?
3.	What was the charge per meal to penitentiary service staff members for meals at federal penal institutions in 1973?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1. $5,102,335.
2.	$2,331,690.
3.	Duty meal, nil; Non-duty meal, fifty cents.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many homicides were reported at federal penal institutions in 1973?
2.	How many at each institution?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Two.

April 24, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2. Collins Bay Institution, one; British Columbia Penitentiary, one.


Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How many suicides were reported at federal penal institutions in 1973?
2.	How many at each institution?


William Warren Allmand: 1. Eleven.
2. Federal Training Centre, two; St. Vincent de Paul, one; Regional Medical Centre (Ontario), one; Mountain Prison, one; Saskatchewan, four; Regional Medical Centre (Quebec), one; Archambault, one.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the Department of External Affairs refuse to permit, or discourage in any way whatsoever, departments from corresponding on any kind of government letterhead when seeking information of any kind from Taiwan and, if so, who made such a decision and for what reason?
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): The Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible for the conduct of Canada's foreign relations and, through his Department, for official communications with foreign governments. As for Taiwan, the Canadian Government does not recognize the regime in question. The Department of External Affairs would not, therefore, approve any official communications between any department of the Canadian Government and the regime on Taiwan, and would not normally engage in such communications itself. This is in conformity with generally accepted international practice.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What are the terms of reference of any studies or research now under way by the Department of Labour into new and improved methods of adjudicating labour disputes as an alternative to strike action?
2.	What are the names of those conducting the studies or research?
3.	Are any of these people from outside of the Department of Labour and, if so, what are their qualifications to act in this capacity?
4.	On what date did any such studies begin and on what date is an interim or final report anticipated?
5.	Will such a report be made public?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. There are no terms of reference as such. Departmental officials, through internal studies and discussions with labour and management, are exploring methods of impasse resolution in labour disputes other than strike and confrontation methods.
2.	Research and discussions are being carried out by departmental officials.
3.	N/A
4.	Research of this nature is a continuing effort within the department, but studies of experimental negotiations

and discussions with labour and management were accelerated following the railway strike.
5.	No.


Mr. Atkey: 1.	What is the average age of pensioners from (a) World War I (b) World War II?
2.	How many war pensioners are (a) over 80 (b) 70-79 (c) 60-69 (d) 50-59 (e) 40-49 (f) 30-39 (g) 20-29 (h) under 20 years of age?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. As at March 31, 1974: (a) 80.7; (b) 58.8.
			Special	Regular
World	World	Force	ForceWar I	War II	Korea	Peacetime(a)	8,971	1,271	23(b)	7,755	8,831	4	76(c)	-	27,201	99	341(d)	-	58,189	522	1,216(e)	-	3,967	1,447	1,502(f)	-	-	-	686(g)	-	-	-	133(h)	-	-	-	1



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Labour since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Labour during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Labour on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the Department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.
April 24, 1974



PREPARATION OF SPEECHES BY PUBLIC SERVANTS FOR MEMBERS OF CABINET

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): How many public servants participate regularly in the preparation of speeches of (a) the Prime Minister (b) the Leader of the Government in the Senate (c) the Secretary of State for External Affairs (d) the President of the Privy Council (e) the President of the Treasury Board (f) the Minister of Transport (g) the Minister of Finance (h) the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (i) the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (j) the Minister of Labour (k) the Minister of Communications (1) the Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries (m) the Minister of Public Works (n) the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (o) the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (p) the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (q) the Minister of National Defence (r) the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (s) the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (t) the Minister of National Revenue (u) the Minister of Supply and Services (v) the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (w) the Minister of State (x) the Minister of Agriculture (y) the Solicitor General of Canada (z) the Secretary of State of Canada (aa) the Postmaster General (bb) the Minister of Veterans Affairs (cc) the Minister of National Health and Welfare (dd) the Minister of State for Science and Technology?
Return tabled.



NUMBER OF BANKRUPTCIES REGISTERED IN 1970

Mr. Fortin: 1.	How many bankruptcies were registered in each province, each year since 1970?
2.	What steps has the government taken to prevent fraudulent bankruptcies?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;NEW CANADA-TORONTO&quot; RELATING TO MULTI CULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "New Canada-Toronto" in respect of the $18,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, these papers contain or refer to information provided in confidence to the department. Under the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: April 24, 1974
Motions for Papers
but there was no hesitation whatsoever in delivering the correspondence involving the farmer' union.
The same practice prevailed in the twenty-third parliament. The communications from outside sources were quite varied and were still easily produced. For example:
Motion No. 12-Mr. Stuart (Charlotte): For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Public Works and any person or persons recommending or approving the dismissal of breakwater foreman in Charlotte county, since June 10,1957.
The motion was agreed to. The government also agreed to release copies of all correspondence between any association, person and company and members of the government and/or Northern Ontario Pipe Line concerning requests for opportunities to submit tenders for some construction work.
No change in policy was recorded in the twenty-sixth parliament. The following motion was readily agreed to by the government. Again, the nature of the correspondence is unknown. The motion was:
For a copy of any correspondence between Mr. Vanden Heuvel of Goderich, Ontario, and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, or any officials of her department, since January, 1961.
The motion was agreed to. Communications from groups of persons seem to have been readily available:
Motion No. 161-Mr. Pickersgill: For a copy of the communication addressed to the Minister of Fisheries by the general secretary-treasurer of the Newfoundland Federation of Fishermen on August 24, 1961, together with the reply thereto of the minister.
The motion was agreed to. The same practice persisted in the twenty-seventh parliament. The government agreed to produce communications received from groups of persons. For example:
Motion No. 35-Mr. Dinsdale: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Clear Lake Cottage Owners' Association and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development during the current year.
The motion was agreed to. Here is another example from the same parliament. It seems that when individuals petition the government because of some complaint, their letters may be published. This is an example from the twenty-seventh parliament:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Fisheries and the owners of trawlers in Newfoundland involved in damaging cod traps or other net gear owned by inshore fishermen.
The motion was agreed to. There are many more examples from all parliaments, from the twenty-first parliament right down to the present time, which indicate very clearly the types of communications that are considered in the public domain and those that are considered privileged. The government went to the trouble last year to set out for the benefit of members of parliament those classes of documents which are considered restricted and the reasons for those restrictions. But the documents in respect of applications for grants from various government departments and letters in support of those applications for grants have been considered as public documents for 25 years at least.
It is my opinion that this is a fundamental change on the part of the present government, that the change in prac-

tice is a denial of the rights of the individual members of parliament and through them of parliament itself. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider the precedents. If Your Honour would like to take the question under advisement and make a ruling at a future time, that would be agreeable to me.
I would like you to consider the matter carefully because the responsibility of the Chair is not to protect the government, which should be capable of looking after its own interests, but to guarantee the rights of individual members of parliament and through so doing the rights of this honourable institution itself. I ask Your Honour to consider the precedents. If you should agree that this is a serious matter and rule that a prima facie case of privilege is warranted, I will then move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member is not new. It has been raised many times in this session, in past sessions and in past parliaments. The question is whether a member seeking the production of documents is entitled to insist that those documents be tabled in spite of objection on the part of the minister who is opposing the production of the documents.
The hon. member has cited a number of precedents which indicate that in certain circumstances documents of the type which he claims should be tabled today have been tabled in the past when an order has been adopted by the House for the tabling of such documents.The hon. member, with his long experience in the House, will be the first to recognize that there at least are an equal number of instances in the past where documents have been refused by the government, and this on the basis of the Standing Order.
The Standing Order is clear and provides for four possibilities. When a notice is put on the order paper for the production of documents it can be, when called, adopted by the House, dropped, voted upon or, at the request of the member putting the motion or at the request of a minister, transferred for debate. Standing Order 48(1) is very clear on this point.
It may well be that the Standing Order is not properly drafted. It may well be that there should be a different procedure which would make it easier or more practical for hon. members to obtain the tabling of documents which they feel ought to be tabled or which they feel should be the responsibility of the government to table. But the Standing Order is there and it is clear. It says that there are these four alternatives open to a member presenting a motion or to the minister or the government in response to the motion. In this particular instance the minister refuses to table documents which the hon. member feels ought to be tabled. What the Chair has to do in such circumstances is inquire whether the member wishes to drop his motion-obviously the hon. member does not intend to do that-whether the House wishes to vote on the proposed motion or whether either the member who has put the motion or the minister or someone on behalf of the government wishes the motion to be transferred for debate.
As I say, it may well be that the procedure is faulty, that the procedure does not give effect to the kind of legitimate
April 24, 1974

wish that the hon. member is suggesting ought to be the day-to-day practice in relation to this Standing Order. But the Chair, without wishing to protect anyone, has to interpret the Standing Order in the way it has always been interpreted, and that is that there are these alternatives open. If a minister of the Crown or the member proposing the motion asks that a motion be transferred for debate, I have no alternative but to accept that it be transferred for debate.
The point raised by the hon. member and the precedents he cited are interesting and are an indication that he has considered the matter seriously as it deserves to be so considered. It is the kind of very serious situation in relation to private members' business which I hope will be considered some day by hon. members, perhaps in the committee to which the hon. member referred. But clearly I have no authority except to ask whether it is the wish of the House to vote on the hon. member's motion or to have it transferred for debate.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;CROSS-CULTURAL COMMUNICATION&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Cross-Cultural Communication Centre-Toronto" in respect of the $8,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, these papers contain or refer to information provided in confidence to the department. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think the minister shows terrible effrontery when he says this is privileged information. I reiterate that in my opinion this is a terrible abuse of the privileges of parliament by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;CENTRE CHINOIS DE QUEBEC, ENR., QUEBEC&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 5-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Centre Chinois de Quebec, Enr., Quebec" in respect of the $5,000 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, these papers contain or refer to information provided in confidence to the department. In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Oral Questions



COPY OF APPLICATION OF &quot;BLACK YOUTH TELEVISION WORKSHOP, MONTREAL&quot; RELATING TO MULTICULTURALISM GRANT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Hellyer:
That an Order of the House do issue for production of copies of the application of "Black Youth Television Workshop, Montreal" in respect of the $6,500 grant announced by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism on October 3, 1973 and all correspondence to and from the government in respect thereof.
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, these papers contain or refer to information provided in confidence to the department.


Some hon. Members:: Secrecy!


Stanley Haidasz: In the circumstances the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Since the information requested would obviously, in the opinion of Mr. McCabe and Mr. Ostry, be embarrassing to the government, I seem to have no alternative but to request that the motion be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

Shall the remaining notices stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the contents of the communications from the Airline Pilots' Association to Mr. Pratte of Air Canada indicating that the pilots may leave their jobs tonight at midnight? If so, what action, if any, is the minister taking in this connection?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I am
aware of the request by the pilots. This is a problem, of course, for Air Canada to decide with the pilots.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Jean Marchand: It is a matter for collective bargaining with the company. There is no other way. The same negotations took place with the other unions, and Air Canada is now considering the request of the pilots. As soon as a decision is reached it will be communicated to the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the very serious trouble which would be caused
1714

April 24, 1974
Oral Questions
to the Canadian public if a walkout actually took place, he has considered proposing to the pilots' association and to Air Canada the intervention of a mediator before the walkout rather than after the walkout as in the case of the Post Office workers?


Jean Marchand: I think that when there is a labour contract everyone in this House should agree that the labour agreement should, first of all, be respected. The labour agreement should be followed. If there is a grievance procedure provided, as there is in this case, that is the way the matter should proceed.


Mr. Lawrence:: What about the people of Canada?


Jean Marchand: In this day, sometimes it is the employees who have the advantage of having a mediator appointed and not following the agreement, and sometimes it is the employers. I believe that in both cases we should be ready to say: follow your agreement and we shall see, afterwards, what may be necessary.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: What about the public?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the distinguished parliamentary secretary indicated yesterday, I believe, that there was some difference of opinion between Air Canada and the flight attendants, in view of the possibility that there is a difference of opinion here, and recognizing what the minister says about the importance of collective agreements being followed and preserved-


An hon. Member:: Do you remember the question, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I remember the question, and I am trying to keep in mind, too, the great inconvenience to the travelling public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the importance of the question I am simply asking the minister, not that he circumvent the agreement, whether he is considering some method of mediation in advance of the walkout with a view to bringing the parties together in the event of a substantial difference of opinion about what the agreement means?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I saw Mr. Pratte in Montreal. I asked him to do all he could in order to avoid the pilots going on strike tonight. I must underline that it is too easy just to talk about the effect on the public. We adopted those laws and, unless we decide to change them, each time there is a strike in public services there will be inconveniences. This is something which is in the very nature of our bargaining process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LAY-OFFS BY AIR CANADA BECAUSE OF STRIKE-INTERPRETATION OF COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Transport, agreeing entirely 
with the statement he made with regard to collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I do not belong to that group of members who support collective bargaining one minute and are against it the next.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question.


David Lewis: In view of the fact these difficulties arise from an apparent difference in the interpretation of the collective agreements, will the minister ask Air Canada to stop acting in the way it has with regard to the pilots and others of its employees until the meaning of the agreements has been adjudicated upon through an arbitrator instead of placing its employees at a disadvantage and then requiring them to go to arbitration?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that what the hon. member for York South is saying makes sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: The thing is that it happens that on the other side of the House there is one who knows what collective bargaining is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: The problem is that some of the important unions in Air Canada formally accepted that in such cases, and there is no doubt in the agreements that they accepted, they would be laid off without pay. In what situation will Air Canada be placed if they pay those who are in the higher brackets and do not pay those in the lower brackets? This is what they are now trying to work out. It is quite a complicated problem. This is why I say it is easier to solve it just by a statement referring to the public interest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I could-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for York South has the floor for the purpose of asking a supplementary question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the same area of work stoppages I wish to ask the Postmaster General whether he can make-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that, even though he says the question is in the same general area, it is hardly a supplementary. It may be a related question. The hon. member may wish to ask a
April 24, 1974

question about another situation, but that is not really a supplementary. I am sure many other members will want to ask questions about the other situation to which the hon. member is referring. Perhaps he might allow the Chair to complete the first round of questioning.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
As some time ago the CRTC gave the CBC the order to reduce its televised publicity, which reduction would cost the government $40 million over the next four years, does the minister intend to call those two bodies before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that this situation might be studied? If not, what measures does the minister intend to take with regard to that confrontation?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the allegations of the hon. member with regard to the cost of the implementation of the CRTC recommendations, I would say that for the time being neither the decisions of the minister nor his procedures matter, but the provisions of the law do.
The Broadcasting Act states that when a dispute opposes the CRTC to the CBC, first of all the two parties will meet, which in this case they have done twice already according to the reports I have been given and which they will do again, after which arbitration is imposed by the minister if the two parties have failed to reach an agreement. As for having the two parties appear before a committee of the House, the committee could doubtless so decide, but that is not the procedure provided for by the act.


Mr. Speaker:: We shall revert to supplementaries to the first question asked this afternoon, and we may return to this matter later on.


Mr. McKenzie:: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member-


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Drummond wishes to ask a supplementary question on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I agree completely with him, but the hon. member for Drummond has risen and has not indicated that he wanted to put a supplementary question. At least, I did not hear him. If he is fully vocal this afternoon and indicates that his question is a supplementary, then I will
Oral Questions
recognize him, before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. The hon. member for Drummond.


Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Communications.
In view of the fact that a recommendation to restrict advertising on television inevitably results in a deficit to be made up by government, and that deficit means that government will have to make an appropriation, is a Crown corporation or the CRTC entitled to put up the monies that would eventually be voted by the House?


Gérard Pelletier: From all evidence no, Mr. Speaker. The recommendations of the CRTC are only recommendations and not regulations.


AIR CANADA
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Minister of Transport. As Air Canada has a two class system for lay-offs, laying off only union employees, will the minister investigate this discriminatory practice?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is a practice which is practised all over Canada.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I also want to pose a question concerning the troubles we are having at our airports. In view of the fact that getting the firefighters back to work would help to restore normalcy at the airports, will the President of the Treasury Board give the House and the nation an up to the hour report on the results of the firefighters' vote to accept or reject the latest Treasury Board offer to the Public Service Alliance?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the president of the alliance had hoped that conclusive results might have been available to him by noon today. Such has not been the case. We are hoping for later today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have moved from one strike to another or one threatened strike to another. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a related question and then the hon. member for York South who also has a related question.
27451-45:

April 24, 1974
Oral Questions


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has contingency plans for immediate application in hand to appoint a mediator in this dispute pending eventual settlement through arbitration? I have good reason to believe that an undertaking of this sort would have the firefighters back on the job-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member's question is being pondered the Chair will recognize-


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks whether we have a contingency plan to meet what as yet is a hypothetical situation. The answer is yes, and I think that the contingency plan will meet the requirements of those who have been making special representations.


Mr. Baldwin:: It is like the budget; it is all hypothetical.


POST OFFICE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Postmaster General if he can inform the House whether discussions under the leadership of the special mediator, Mr. Eric Taylor, are continuing and whether any real progress is being made in those discussions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that management and union representatives held discussions till one o'clock a.m. without arriving at a concrete result. They met again this morning with Mr. Taylor and the discussions are still going on this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note there are a number of supplementary questions. The Chair will first recognize the hon. member for York South, then the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, followed by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Postmaster General would not want to deal with the details of the discussions and negotiations at this stage, but I wonder whether he could inform us with regard to the second part of my question? Is progress being made in those discussions or are they still in great difficulty and at an impasse?


André Ouellet: According to the word of Mr. Taylor, Mr. Speaker, there is progress being made. They are working very hard to come to some concrete proposal for decision.


POSTAL WORKERS' STRIKE-MEASURES TO ASSURE DELIVERY OF SOCIAL SECURITY CHEQUES
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Postmaster General what emer-

gency measures were being taken to deliver social security cheques of all kinds across the country. Today I found out that in my riding and across the country pensioners and welfare people are queuing up not knowing where to find their cheques. Again I ask, what precise emergency measures are being taken by the government to make sure that welfare cheques, UIC cheques and pension cheques of all kinds are being delivered to Canadians?


An hon. Member:: And milk cheques.


William Heward Grafftey: Will he tell the House exactly what is being done?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that in any case the pensioners' cheques are not to be delivered before Monday next. I can assure the hon. member that we have set up a plan to see that the pensioners will not be deprived of their cheques. I offered yesterday to show confidentially to the hon. member a document describing steps to be taken to assure the delivery of cheques. The member left the House soon after asking his question yesterday and I could not find him.


William Heward Grafftey: Oh, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will, of course, recognize the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, but I would ask hon. members to give the House a chance to proceed with the question period. It seems to me we are spending more time on hooting and cheering than on questions and answers. The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi.


William Heward Grafftey: Will the Postmaster General inform the hundreds of people in my riding who are waiting for these cheques and cannot draw welfare, and who this weekend will perhaps not be able to pay for their groceries, what these confidential measures are-they should not be confidential-and indicate where they can get their cheques?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: The hon. member should well know that social welfare cheques are sent out by provincial governments. It has been announced again and again that the provinces will take steps to deliver these cheques to social welfare recipients. As to the old age security payments which we are responsible for, I ask the hon. member to try and understand that security demands that steps taken to deliver these cheques not be made public. The sum at stake ranges in millions of dollars, but if the hon. member is ready to offer some guarantee for it, I am willing to revise my position.


An hon. Member:: Get your dog team out.


Mr. Woolliams:: Tell the truth.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!

*HHi
April 24, 1974


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Nobody knows what you are doing. You are a stupid man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of the widespread knowledge in Canada today that the airline pilots' situation could be straightened out very quickly if the minister would indicate just a little bit more clearly than he did a moment ago, in answer to my colleague, whether his contingency plan does include the utilization of a mediator during the interim period between the possible rejection of the proposal that has been offered the firefighters and the naming of an arbitrator to follow the arbitration procedure if in fact that is required. If the minister could give that indication we all know, including the Minister of Transport, that the Canadian Airline Pilots' Association would drop the matter immediately and there would not be any strike by them tonight.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there are two possibilities before the government.


An hon. Member:: To resign.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: One is that the settlement agreed to by the union will be ratified, in which case we will have an agreement. The other is that the settlement agreed to by the union will be rejected, in which case we will apply for binding arbitration according to the terms of the law. During the process of waiting to set up the arbitration tribunal and the convening of it in order to undertake the case, the services of a mediator would be employed in an endeavour to resolve the differences existing between the two parties so as to make clearer and easier the work of the arbitration tribunal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you say that the first time?


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to strike problems as well but is in a much broader sense rather than in respect of a specific matter.
Oral Questions
In view of the constant and continuing unrest on the federal labour scene where so few individuals can effectively disrupt essential services in this country, some illegally, which adversely affects every Canadian, can he advise the House whether he is considering over-all legislation which would by some alternative means curb this type of damaging strike, possibly in favour of some rational and satisfactory form of arbitration prior to the fact?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, because of the noise I missed the last part of the question but I think I do have the gist of it. As the hon. member knows, it was stated a few days ago by the President of the Privy Council that we have received two of the three parts of the report which has been prepared by Mr. Finkelman. This embodies suggestions and proposals which we will study and which may lead in the direction the hon. member is suggesting.


Otto John Jelinek: In that case, will the Prime Minister advise this House if he has instructed any of his ministers, possibly the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Labour, to make any specific or concrete recommendations to the cabinet regarding this matter and, if not, is he now prepared to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Finkelman report recommendations will, indeed, be coming to cabinet through the President of the Privy Council. I repeat that we have not received the third part of the report, but it does deal with a very important aspect of labour negotiations in the public sector. When the previous government recognized the right to strike in the Public Service as one of the options, it was quite clear in our mind and in the public mind that this would not entail any condoning of illegal strikes, and this government wants to make sure that if anything can be done to prevent illegal strikes happening or to dissuade people from embarking on them it will do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he investigated the allegations made yesterday by the Canadian Cattleman's Association that western consumers are paying more for beef than eastern consumers and that the retailers are to blame?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the allegations in the press just before coming into the House. I certainly want to

April 24, 1974
Oral Questions
have them looked into, especially if they involve questions under the Combines Investigation Act.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister arising from the increases in the retail price of beef which have taken place this week and still further increases which are anticipated. May I ask the minister what steps he is planning to prevent these increases since the prices being paid to beef producers clearly cannot justify them?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, government policy is that it will be prepared to take appropriate action if there are reports from the Food Prices Review Board indicating that prices are unwarranted and in response to which the parties will not make changes voluntarily. I followed up on a suggestion of the hon. member for St. John's East and was in touch with the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board who confirmed to me that this subject is on the agenda for their meeting tomorrow. As I said yesterday, it could well be that there could be, as suggested by the hon. member, an interim report as a result of that meeting.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Temiscamingue, but an hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is this: on Monday I asked the minister whether he would investigate the matter to which I have just referred. He replied, as recorded on page 1626 of Hansard, that he hoped he would be able to give the House a report as soon as possible and certainly within a day or two. This is the second of the two days to which the minister referred. My point of privilege is that he has given an undertaking to the House which he has not lived up to.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my exact words, and I stand to be corrected, were "a day or so". In any event, I have not yet received a report containing the kind of information sought by the hon. member, by myself and by other members of the House. In view of the importance of the situation, I think he would expect as complete and as full a report as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure we could have saved a few minutes if we had not gone into that question of privilege.


LABOUR RELATIONS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the wave of strikes which is sweeping over this country, does the government intend to put an end to

this throwing work out of gear, and by throwing it back into gear again, favour the development and progress of the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is doing just fine, thank you. The development of Canada can favourably compare with that of any OECD country. As far as strikes are concerned, the hon. member is aware of the law. I do not know whether or not he has any precise suggestion to make on behalf of his party. In case he has, let him put them forward and we shall have a look at them. I have just indicated, in reply to another question, that Mr. Finkel-man's report was under review.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see to my left and to my right a large number of members seeking to ask questions. I think members might realize that many will be disappointed this afternoon. We have spent quite a bit of time on the first two or three questions and it will be difficult to have many questioners before the termination of the 40 minutes. For the moment the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
He asked me whether we had solutions to suggest. We certainly have. In this connection, can the Prime Minister tell us if the government is considering establishing a labour court and compulsory arbitration in labour disputes in public sectors, such as postal services, transportation, social affairs and health?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member seems to think that the right to strike should be removed from these sectors, Mr. Speaker. Unless I am mistaken, this is what he suggests since he talks about compulsory arbitration, thus assuming there is no right to strike. If so, the answer is no.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the underlying cause for so much of the industrial unrest in this country today is the runaway rate of inflation, can the minister tell us, particularly because the average rate of increase in earnings is substantially less than the increase in the cost of living, if he intends to do anything at all before the budget comes in about this serious problem?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hon. gentleman's premise. He will have to wait for a complete answer until the budget debate.
April 24, 1974


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister indicate to the House whether recommendations have been made by him to the cabinet on proposals that would control the growth of the civil service and, if so, has his policy been ratified by the cabinet?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will want to rephrase his question and not invite me to violate my cabinet oath.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House if any changes are contemplated with regard to the Minister of Transport's operations in the province of Newfoundland and in the Atlantic provinces?


Jean Marchand: Would the hon. member repeat the last part of the question, please?


Walter C. Carter: Are any changes contemplated with regard to the operations of the Minister of Transport in Newfoundland and in the Atlantic area?


Jean Marchand: No, not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
Mrs. Albanie Morin (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General.
Can the minister state whether there is a way or measures which could be taken for the delivery of 6,000 blood samples from newly born babies in hospitals in the province of Quebec? These samples are now held up in mail bags in Quebec City, and considerable harm will come to the babies if they do not receive appropriate treatment at the right time.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this example and, I believe, many others are a clear indication of the grave harm that can come from illegal strikes. I shall inquire of Quebec postal officials whether these samples could not be afforded special treatment,
Oral Questions
after agreement between postal workers and management in Quebec City.

[English]	AGRICULTURE


REASON FOR CABINET NOT MEETING EXECUTIVE OF NATIONAL FARMERS UNION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would he tell the House why the cabinet refused to meet with the executive of the National Farmers Union to discuss national agricultural policy? Is the cabinet out on strike?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the cabinet receives a great number of requests from various organizations that wish to meet with the cabinet. Some we see every year, some we see every other year. The National Farmers Union is in the latter category. We have told them that we will see them on a two-year basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the meantime, they have been invited to make their representations to a group of ministers headed by the Minister of Agriculture, and they will be making representations to our caucus if they have occasion to, as they have made them to the Senate Committee on Agriculture. It is not as though they are not having a hearing. The cabinet cannot meet on a weekly basis with every group in the country that wishes to meet with us.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Red Deer for a supplementary question, followed by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Thomas Gordon Towers: My supplementary question was for the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, but I believe he has left.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Does the minister intend to welcome in person and officially Dr. Neto, president of the popular movement for the liberation of Angola, who apparently will be in our country in the next few hours?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.

April 24, 1974
Oral Questions


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
As the minister refuses to meet Mr. Neto, could he not initiate a movement centered essentially among nations of the same size as Canada, to alert NATO or other organizations so that justice be done to the inhabitants of the territories concerned?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Neto will be received by officials of my department. I gave an answer yesterday about our attitude toward Portuguese colonial policy that I am sure satisfied him, too.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that executives of the National Farmers Union, which represents thousands of producers in the food industry in this country, are in town all week, and in view of the fact they represent thousands of independent producers, not the food processing industries and others, can the Prime Minister inform the House why his cabinet, in view of its meetings with the urban association last week, with the Canadian Labour Congress and many other organizations in this country, is not prepared to meet with the National Farmers Union which represents farmers from one end of Canada to the other?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be an exact repetition of a previous question. If the hon. member did not hear my answer, he might-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the right hon. Prime Minister-

That question was asked. I recognized the hon. member for a supplementary question. Perhaps he would like to rephrase the question, but we are running short of time.


William George Knight: In view of the fact that this meeting is not occurring between the government of Canada and the National Farmers Union, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether he is moving jurisdiction over the Canadian Wheat Board from the minister now in charge to the Minister of Agriculture in view of the fact the only reason this meeting is not being held is the vendetta of the minister in charge of the Wheat Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EGGS AND TURKEYS-STABILIZATION OF RETURNS TO PRODUCERS
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the difficulties facing egg and turkey producers in Canada and the question I asked regarding eggs last week, can the minister give us any further word as to what definite proposals he has given to these two producer marketing boards so far as the stabilization of prices of those two commodities is concerned?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I met again last night with representatives of the egg producers. We are trying to work out a satisfactory program for them. I cannot tell the House what that program will be because we have not finalized it yet.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible to the House for the National Capital Commission. It arises out of a recent publication entitled "Canada's New Capital". Does the minister endorse the idea presented there that Ottawa is no longer the capital and the implication that the new name is Ottawa-Hull? Perhaps the minister could inform the House and the people of this country what is the name of our capital.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the particular brochure about which the hon. member asks was not authorized by me and I never saw it until last night. I discussed the contents of it with the chairman of the National Capital Commission today, who finds some of the wording in that brochure unfortunate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and not representative of the policy of the government.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the rapidly increasing cost of food and meat in particular, and in view of the strong possibility that some groups such as the packers may in fact be making excess profits which could be a factor in such increases in food prices, is the government considering giving the Food Prices Review Board or its equivalent power to roll back these prices where it is determined that such prices are the result of excess profits?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 24, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. There is just a minute or two left before the end of the question period. With the co-operation of hon. members we might be able to have a few more questions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad somebody asked that question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have said in the House before that we would bring in legislation to act against profiteering or those who are making undue profits, and in effect we will be giving first reading to that type of legislation in a very few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: More selective price controls?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is anxious to ask a supplementary. I will recognize him in a moment. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


William Heward Grafftey: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


POST OFFICE
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. This is my twelfth year in the House and my first question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: After I questioned the Postmaster General I left the House and I was informed by his department that unemployed people in my riding could go to the nearest unemployment office to get their UIC cheques. My question of privilege is that for the majority of the unemployed people in my riding, and in many ridings across the country, the nearest UIC office is 70 miles away. Is the minister suggesting that the unemployed in this country, who have other things to do, should travel 140 miles to get their unemployment cheques?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. My impression is that not much will be accomplished between now and the calling of orders of the day. But with the co-operation of hon. members, and I seek their co-operation at this time-I am sure they would not want this noise to go on all afternoon-I will recognize the minister. The hon. member rose on what might be a supplementary question and the minister might be allowed to reply, following which I will recognize the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster and then call orders of the day. May we have order, please. I call on hon. members to cease this
Oral Questions
shouting across the aisle. It is highly unbecoming, I suggest, to the dignity of this institution if there is any left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would tell the hon. member, in the utmost earnestness, that I am very astonished that he has just been made aware of the fact, since my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration had already told this House last week.


FISHERIES
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, though I would not want to interfere with the Prime Minister any time he wishes to leak part of the budget. Does the government have evidence of overfishing of salmon by the Danes off Greenland in open defiance of the salmon agreement in which the minister took great satisfaction? If this is so, what is the hon. gentleman's next move to be? Where does this leave the Atlantic salmon fishermen and the ban that was imposed?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: As to evidence, the answer is yes, we have evidence of overfishing. As to what we are going to do next, the Internationl Commission for the North Atlantic Fishery meets in June and we shall be dealing with the salmon issue at that time.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister get hold of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and persuade him to get tough with the Danes?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LOBSTERS-SUGGESTED CHANGE OF SEASON DATES BECAUSE OF ICE CONDITIONS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move to another species of fish. Is the minister aware that because of ice in the Gulf of St. Lawrence lobster fishermen are unable to lay lobster traps? Since this situation recurs from year to year, what action does the minister propose to take in future to change the dates of the lobster fishing season to suit these fishermen?


John (Jack) Davis: We have changed the opening dates from year to year depending on natural conditions such as ice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the usual question from the House leader of the Official Opposition, may I ask the government House
1722

April 24, 1974
Export and Import Permits
leader, in light of the undertaking given to the House by the Prime Minister today, when we can expect the very important piece of legislation dealing with excess profits?


Some hon. Members:: Today!


Mr. MacEachen:: The House will be given notice of the bill mentioned by the Prime Minister dealing with profits within a day or so, and we hope to proceed with it as quickly as possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, April 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-4 to amend the Export and Import Permits Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening when I began to speak on the bill which is now before the House I said it was regrettable that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) had not seen fit to table the current 1973 report as required under the Export and Import Permits Act. I pointed out that previous reports have been tabled earlier in the year than this. This is certainly true of the last five years. I can be more explicit. In 1972 the report was tabled on March 3, in 1971 it was tabled on March 29, and in 1970 on February 12. In 1969, it was tabled on March 5 and in 1968 on February 18. These were all reports for the period ending December 31 in the year prior to their being tabled.
I draw attention to this shortcoming because I feel it demonstrates the haphazard, rather careless way in which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is running his department. Presumably as a result of my comments last night, the report for 1973 has now been tabled. Here we are, late in April, with a report just tabled, while in all the years to which I have referred it was tabled well in advance of the present date. This item of legislation proposing amendments to the act has been on the order paper for some time now. Surely the least the House can expect is that the minister should provide the relevant reports under the act within a reasonable time after the end of the year.
The main comment I should like to make today is this. While we are in agreement with the principle of the legislation, we feel this is a measure which cannot be taken lightly. If the minister is correct in saying it is simply enabling legislation and that there is no immediate thought of utilizing the provisions we are being asked to put into the act, we can, of course, all be more relaxed. On the other hand, from what we hear from the other wing of

the government-for example, from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Rroadbent)-we suspect there may be much more in the amendments than most of us read into them.
This is what the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby said, as reported on page 1684 of yesterday's Hansard:
We are gradually inching our way toward some kind of resource management policy by means of amending an act which was originally passed to deal with trade in armaments.
He went on to say, as recorded on the same page:
What we need, and I want to assert this now, is an extension of the two-price system beyond these two commodities to a whole range of other commodities. I will list some of them before I suggest in a general way what the benefits will be from such a program for the people of Canada. I should like to suggest that a two-price system, one for export and one for import, be applied to energy resources-oil, natural gas, coal, uranium and hydroelectric power. In metals, it should include, copper, lead, zinc, gold and silver; in non-metallic minerals, gypsum, salt, asbestos, phosphates, and forest products, including lumber.
I suggest that the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or, preferably, the minister himself on his return, should rise in his place and declare unequivocally the government's purpose in introducing these amendments at the present time. Is it simply enabling legislation, as we have been told? Does the government have no immediate plans to impose export controls on any commodity, or is this bill being eased through the House in a relatively quiet way when in reality it is legislation introducing a two-price system in respect of commodities we produce?
This is an important issue and I think there ought to be extensive debate on it. As I say, there seems to be some conflict between what the official government spokesman tells us about the intent of this bill, and what the unofficial spokesman for the government says-that it is a bill introducing a two-price system into the country. These views should be reconciled and clarified. I say this because on reading section 3 of the act one understands the true import of what the amendment is doing. The section states:
The Governor in Council may establish a list of goods, to be called an Export Control List, including therein any article the export of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes, namely:
At the present time the only items that are cited are certain arms items. The act can also be used to implement an intergovernmental arrangement or commitment which is an understandable power for the government to want to retain. The government also say that the act may be used to ensure that there is an adequate supply and distribution of such articles in Canada for defence or other needs. That is the present section, and the amendment that is being proposed is that certain items may now be included in an export control list. These items are referred to in the amendments before us.
Section 3 of the Export and Import Permits Act is to be amended by adding the following:
(a.l) to ensure that any action taken to promote the further processing in Canada of a natural resource that is produced in Canada is not rendered ineffective by reason of the restricted exportation of that natural resource;
April 24, 1974

It is also proposed to amend the section so that the list may now contain this limiting provision, and I emphasize this:
(a.2) to limit or keep under surveillance the export of any raw or processed material that is produced in Canada in circumstances of surplus supply and depressed prices and that is not a produce of agriculture;
As hon. members are aware, there are two other sections. One deals with agriculture and the other deals with the termination of the present act.
I should like to deal mainly with section 3, the section that has triggered the belief of the NDP that this is in truth their two-price system coming into law.
We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) undertake to meet the first item on the list of four presented by the leader of the NDP. The Prime Minister, I understand, proposes to introduce some more legislation with respect to the review board. I should like to know if there is any chance that this amendment, which was presented in a rather innocuous way, is in truth meeting the number two item on the shopping list of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), namely a two-price system with respect to materials that may be exported from Canada.
I say that because, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) pointed out in the House not too long ago, this is a much too complicated question to be treated in an offhand manner. I am not saying that there are not circumstances in respect of which some type of two-price system is required, but if we are going to a two-price system across the board, leaving it to the government to decide what may or should be included in that system without any reference to parliament, then I think the fear that the Minister of Finance had only a few days ago that we might trigger international consequences could be well founded.
I believe that we in Canada should never forget that exports, in relation to production in this country, represent 71.3 per cent of production. That is a fantastic figure if you review the world comparable figures. That figure is an increase over the 43 per cent for 1960 and 42.5 per cent in 1950. We have been rapidly expanding our exports in relation to production. To tinker with this vast field without due deliberation is exceedingly dangerous. The figure of 73.1 per cent contrasts with the case of the United States, where their exports are 14.4 per cent of total production. The U.S.S.R. has only 7 per cent of their exports in relation to production. We in Canada have almost ten times what the U.S.S.R. has.
When we start talking about a two-price system with respect to the exportation of our commodities, Mr. Speaker, we are really talking about a two-price system in relation to our trade with the United States. We should bear in mind that such trade is very much a two way street. For example, according to the American figures, in 1973 our trade with the United States hit $17.8 billion in exports and our imports from that country were $15.1 billion. As I indicated during the famous football debate, there is a $2.5 billion transfer of invisibles that makes the difference in our trading pattern with the United States.
What I want to indicate is that we should not treat this question of tinkering with our trade patterns very lightly. I could refer to the fact that 21 per cent of the total United States export trade and 26 per cent of their import trade is
Export and Import Permits
with Canada, for example. This is the magnitude of the subject we are dealing with. When we deal specifically with the United States I think we should bear in mind that they rely to the extent of 87 per cent of their requirements on imports of bauxite from foreign sources, asbestos 81 per cent, chromium 100 per cent, cobalt 92 per cent, manganese 95 per cent, nickel 90 per cent, platinum 93 per cent, tin 100 per cent, and tungsten 44 per cent. That is the dependence of the United States on such import items. As I have pointed out, many of these items in gross export-import terms come from Canada.
I urge hon. members to consider these amendments. I would appreciate it if the minister, upon his return, would enter the debate and tell us frankly what he has in mind in the amendments that he is proposing. I think he should satisfy us that he is not trying to do something rather quietly that he does not have the courage to have a full debate on.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I am not turning down categorically the suggestion of a two-price system. What I am saying is that I think it is time that this government was more candid with members of this House and with the people of Canada. If they intend to introduce some policy, let them be explicit and elaborate on it and then let the House judge whether it is worthy of our endorsement.
I think it is most disturbing that we are asked to deal repeatedly with odds and sods of legislation without any over-all industrial strategy or pirn for the control or utilization of the resources of this country. This government is obviously drifting and is responding only to whatever prodding it happens to get from the NDP. This is a sad way to run the country.
I think it is time for members to dig in their heels and tell the government that it is not good enough to give us these little bits of legislation, that they claim are designed to serve some purpose, without giving us some over-all approach or strategy as to how they can operate both economically and in the resource field in the coming years.
In the past year the administration of this act has become more harsh than it has been in previous years. From a report I received just a few minutes ago, I notice that the number of applications for export and import permits has gone up. Of 20 suspected violations of the Export and Import Permits Act which have been investigated, charges are being laid in seven cases.
There was a conviction in one case; the others have not been decided. This is the first time there have been so many prosecutions under the act. In committee we shall want to know why the number of prosecutions has suddenly increased. Why are people being convicted for contravening the act? I ask this as for many years there was little trouble with the administration of the act in the sense that few people committed infractions.
We want to see this bill go to committee. We are dealing with a highly technical field. Although this debate is all very well, in the final analysis many of the questions which we feel proper to consider can only be dealt with in committee. We shall reserve our judgment until we have heard the evidence which may be produced before the
1724

April 24, 1974
Export and Import Permits
committee. After that we can decide what will become of this proposed legislation.
I say this particularly as the bill seeks to eliminate the termination date of the act, which otherwise would expire on July 31 of this year. The minister proposes that deadlines for extension periods be abolished and that the statute be permanent. His reasons may be right. He told us yesterday why he thinks this legislation is justified. Our spokesman, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), thought his reasons were acceptable. We want to hear the minister's reasons confirmed in committee, and to that extent we agree that the committee should review this bill and, in so doing, try to determine what is the real thinking and planning behind the bill.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to place on record some thoughts on Bill C-4 which has been brought forward partly to repeal section 27 of the Export and Import Permits Act which is due to expire in July, 1974, and to make amendments to the regulations.
This relatively innocent law has not been made use of too often in the past. It was first enacted to control the export of munitions of war, so it is quite understandable that export licences were required under the act. We are now entering the era of the two-price system. GATT regulations, trade regulations and traditional tariffs which protected industry and which at least had the advantage of being visible and consistent are being replaced by export and import permits. So I think it behooves us to consider this legislation carefully. Certainly it can be effective in bringing about a two-price system, as happened with oil.
This bill is a further example of government interference in the export market. It is an attempt to control and direct the export market for our producers and, of course, to control the importation of products, particularly food, the existence of which on our market could be considered inimical to our producers. This is largely an anti-trade bill. Obviously, it will increase the possibility of non-tariff trade barriers being erected in the rest of the world.
It is interesting to speculate on the export control list which will permit the cabinet to restrict the export of any natural resource produced in Canada if our national policy requires further processing of the product in this country. That, I think, has been brought in as a reaction to the comments of the leader of the NDP, who suggested in October, 1972 that we should slow down resource development and protect future Canadian jobs by requiring that resources be fully processed in Canada in the future. In addition, the NDP leader called for the government to put export and price controls on steel, lumber, some building materials, some minerals and some food products. The response of the February 27 throne speech was an amendment to the Export and Import Permits Act to provide the government with better means for stabilizing the Canadian market. Although such controls have been imposed on wheat, to some extent on feed grains and on oil, they have not been imposed on other commodities.
I now want to comment on the inherent philosophy of these amendments, as they affect our trading with the world. Recent wild fluctuations in commodity markets made a two-price system seem attractive for us, but I am

not so sure it is the answer to our difficulty. Consider what happened on commodity markets this past summer. As an editorial in Country Guide put it:
To understand what happened ... you've got to go back to 1970 when the U.S. and Canadian governments increased the money supply at more than twice the rates required by actual growth in gross national production. The inevitable result was inflation and subsequent devaluation of the dollar on international money ...
... the U.S. delayed devaluation by forcing foreign governments to build up huge holdings of U.S. currency and Japan ended up owning billions of U.S. dollars. When Japan realized it stood to take a terrible drubbing because the dollar was in deep trouble, it looked for a way out. World commodity markets offered an escape.
The commodity futures market normally offers buyers and sellers protection against price swings. Producers know in advance what they will receive for their products and manufacturers want to lock in prices for commodities they will need in future. Speculators who neither produce nor consume but try to make money by trading normally provide enough trading volume to allow the market to work in an orderly and efficient manner. Most of the time this system works quite well.
In 1973 things got out of hand. The huge Russian purchase of United States wheat mopped up world wheat surplus. Japan began to realize it could protect itself against the imminent dollar devaluation by buying commodity futures. In addition, the American practice of holding down interest rates to unreasonably low levels made it cheap for foreigners to borrow money with which to speculate. What happened? The price of soybeans went almost through the roof, and when the price settled, there was a marked change in price levels. That action prompted this government to impose export regulations in this country. During the soybean crisis we put flax and rapeseed under the export permit regulations.
The problem is that it is fine for us to restrict exports when it is in our own interests to do so, but we become terribly upset when other nations have the same idea, sometimes with much more national reason than we. The whole premise of the import-export idea is that it is better not to trade under certain circumstances. Furthermore, the use of import-export controls sets up a chain reaction that does not stop with the initial action by the government concerned.
With the behaviour of the commodity market last year and the sudden demand for soybeans, the price went skyhigh. The Americans put a ban on soybeans which was equivalent to our export ban. We in turn put a ban on the export of oil seeds from Canada. What happened? It brought cries from countries in the world which depend on our rapeseed and American soybeans. We were accused of withholding supplies and being unstable suppliers by the traditional importers around the world.
At the present time soybeans are plentiful. This is partly because Brazil is entering the export market with large amounts of soybeans to take over that portion of the market the Americans lost.
Let us take a look at what happened to the North American beef situation. Here again we have export controls on beef. The freeze on prices in the United States last summer caused the feedlot operators to withhold their
April 24, 1974

cattle from the market. The supply dried up and the price went up. However, there was no price restriction on imported beef from abroad, so the Canadian beef was drawn off and the price rose. This caused a reaction from the Canadian government and a ban was placed on the export of Canadian cattle. This is an example of where the export control is working.
The ban was not selective in that it stopped the export of the traditional feeder cattle from the west to the United States and caused chaos in the western market. I know of one instance where a feeder moved his operation from southern Manitoba to the Dakotas because of this ban. He stayed there.
At the present time, with the drop in the American consumption of meat, especially beef, of between 20 and 30 pounds per person, and with both the American and Canadian beef population at a very high level, the beef producers are again in trouble, particularly with the high price of feed grains.
We responded with banning American beef by the convenient use of DES as a means of justification. This has caused comment among the American trading people. They have talked about retaliation. I understand there will be a meeting in Calgary with the officials of the two countries to try and iron out the difficulties so that this import-export ban in which we both indulge may be settled. If not, we can look for the complete separation of the cattle industry in the North American market.
In the long run, the net effect of preventing the flow of meat products across the border will mean higher prices for Canadian consumers without any corresponding benefit to Canadian producers. Like the auto pact, the meat industry is largely an exchange. If we are going to prevent this exchange, we can expect dislocation. An example of this is hogs. I understand bacon is exported in large quantities and hams are brought in to balance. This is not a bad idea.
Use of export-import controls causes many problems. Use of an export control to determine what products will be exported certainly raises many questions. It really implies that some government official in Ottawa acting under the authority of the minister will have to make decisions about which he is not particularly cognizant. They will be complicated. He will not be familiar with all the problems. The further you get from Ottawa the more you realize that decisions are made by government officials who do not have proper knowledge of the real problem. Fortunately, they may not be that important to the country; however, they are often very important to the individual.
What criteria will determine at what level the state of manufacture of a product has to be? It is also necessary to decide what natural resources are to be affected by export restrictions. That really means that regions of the country can be discriminated against with impunity. This raises several questions. If natural resources cannot be exported in what is considered a desired form, should they be exported at all? An example might be wheat.
Many years ago we had a thriving flour export along with the normal exports of wheat. This has dropped way down. Developing countries and other countries are grind-
Export and Import Permits
ing their own wheat to be made into flour. If we stopped exports of commodities that are not fully processed, we would not export any wheat.
This raises the problem at what level we should export. I agree with the hon. member who just spoke that this is a question of trade. If we do not export, we will not be able to import. It raises the whole question of our stance in world trade. Are we to share our resources with the world, or do we keep them only for our own use? If we restrict our trade with the world and the total volume of trade breaks down, will international anarchy and wars result? There are feelings that the resources of the world should be pooled, at least to some degree. For example, should the price of oil be allowed to rise, causing great consternation in the developing countries?
The purpose of trade is to allow political units to have effective use of each other's products. When trade breaks down, standards of living fall correspondingly. Obviously the use of import and export permits is a trade barrier, and in many ways these permits have considerable disadvantages over tariffs.
Since coming to Ottawa I have been interested in studying tariffs, which I never thought were a very good idea, as opposed to quotas. We now have the export and import means of changing trade. I find that tariffs have at least one advantage. They are visible, and an importer or exporter can survey them and assess what can be done in the way of trade in his particular circumstances. However, trade plans become much more vulnerable and uncertain when at a minute's notice the cabinet can disrupt and cause cessation of any normal trading pattern.
Import and export controls should not be undertaken lightly. Perhaps tariffs have a place with regard to the control of goods going out and coming in. The use of quotas often brings better results than the use of any import or export regulations.
At the present time we are debating the relative value of a two-price system. Let me cite an example in respect of wheat. We are selling some 60 million bushels of wheat within the domestic market for considerably less than it is being sold for in world markets. What does this mean to the producer? It means he gets somewhat less than the world market price, and as a consequence his ability to produce is restricted by that amount. We all realize that the Americans, who represent one of our main competitors in the export of grain, do not have this situation, and in this way they are better equipped to penetrate and capture world markets than are we.
What is the situation in respect of the production and processing of minerals? We have had a two-price system on copper for a number of years, with the result that the price returned to the producer is obviously a combination of world and domestic pricing. So the producer receives less than he would if the copper was sold on world markets alone. What is the answer? The answer is that he does not work the ore bodies at the lower level which he might work if he was receiving world market prices for his copper.
Conservationists suggest we should be using all our low-grade ore and low-grade crude in the old fields. It is a

April 24, 1974
Export and Import Permits
well-known fact that if the price of oil rises high enough a great deal of crude can be extracted from our old fields and used. Presumably this is a wise conservation practice.
I certainly feel that the two-price system is bad in the long run and should only be used under certain special circumstances; otherwise the situation will remain as though the world price was prevailing both in and out of the country.
I think Canadians who are dependent on trade cannot divorce themselves from the world situation. They must expect to receive world prices and to pay world prices for what they consume. In that way Canadians will enjoy the highest standard of living possible; and I think it is because we have accepted our place in world markets that we do enjoy our present high standard of living.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on Bill C-4, to amend the Export and Import Permits Act. I find the amendments offered in this piece of legislation extremely interesting. While the bill is not very extensive, we find that the proposed new first paragraph would permit the Governor in Council to restrict the exportation of any article that is a product of a natural resource of Canada or where national policy requires the further processing of that product in Canada.
The explanatory note then goes on to suggest that the proposed new paragraph would permit the Governor in Council to restrict the exportation of raw or semi-finished materials, other than agricultural products, produced in Canada in circumstances of surplus supply and depressed prices. I think this is a very welcome change. Let me point out that this party has for years been pressing governments at the federal level to bring about policies which would ensure that we manufacture a larger percentage of our raw materials within the confines of our own country than we do at the present.
There is no doubt that Canada is a great trading nation, and to the detriment of the Canadian economy we have in the past relied too heavily on the export of raw materials from the abundance we have in this great nation. We now see, in 1974, as we have for a number of preceding years, extremely heavy unemployment in Canada. While we are wealthier than we have ever been, and while in terms of export trade we have never shipped as much to other countries as we are shipping now, we have an increasing growth in our unemployment rates.
Let me give hon. members an example. It just does not make sense to rip out our non-renewable resources and get rid of them, often at fire sale prices, without looking to the future and planning what to do about the industrial future of this nation. One of the weaknesses of both Liberal and Tory governments in the past few years has been the lack of an industrial strategy for this nation. The old philosophy has been to dig out the raw material and get rid of it at any price.
I do not think anyone will question the suggestion that for every worker you have in the extractive industries- and let us take mining as an example-there is an increasing number in those industries which process the raw materials into finished products; that the further down the line you go and the more refining you do in the manufac-

turing of products, the more labour intensive the industry becomes and the more men and women are hired to do the job.
Let me take hon. members back to British Columbia where I live. We have a vast copper resource in British Columbia. Practically all our copper concentrates are shipped from the province to the United States and Japan. We do not even have a smelter to turn the copper ore into ingots which could be shipped. The establishment of a copper smelter in British Columbia would provide employment for an additional 1,000 or 2,000 people. Why should we stop there? Why do we not go a little further, for example in producing copper wiring or tubing? Again this would provide thousands and thousands of jobs for Canadians living in Canada, instead of the manufacturing taking place in some other country which ships the finished product back. This is faulty economy, and it is stupid on the part of government to allow this type of policy to grow and encompass Canada from one end to the other.
As I say, it is time we developed an industrial strategy for Canada which looks to the future and makes certain that we provide opportunities for those who will follow in the years to come. There is much more that could be said about the processing of raw materials in Canada and the need for Canada to nurture its non-renewable resources. These non-renewable resources are limited. The time will come when we will be in trouble unless we again take measures to ensure that there is a continuity of supply for future Canadian use.
Tied in very closely with this is another aspect of industrial development which is very important. I refer to the use of energy. Again Canada has not been too wise. We are in the export field so far as oil is concerned; over half of our oil is exported. We find that our reserves are low with just a ten-year supply left. When these reserves are exhausted we will have to start moving to the more expensive tar sands, and hopefully to the reserves in the north and in the east if they are found in sufficient quantities to warrant development.
In addition, we export vast quantities of natural gas. If we are to have an industrial strategy and industrial future in this nation, we must plan now. Because if we get into the field of extensive manufacturing, one thing is certain; we will need far more energy than we are using today. Again this is part of the over-all planning which is required by this government in this particular day and age.
A number of members have spoken about a two-price system in Canada. I am not opposed to it. I think a two-price system, for example for oil, is an excellent idea. I regret that we ever allowed the price of oil to rise above the $4 a barrel level to the $6.50 per barrel level which the government negotiated with the premiers of the various provinces just about a month ago. It seems to me that at the price at which we are selling oil in Canada, $6.50 does not represent the production cost of that oil. Even at the price of $4 at the wellhead in Alberta-and Alberta is the province with the largest amount of oil reserves since over

85 per cent of our supply originates there-the oil companies were making unprecedented profits.
For example, in the first quarter of this year we find that Imperial Oil increased its profit over the same period last year by over 100 per cent. This is a fantastic increase, and an increase based on the $4 level at Edmonton. Now the price has gone up to $6.50, and we will be seeing profits that will be difficult to believe made by all these oil corporations over the next few years. This again is part of the industrial strategy that is tied in with this piece of legislation.
There are several amendments to the act, but there is one point I should like to speak on very briefly because it affects a little company in my riding of Kootenay West. This has to do with an article which is imported into Canada. I should like the minister to take this situation into consideration because perhaps there might be a further amendment to the bill currently before us added at the committee stage. We have in Kootenay West a chainsaw manufacturing company which exports 85 per cent of its production to over 20 countries around the world. About 20 per cent of the total production goes to Europe, 10 per cent goes to countries on the Pacific rim, and the balance goes to the United States.
The total amount involved in the export of this product will exceed $4 million this year, which is a very substantial addition to both the economy and our total export of manufactured goods. Less than 15 per cent of the product content of this factory is of foreign origin. This company has been able to compete successfully with other manufacturers.
There is a problem, however, regarding the importation of certain components used in the manufacture of these chainsaws which I feel is both detrimental and unfair to this particular company. I refer to the type of pistons imported by the company for its chainsaw manufacturing operation. The real problem is that the class and kind categories upon which import duties are based seem to be far too broad in scope. There is some control in the class qualification but it is too broad in scope. Canadian manufacture of pistons is rather limited but because of this they are classified as being subject to duty. I am, of course, referring to the pistons imported by this company.
This chainsaw company recently put out inquiries to nearly 50 potential suppliers in Canada and found that the bulk of the piston production in Canada is captive to either their competitors or to people in unrelated fields. Those firms not captive are not properly equipped to make the product at the volume levels required, as they are either very small operations or oriented toward the replacement component field rather than the original equipment field. The quotations received for the tooling of these pistons ranged from five to ten times that quoted by the non-domestic suppliers, and the unit cost of the product offered runs from three to seven times that now paid to non-domestic suppliers. These price ranges make the product non-competitive in Canada.
The application of protective tariffs to cover Canadian manufacture which does not exist should be closely examined in view of the experience of this company to which I have referred. The final result, so far as this company is concerned, is that it pays a substantial import duty on
Export and Import Permits
certain components which it cannot obtain in Canada, which thus raised the end cost of the manufactured product which is sold primarily on the export market. Needless to say this makes competition in foreign markets that much more difficult.
I see no reason that the department cannot make changes to either the legislation or the regulations to meet this specific problem. Perhaps a yearly import permit, renewed annually, would suffice and still give protection to any Canadian company which might eventually become involved in this specific component manufacturing field. Until we reach that stage I am of the opinion that an import permit should be allowed this company.
There are other items which also are included in this unfair duty classification field. Examples could be shown of manufacturing equipment on which heavy import duties are levied although no comparable equipment is manufactured here. This is the reason I draw this situation to the attention of the minister and urge perhaps a more thorough overhaul of the act than the few amendments offered in this bill.
In closing, let me say I trust that the minister and the committee will take into consideration the points which I have raised, and I trust that they will be able to come up with some kind of amendment or suggestion which will at least alleviate the problem which this company in Kootenay West is experiencing. I want to say again that I believe the legislation is good, and it is my intention to support it, particularly in view of the restrictions which it will place on the export of raw materials to other countries. I trust that the department responsible will make certain that we will fully protect future Canadian interests so far as the export of our raw materials is concerned.


Mr. Dan Hollands (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this bill to amend the Export and Import Permits Act I should like to say that I am concerned about some of the clauses. I think they will certainly have to be studied in much greater detail and explanations will have to be given regarding some of them.
I should like to refer to clause 2, which reads as follows:
(a.l) to restrict, for the purpose of supporting any action taken under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act, the importation in any form of a like article to one produced or marketed in Canada the quantities of which are fixed or determined under that act;
According to the explanatory notes, section 5(1) of the act provides:
The Governor in Council may establish a list of goods, to be called an Import Control List, including therein any article the import of which he deems it necessary to control for any of the following purposes,-
Are we to understand from this bill that if there is a shortage of a product in Canada we will be able to control the import of this product into Canada? If we have a product surplus, such as is the case these days with pork, the domestic price of which has been driven down to a level which is almost disastrous for the industry, will that influence the export of this product to Japan? It has been the policy of the province of Alberta to go out into the markets of the world and try to find a buyer for many of

April 24, 1974
Export and Import Permits
our surplus agricultural products on a long term basis, based on the cost of production in Alberta.
I should like to refer to the recently signed agreements with Japan with regard to pork. The price negotiated in the last contract has been approximately 56 cents a pound, basis packers in Edmonton. The domestic price of pork is approximately 37 cents a pound. So we see that it is a real advantage to those farmers who are fortunate enough to have signed this contract to sell their product at a better price than they can get in this country. However, if in six months from now the position is reversed and we find the producers of pork not supplying the Canadian market, does that mean that we will have to limit our exports on the long term contracts which we have signed?
We might also consider the fertilizer industry. In my riding of Pembina there are two fertilizer plants, and there is another one in Calgary. The fertilizer plants are dependent on other markets than Canada, and there are many reasons for this. For a number of years, the price of farm products such as grain has been so low that it has not been economical for farmers to buy fertilizer. But all of a sudden, because of the increase in the price of grain, farmers now have money and are placing orders at the plants for fertilizer which will probably be in excess of their production. But if we curtail that export to the United States, we will damage the long term contracts which they have. We must also remember that the phosphorus rock which is used in the manufacture of fertilizer comes from Florida. I wonder what kind of a response we would get from that state if we were to forbid the export of fertilizer to the United States.
I should like to mention also rapeseed. When the government became so concerned last fall that there would not be enough protein in Canada, they put a ban on the sale of rapeseed. I cannot for the life of me understand why we would ban the export of a product that was in surplus supply in this country. Only a limited amount of rapeseed can be used in animal feeds. There is a type of acid in that seed which makes it unsuitable for livestock feed, and we could have moved it out of the country had we chosen not to limit its export.
To go to another matter-and I am sure this is a tragedy which the livestock industry in Canada will remember for a long time-let me point out that through no fault of their own the producers of beef have been put into the position of losing thousands and thousands of dollars. The House will recall that black Monday in September when the government announced that the controls on the price of beef would be dropped. There was confusion in all the markets in Canada and it was the first time in history that the public stockyards in Canada were closed. Imports were coming in on a day to day basis, and all of a sudden we used the DES argument to keep American cattle out of Canada.
I should like to say that in exceptional cases, such as in the case of beef when the deliberate action of another government caused problems which we now have in the cattle industry, some import controls are certainly necessary. I think that those controls should have been applied earlier so that the industry might have had an opportunity to adjust and perhaps partly rectify the international situation that has developed.

When we talk about imports and exports we must realize that Canada must be an exporting country and that we must be prepared to honour our long term commitments regarding the export of our products. Closing our doors one year and opening them another could only damage the long term prospects for the export trade upon which we depend so greatly. I hope this bill will receive careful examination in committee and that changes will be made in it to ensure there will be no restriction of production in Canada.


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

John (Jack) Davis: that Bill C-3, to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-3 is an important piece of legislation. Passed into law it will become an important weapon in the government's armoury for dealing with pollution. Described as the Environmental Contaminants Act, it will set up a screening process. It will ensure that man-made substances will be checked out thoroughly before they are produced in this country and sold to an unsuspecting public.
We are, all of us, concerned about the quality of life. This new law will give the federal government the power not only to ask for, and get information about, substances which may be harmful to the environment, but also to take steps to control their use. Some products may also be banned. The idea is that artificial or unnatural substances should be spotted well ahead of time. They should not be sold in large numbers or vast quantities and broadcast around the country before we know what their environmental effects are likely to be. They should be checked over carefully before they are scattered around and before the cost of recovery and recycling gets out of hand.
Obviously we are moving into a preventative phase of our war against pollution. We are moving ahead of events rather than following in their wake. Bill C-3 is designed to stop pollution before it starts. Our new Environmental Contaminants Act will put us into the business of prevention rather than cure. We will not have to go around picking up non-degradable plastics after they have been produced and sold in their millions; we will make sure that they are not manufactured or imported in the first place.
With this new law on our statute books we shall be in a position to demand information, not only about substances already in use in this country but also about products in their early developmental stages as well. Data about their chemical characteristics, their biological qualities and
April 24, 1974

their persistence in our natural surroundings will be assembled. Statistics as to how much may be sold and how these substances may accumulate in our natural food chain can also be collected. With this information, we shall be in a position to see whether the new substance, or family of substances, will have a harmful effect on our environment and on human health in this country. Its impact on our quality of life will be known in advance. It will be known before it is mass produced and before it gets into our natural environment in a big way.
This legislation, aimed at dealing with environmental contaminants before they contaminate our natural surroundings, has not been developed in a vacuum. We have been in close consultation with industry. We have also sought the advice of the provinces. Numerous changes have been made and a number of suggestions have been incorporated in Bill C-3 to make it more effective. There is a minimum of red tape involved. There is no overlapping with existing laws. Our new Environmental Contaminants Act will fill in gaps in existing legislation. It will backstop other laws, federal and provincial. It will round out environmental legislation in this country. It will also help government to work more closely with industry in the development of new products, the production and use of which is beneficial to all concerned.
If I may draw an analogy, the new Environmental Contaminants Act is akin to the screening of new kinds of foods and new kinds of drugs. Industry is responsible not only for developing new ideas but also for vetting them ahead of time. Government will call for certain kinds of tests to be made and industry must make them. Industry must pay for the testing procedures and it must produce information on the environmental consequences of these ideas or products which government will be insisting upon before they become commercially marketable.
Our basic policy in so far as pollution is concerned is that the polluter shall pay. In this case the potential polluter will pay for the screening of his products. He will include the cost of carrying out the necessary tests in the cost of developing the new idea or product he hopes to sell at some future date. Environment Canada personnel will give the manufacturer certain guidelines. They will outline procedures and set standards. But most of the scientific and other staff needed in the screening process will be employed in the private sector. Most of the equipment and most of the testing will also be done there. Government will have a hand in this screening all right, but the federal taxpayer will not have to foot the bill. The company or industry in question will have to meet most, if not all, of the expenses involved in this process, the main purpose of which is to prevent pollution from occurring in the first place.
I said earlier that we have worked closely with industry in this connection. The reaction from trade associations and individual firms has been good. Chemical companies, in particular, would like to have their products screened before they go to the expense of manufacturing them on a large scale, because the losses involved in their being banned at a later date are bound to be large. An early warning system is best not only from the public's point of view but from a corporate point of view as well.
Environmental Contamination
What are we talking about here? We are talking mainly about artificial, man-made substances. We are talking about chemicals. We are talking about substances many of which have never existed on this planet before. We are talking about things which are either poisonous in nature or which do not readily break down in nature. If they are likely to accumulate in large quantities in the food chain and have ill effects not only on human beings but also on other forms of life, animal and vegetable, then they may be restricted or banned under our new Environmental Contaminants Act.
Perhaps I should go back a bit and give hon. members a few examples. Metallic mercury would have been dealt with directly under this legislation had it been in place in 1970 when we first found that this poisonous metal was escaping from our chlor-alkali plants. We used the Fisheries Act because mercury had a deleterious effect on fish. But mercury had a harmful effect on birdlife also and posed a serious threat to human health as well. As I say, we could have dealt with the so-called mercury crisis more effectively using Bill C-3, but the most effective approach would have been to screen mercury out of these various chemical processes ahead of time. We would have known about its effects in advance and we would have restricted or banned its use before, and not after, it got out into the air and into the local rivers and streams.
Phosphates in detergents constitute another case in point. When the Canada Water Act was being drafted- and that act deals primarily with the management of water in the physical sense of the word-a section was added to deal specifically with the phosphate question. We have cut back, progressively, on the phosphate content of detergents manufactured or imported for sale in this country. We have cut the content from 20 to 30 per cent to less than 5 per cent. This is in contrast to what has been done in the United States where, by and large, phosphates have not been limited and have had to be taken out at great expense to the taxpayer.
We did a lot of testing along the way. We made sure that a figure of 5 per cent or less would have a minimum effect on water quality in Lake Erie, for example. We drew up protocols for testing and we set standards. We called the industry in and we insisted, using these special sections in the Canada Water Act, on its cutting down on the phosphate content in our Canadian soaps and detergents. This we did in order to prevent the unnecessary fertilization or enrichment of our inland waterways. We saved our municipalities a lot of money because we did not put these enriching substances into our sewers in the first place. I am told that the capital cost saving in this case is in the order of 50 per cent. It shows the economic benefit of following the prevention rather than the cure approach to contamination and protection of the environment in this country.
If we had had an Environmental Contaminants Act back in those days we would not have had to add a few special sections dealing with phosphates to the Canada Water Act. In future we will be able to use either of these pieces of legislation in dealing with phosphates, but there are many other substances which are harmful from an environmental point of view. They are not covered in the Canada

April 24, 1974
Environmental Contamination Water Act, and we need a broader piece of legislation to deal with them as they are developed and offered for our use in the future.
A third example is a group of compounds, the so-called chlorinated hydrocarbons like DDT. They are also chemical in nature. They are, most of them, extremely harmful from a biological point of view. We have to keep them under control. Many of them, environmentally speaking, should never see the light of day. Like the PCB's, they are a contaminant in the worst sense of the word. We should not allow them to be produced in any quantity. Certainly they should never be allowed outside the factory fence. They are an emphatic no-no, from an environmental point of view. They should be stopped in their tracks and a new Environmental Contaminants Act is needed to make sure they never leave the laboratory, let alone be produced on a pilot scale anywhere in this country.
Having given a few examples, I should now like to describe, in a more general way, what is meant by an environmental contaminant. Environment Canada, in requesting information about new products from chemical and other firms, will be asking about their chemical, biological and toxicological properties. It will be asking these firms about their persistence in the environment. It will be asking the firms to anticipate the way in which these new products or class of products will be dispersed in our natural surroundings. Environment Canada will want them to anticipate the manner in which they will be concentrated in some of our foodstuffs or in substances which are consumed by other living things. How might they be sold and with what limitation? Do they break down naturally and can they eventually be assimilated in our natural scheme of things? And, otherwise, what measures, if any, are being made for their recycling and recovery by industry?
We need this information urgently because literally hundreds of new chemicals are being introduced into our local environment every year. Some of them should be withdrawn; that is after the event. But many others can be intercepted in the future; that is ahead of the event. It is the ahead of the event operation which our new Environmental Contaminants Act is all about. However, it can also be used to deal with harmful substances which are already making a mess of things and which, using any reasonable standard of environmental housekeeping, should be withdrawn from the market today.
There is reference in Bill C-3 to a schedule. This is a schedule or list of substances which will either be restricted or banned by Environment Canada. The naming of a substance to a schedule, in other words, withdraws it from circulation or, as is much more likely in the future, will prevent it from being manufactured or imported in the first place. The list will undoubtedly grow as time goes by. Occasionally, on further testing, some names of substances may be deleted from the schedule, but these are likely to be exceptions rather than the rule. More and more chemical-type substances will be banned or limited because we are becoming more inventive all the time. Chemical-type industries are expanding faster than most other activities and the diversity of their output is proliferating with the passage of time.

The Minister of the Environment will obviously need a lot of advice. There is provision in Bill C-3, therefore, for the setting up of advisory committees. These will be established to hear representations from interested parties- that is to say, manufacturers, importers, users and others who may be directly affected by this new law-or concerned members of the public whose advice will also be sought in order to help the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to decide on the names of products or groups of products which should be added to the schedule and which should not.
Bill C-3 also provides for the creation of ad hoc boards of review. This provision was included at the request of industry. It will give any company or individual affected by this legislation an opportunity to state his or her case. Producers, importers, etc., will therefore have an avenue of appeal open to them. These industry-oriented boards of review will have powers and responsibilities similar to those already enjoyed by the board of review under our Canadian Hazardous Products Act.
Still on the subject of relations with industry, I would like to say this: We do not want to be working at cross purposes. We want industrial development in the sense of new industry and new products. We want more industry, better industry, in order to generate more and better jobs. But we do not want, at the same time, to be spewing out hundreds of additional products every year, a sizeable number of which are harmful to our natural environment. We want to preserve quality while enjoying more in the sense of quantity. We want to maintain, and if possible improve, our quality of life while, at the same time, enjoying a rising material standard of living.
This legislation certainly goes with the grain of nature. I believe that it can also go with the grain of development. A forward looking industry does not really want to produce a product or class of products which is going to be banned at a later date. It does not want to get a bad name for producing something which is frowned upon by a large segment of our population, So an early screening process makes a lot of sense, not only from an environmental point of view but also from an economic point of view. It makes a lot of sense to developers who want to see a good financial return on their investment, and a good financial return means many years of successful sales. Continuity in sales means compatibility with the rest of the marketplace and the marketplace of modern man is much more sensitive to the needs of our environment than it was even a few short years ago.
Bill C-3, our new Environmental Contaminants Act, breaks new ground. It breaks new ground on the environmental front. But it is not unprecedented in the sense that we have similar screening arrangements in respect of foods and drugs and other hazardous substances. It is new or advanced in the sense that no other country has gone as far as we are going in this connection. A similar bill is before Congress in the United States. Similar legislation is already in effect in Sweden, but is not quite as good as ours. It does not involve as close a liaison with the private sector as ours does.
I commend this legislation to all members in this House, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a good bill and one which merits the whole-hearted support of all hon. members here. I
April 24, 1974

hope it does not take too long on second reading and that it goes quickly to committee for detailed examination. I am prepared to accept changes if they are reasonable and if they go along with our main theme, which is one of prevention rather than cure, to stop pollution before it starts. Along with our new system in Environment Canada for screening projects from an environmental point of view, this legislation will help us to preserve the wonders of nature in this country. It will help to ensure that the quality of life in Canada is second to none.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to say on behalf of the official opposition and this House that we welcome this bill and compliment the minister on bringing it forward. One can always say, of course, that it should have come forward sooner. None the less, the minister and the department have been studying a complex subject.
Although it is easy to say that we would have preferred to see this bill several years ago, the bill is here now and we commend the minister for bringing it forward. It is appropriate to say that this bill has serious implications for our future well-being as citizens of Canada, indeed, as citizens of the world. Let there be no mistake: all members of the House support the principle of the bill. Those outside this House who in the last year have taken pot shots at what they call radical environmentalists in this House should understand clearly that this legislation has not been introduced through any desire to interfere unduly with the legitimate activities of others but that, rather, without legislation of this kind any debate about undue interference with anybody's rights could rapidly become an academic exercise.
May I draw to the attention of the House an article in this morning's Globe and Mail entitled "Disastrous pollution threat seen in organic compounds use", which I shall read:
A potentially disastrous pollution threat is mounting from the uncontrolled use of organic compounds in industrial processes, says a U.S. biologist employed by the Mitre Corp., a Washington-based environmental assessment agency.
Robert Ouellette, formerly of Montreal, said yesterday that the compounds-many of which are used in the plastic, paint and paper industries-are especially dangerous to man because they can penetrate human membranes.
These compounds-such as benzyne, phenols and alpha benzpyrene-could become the real offenders to man's survival in the future, he said during an interview at the Royal Society of Canada's symposium on waste recycling and the environment.
The man-made organic compounds were used as solvents and chemical binders to make synthetic products from nylons to plastic cups, and are disposed of as waste in the air, soil and water with little understanding of potential harm.
He described their hazard as the spinoff of a burgeoning synthetic-products industry created to appease a throw-away society.
Although there are literally millions of the compounds with undetermined potential for harm, benzyne is known to damage the liver, phenols have corrosive properties and alpha benzypreme is believed to cause cancer, said Mr. Ouellette, head of the corporation's environmental systems department.
The compounds-80 per cent of which are unavailable to the public and only used industrially-are already entering the food chain from pesticide residues, he said.
Environmental Contamination
Because the compounds were soluble in water or fat, they could penetrate human membranes, which are intended to keep foreign substances out of the body, and damage vital organs.
He described the compounds as 'non-perceived pollutants', meaning that the scientific community was only now beginning to focus on the threat. Also, the hazards of organic compounds were poorly understood and laws generally didn't deal specifically with them.
It is incumbent on members of parliament to make certain that members of the public understand why this legislation is necessary and that it must be passed and enforced. I am concerned about the form of the legislation. The minister indicated that the intent of the legislation is to prevent the manufacture and use of certain substances before we discover to our disadvantage or peril that these substances are dangerous. The definition of "dangerous substance" is wide enough to cover all substances known, unknown, invented or not invented, which can cause difficulties.
I am somewhat concerned about the way the bill has been drafted. It puts the onus on the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) or on the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) to approach industry, but only when one of those ministers suspects, or has reason to suspect or believe, that a dangerous substance within the meaning of the act is being manufactured or used. The bill does not require the manufacturer or inventor of the substance to give notice to the government of its manufacture or invention, or of its sale. I wonder whether this omission is the result of an oversight on the part of those who drafted the bill, or whether there is a substantive reason for drafting the bill this way. We shall need to examine that aspect in committee.
It will be difficult for the legislation to do what is intended if the onus is placed only on the government. The bill provides that the ministers I have mentioned must suspect that a dangerous substance is being manufactured or used, or have reason so to believe. In view of the vast numbers of these substances, there may be considerable administrative obstacles to discovering which substances are being manufactured, if they are being manufactured, and where. I serve notice that we shall want to look at this aspect in committee. I make this suggestion in a spirit of co-operation and constructive criticism, as we want to pass legislation which will in every way meet the worthwhile intent the minister so clearly expressed.
Another aspect of the bill merits consideration. May I draw to the attention of hon. members clause 5(2), which reads in part:
Where, after consultation as required by subsection (1), the minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare are satisfied that the significant danger referred to in that subsection will not be eliminated by any action taken or proposed to be taken pursuant to any other law and they propose to recommend to the Governor in Council that
(a) an order amending the schedule by adding the substance or class
of substances be made under subsection 7(1) ...
And so on.
That is the first mention of the word "schedule". I take it from that a schedule is indeed contemplated under this act. However, there does not seem to be any operative section that establishes the schedule. It is curious to note on going through the bill that the word "schedule" is

April 24, 1974
Environmental Contamination
repeated a number of times, but again without any reference to an operative part of the bill that establishes this schedule. This may have been an oversight at the time the bill was drafted.
Again in a spirit of co-operation, I want to let the minister know we will want to take a look at this particular wording and see whether we can tidy it up a bit so it makes quite clear that the schedule is established, who established it and what goes into it. From looking at the wording of the bill, it seems that a schedule has been taken for granted, but it is difficult to know just how the schedule is, in fact, established.
As I said before, this bill has the support of the opposition and I think the support of all members in this House. I am conscious of the minister's entreaty that we put this bill through second reading quickly so that we can get it to committee. The intent of the bill is sound and deserves the support of all members of the House. I trust it will receive sympathetic and intelligent understanding from the public.
With those caveats, I again compliment the minister for bringing the bill before us. We will look at it carefully in an effort to tighten it up to achieve the objectives of the bill. I again ask hon. members to support this bill at least in principle at this time.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to speak briefly on the bill currently before us, the Environmental Contaminants Act. I wish to say at the outset that the New Democratic Party welcomes this legislation. We certainly intend to support it. I commend the minister and the government for bringing this legislation forward at this time.
There are several points I wish to bring to the attention of the minister. Before doing so, I caution the members of this House and the general public that quite frequently legislation is brought in by the government which stays on the order paper. While they might be law, the regulations dealing with the environment, for example, are never enforced. I want to make it crystal clear to the members of this House that this is one of the reasons we have rather severe pollution problems facing many parts of Canada today.


An hon. Member:: An hour ago you wanted a smelter.


Randolph Harding: It is not a matter of whether we want a smelter. We have legislation. I am going to give a list of some of the acts on the statute books which have sections in them dealing with various aspects of pollution and which to my knowledge have not been enforced for many years. For example, some time ago I put a series of questions on the order paper dealing with the number of infractions which have taken place against certain sections of certain acts. There is a series of them; the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Harbours Board Act, the Canada Shipping Act, the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the International Rivers Improvements Act, the National Health and Welfare Act, the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act and the Energy, Mines and Resources Act.
With the exception of two or three of these acts-and fisheries is one department where more action has been

taken than any other-we find there has been complete neglect for a period of years by the departments concerned with regard to the policing of certain aspects of pollution which come under those departments.
If this legislation is going to stay on the statute books, not be utilized and not be adequately policed by the department, we will be in the same position as we are today with regard to many sections of other pieces of legislation which could and should have been used in the past to control pollution in Canada. If we had taken all the legislation, federal and provincial, and carried out the pollution regulations already laid down, we would not have a fraction of the pollution problems which now hound Canadians from one end of Canada to the other. Again, it is a matter of enforcement. I trust we will see the minister's department do a real job of policing the legislation we are debating at this time.
Might I make one or two general comments before getting to the bill. As far as I am concerned, protection of the environment is one of the key issues facing every nation of the world today, including Canada. After all, we live on spaceship earth. We think we are a pretty important nation. As far as we know, this is the only sphere circling around which carries life. That life is enclosed in a very narrow envelope of air, ground and water that produces the life support systems that keep mankind and everything alive. If anything happens to it, we have no place to go. We would not be able to go to the moon because we cannot live there. If anything happens to the life support systems which keep mankind alive, we know of no other planet to which we can go. Yet today-and the minister is one of the first to admit it-there are signs of trouble everywhere. They have been apparent for years. Pressure has been brought on government at all levels, municipal, provincial, federal and international, to do something about pollution problems. We have not made the type of progress we should have with such an important problem.
Canada is not the only country with pollution problems. Pollution is worldwide. It is international. Despite this, we find that even the United Nations is having trouble moving effectively in the international sphere to deal with these problems. If there is pollution on the other side of the world, it will affect us in Canada in some way and at some time. That is why eventually we need to have tough international standards and controls. We must ensure they are policed and carried out if we are going to continue to live on this earth for a period of time.
I want to give one or two examples of the foolishness of mankind in the past few years. I will first talk about the nuclear testing that has been taking place. Last year in this House of Commons we moved motions urging the French government not to have atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. We are opposed to any country in the world testing nuclear weapons, whether it is in the atmosphere or underground. This is contamination not of the air over any one country or area but contamination of the air resources throughout the world, and we are the ones who suffer. We must learn to stand up, speak out and fight for the complete elimination and ban of this stupid philosophy which some nations have that they must test nuclear weapons in order to improve their nuclear arsenals and
April 24, 1974

the nuclear weapons they feel they need for protection against someone else. One thing is crystal clear as far as nuclear devices are concerned, and that is that if a nuclear war breaks out mankind is doomed, regardless whether you hear the explosion or the fired shots. This is the story we have to get across not only to the people of Canada but to the people of every nation of the world.
It is for this reason that we welcome this beginning by the government to develop a philosophy and some guidelines in respect of certain products which might be manufactured by companies in years to come. The minister mentioned certain problems in respect of nuclear testing, and he also referred to DDT. The world thought DDT was one of the greatest things ever discovered for mankind, and it is still being used in some areas of the world today. We did not understand what the use of DDT was doing to our food chains through an accumulative effect. We now know that a number of species in various parts of the world are endangered because of the use of DDT. It has been found in the Arctic, the Antarctic and on islands hundreds and thousands of miles from habitation that certain animals and birds have traces of DDT in their systems. DDT has an accumulative effect which works its way through food chains which are absolutely essential to the survival of mankind as well as to the survival of many other species of life on this planet.
This legislation will for the first time attempt to stop this type of production and usage of poisons in the form of contaminants getting into the air, waters and the earth, eventually coming to reside in mankind and doing a tremendous amount of damage. As we look at the bill we see a number of interesting points. I have gone through it very carefully and closely and, as a number of hon. members, feel that many of the points can be dealt with at the committee stage. There are, however, one or two things I should like to draw to the attention of the minister today.
At page 12 there is a reference to a one-year limitation period. If a company allows some contaminant to get into the air or water, it cannot be held responsible for the damage after a period of a year. I suggest in all humility that one year is far too short a period. Let us consider the example used by the minister when he referred to mercury compounds being used in pulp mills. These compounds get into the water and it takes many years before the companies or other individuals realize that mercury poisoning is taking place in these waters because of the use of chloral-alkali. In Canada today we have lakes and rivers in a number of areas still closed to fishing and recreation simply because of mercury contamination which took place many years ago. This is an example of why the one-year period is too short.
I do not think society should be saddled with the cost of cleaning up these contaminated waters, and unfortunately we have been saddled with this cost in the past. If we have to do any cleanups of mercury deposits in our rivers and lakes the cost will come out of the public treasury just as did the cost to clean up DDT and other contamination because we did not lay down regulations in time. I suggest that the minister take a pretty careful look at this part of the bill to see whether there is something that can be done.
Environmental Contamination I think the responsibility of the companies should carry on for longer than the one-year period.
There is another point about which the minister spoke that I think is very interesting, and that is the establishment of an environmental contamination board of review. I think this is a step in the right direction as I feel such a board of review could be extremely useful. The members of this board would certainly have to possess some degree of expertise if they are to investigate and handle these problems, but I would hope that the membership will include laymen who also have knowledge and expertise in this field. Sometimes there is a tendency when we set up these boards to look to the academic world, leaving out others who have a great deal of practical experience, and quite often it is those with the practical experience who can come up with the solutions required in this day and age.
As I indicated earlier, there may be a large number of minor suggestions made during the committee stage. Once the bill reaches the committee I presume we will have a general discussion about the principle contained in the clauses. If we have amendments to offer I can assure the minister that we will see they are drafted well in advance in order that he will have time to look them over and decide whether the incorporation of them in the legislation will improve it or otherwise.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) talked about a schedule. I certainly feel that a schedule setting out the classes of materials to be prohibited should be provided to hon. members at an early date. This is an extremely important and key clause in the bill. One of the key areas is that in respect of percentages of concentrations that will be allowed, and again this is a mighty tricky subject, one that quite frankly I am not competent to judge. I think we must have engineers and biologists who are extremely expert in these fields give us information about the effects of even extremely minute concentrations.
In closing, I should like to make one final suggestion. We must have a definition of "environment" somewhere in this bill. Dictionary definitions are not adequate. We must have a definition which will give us an idea of exactly what we are considering in this bill in the way of the environment. Again, Mr. Speaker, you might not agree that a definiton of environment is necessary, but I certainly feel it is.
Finally, I want to congratulate the minister for bringing down this bill. It is certainly a step in the right direction. I would like to see it get through the committee and I hope we can improve it by amendment so that this environmental legislation will give a lead to other countries to proceed along similar lines.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-3 to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment. As my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) indicated earlier, of course we support

April 24, 1974
Environmental Contamination
this bill and support in particular the fundamental principles of this bill.
It is not my intention at this point in time to actually discuss the details. However, I do wish to indicate I feel there are special features, some of which have been alluded to by others, which will require careful scrutiny by the standing committee. It is my intention to deal with some of these details when the bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. At the outset of my comments I intentionally read the title of the bill and shall repeat it again. It is entitled, "An act to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment".
In my view this contains three important words. I believe they are the crux of the bill and the crux of the problem. Those three words are, "human", "health" and "environment". It is to this area I wish to direct my remarks. When I first read this bill I vividly recalled an examination I had many years ago during my early years of training. At that particular time I was asked to describe the importance of a substance called adenosine triphosphate and the role it played in the normal functioning of the human body. So I proceeded to describe it in terms of its cycle and muscle metabolism, and quite frankly I felt rather satisfied that I had given a satisfactory answer. I have no intention of discussing the biology and physiology of adenosine triphosphate, but the response of the examiner at that time is germane to this debate and to the legislation before us. Because the response I received to my answer was that I had picked one tree out of the forest. I cannot think of a better analogy for the bill that is presently before us. The minister has introduced a bill discussing human health and environment which is limited by clause 2, which is entitled "interpretation," to one principal area which is defined by the words "substance" and "release". Surely in the context of total environmental health we are indeed out of context and are picking one tree out of the forest by limiting ourselves to that extent.
Before I proceed let me place this bill in the proper context. If I may I should like to quote from the bill with specific reference to the words "release" and "substance". These appear at page two of the bill under the interpretation section. I quote:
"substance" means any distinguishable kind of inanimate matter
capable of being dispersed in the environment or a precursor of any
such matter.
I wish to compliment the minister for talking at the outset of his remarks about prevention rather than cure, a most important concept to which I shall allude at some further point.
As I analyze this bill, I interpret it as a fragmented approach to the problems of human health and the environment. I really believe it is an example of the lack of comprehension the minister has for the total area of the problems of human health and the environment. I also believe it indicates a lack of liaison between the Department of the Environment and many other important agencies. What is more important, and what I feel is more tragic, is that it clearly demonstrates there is no over-all government policy dealing with the broad spectrum of the problems we see in terms of human health and the environment.

During the debate on the Speech from the Throne earlier this year I analyzed the health care system in Canada and outlined at that time an action-oriented program dealing with the health problems of Canadians, and more specifically with the environmental health component which I felt was important in approaching the over-all concept of the health of Canadians. I may say also that at that time the Department of National Health and Welfare was sufficiently interested in my comments that they asked for a copy of the document, which I gladly provided.
I suggest that the minister might obtain a copy of that document from his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and review in particular the special area of environmental health, which I think would be most informative for him. Perhaps he has read it, and if so it may have prompted the legislation we have before us. I hope that after he has reviewed it, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare has as well, they may see fit to implement some of the additional proposals discussed in the document.
With regard to that document, I have no hesitation in transmitting it to the department in the hope of course they might establish new health priorities and that we might see some action in many of the health care areas, including environmental health to which I have alluded. It is interesting that rather recently I asked for a similar document in the form of a press release from the Department of National Health and Welfare dated March 25, 1974. I wish to quote a little from this release:
A separate Yukon Region of Northern Medical Services with headquarters at Whitehorse, the territorial capital, as of 1st April 1974, was announced today by Health and Welfare Minister Marc Lalonde.
Further in the release we find this:
The Minister's decision is based on the recommendations of a Medical Services Branch task force under the chairmanship of Dr. Lyall Black, Director General, Program Management. It was charged with examining the feasibility of raising the Branch's Yukon Zone to regional status.
Among the findings on which the task force based its recommendations were:
1.	Northern Region which covers a vast area had encountered serious management problems due in large part to its very size.
2.	The Yukon had good internal communications including transportation and well-developed health services suited to regionalization at minimum cost.
3.	Establishment of the Yukon Region would enable the Northern Region to concentrate its efforts in the Northwest Territories which has a rapidly expanding population and because of its huge area more difficult problems of organization and health delivery operations.
It seemed to me that in performing our function as a constructive opposition such a document as I suggested, which had been prepared by Dr. Lyall Black, should be tabled. I made this request before the standing committee and I was quite upset and annoyed when the ruling of the chairman indicated it would be impossible to have such a document tabled. This was because it was considered to be an internal document and therefore confidential.
If you attempt to analyze the health care field with the usual traditional models, Mr. Speaker, you realize very quickly that it is fragmented, very complex, diverse and subject to many special interest groups. It is this type of
April 24, 1974

setting that has made it impossible to rationalize our health care system and to identify specific problem areas, to set important goals, to set long term objectives, and to decide on the specific program content designed to reach specific populations or programs.
In an effort to break away from these conventional methods of classifying diseases or health into specific categories, such as public health, mental health, dental health, etc., I described a new framework dividing health into four main entities. The first was health care organization and management; the second was human biology; the third, life style health; and the fourth and most important, the one we are discussing today, environmental health.
For those who are interested I would refer members of the House to an excellent article that appeared in the Canadian Medical Association Journal of February 1973 written by Bert Laframboise, who describes this concept in far more detail. Some of you may well be interested in that particular article.
As I indicated previously, this framework permits us for the first time to rationalize our health care system and, what is more important, it prevents us from ignoring any factors that have a deleterious effect on the health of individuals. It is this latter point that is not appreciated by the minister responsible for this bill. Indeed, if it were otherwise, we would be debating a bill encompassing the entire area of environmental health matters.
To put this in its perspective let me briefly review the four categories to which I have alluded, emphasizing in particular the environmental health component which is a subject matter of this bill and which has relevance and importance to the comments I will make.
First, let me turn to health organization and management. This is the traditional component of which all of us are aware. It is the category that contains all aspects of health, manpower, location, the availability of all facilities including hospitals, nursing homes, clinical group practices, etc., and the relationship of people and resources in the health care field. It is that traditional part of health care organization as we know it which encompasses about 95 per cent of the funds for medical services.
I think it is clear that this category has been the primary consideration of all our thinking today. In the past, emphasis has been placed on the building of hospitals, the training of a greater number of professional health personnel. We have enhanced the myth that good medicine equals good health. Further, we have preoccupied ourselves at times with measuring deficiencies in this area through numerous federal and provincial studies, reports and recommendations ranging from the Royal Commission on Health Services, the Hastings Report on Community Health Centres, and the most recent report which was tabled in Ontario.
What is frequently overlooked is the fact that most of our efforts in this field have been, and continue to be, related to the actual discovery and treatment of specific disease processes. Preventive aspects of medicine have frequently been deferred. The minister referred to this earlier and I commend him for this.
Time does not permit a detailed discussion of health care organization and management, but of course there are
Environmental Contamination some clearly defined areas in which we need federal leadership and where problems must be resolved, areas such as physician manpower requirements, health costs, computer technology and regionalization of health care. Perhaps at some later date we can go into these in more detail.
The second category to which I referred earlier was human biology. It includes all aspects of the organic makeup of man, including all relevant research with clinical application and research to improve individual patient care. I should point out that this party has long recognized the importance of medical research and during this session, with the support of some hon. members to my left, we have attempted to have the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) reverse his position with respect to inadequate funding of the Medical Research Council.
May I say that I find there is a similarity between the recent debate on the Medical Research Council and the debate on the bill presently before us. In both instances, a fundamental issue has not been recognized and appreciated by the respective ministers. In the first instance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has not recognized that medical research, medical education and the health care of Canadians are inseparably interrelated. I must point out unequivocally that a viable medical research base is essential for excellence in medical education and, what is more important, fundamental to the delivery of quality medicine to all Canadian citizens. With respect to this bill, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has not recognized and does not appreciate the magnitude of environmental health problems because he is limiting himself to one particular small area.
Now I should like to turn to the third component of this concept to which I referred, namely, the so-called life style health. Life style health refers to those aspects of health over which individuals exert decision making and control. It is quite clear that these decisions are influenced by value systems highly developed within each individual and influenced to a great extent by widely accepted social and cultural determinants.
Many of the past disease categories which were physical in etiology have been overcome and are preventable. We recognize that there is still much to be accomplished in this area, but we also recognize that by looking at the life style factors and the potential years of life a great impact can be made if we put greater emphasis on life style health.
Let me give two or three examples to give some idea as to what I mean by life style health. If tomorrow we could eradicate all cancer in North America, we would increase life expectancy of all citizens by about three years. If tomorrow we could have every Canadian at a normal weight, we would increase life expectancy by between eight to nine years. This is an example of life style health. Look at the principal causes of death for men between the ages of 45 and 64, which are lung disease, bronchitis, emphysema, heart disease and cirrhosis of the liver. Of course we know what the principal precipitating factors for these diseases are: smoking, overeating, high fat food intake, excessive consumption of alcohol. Of course, now we are talking about life style type habits.

April 24, 1974
Environmental Contamination
Now 1 should like to turn to that important category which is really the crux of the bill, that is, environmental health. This category is most important and includes the conventionally accepted environmental factors to which reference has been made today by many members in the House. DDT and phosphates have been mentioned. We know the usually accepted environmental factors, such as pure air, high quality water supplies, control of food processing and handling, disposal of sewage, garbage and waste products. Also there are the following: control of animal and insect vectors of disease, the wise use and storage of pesticides, etc.
In addition, our meaning of environmental health encompasses many more aspects, such as noise control, factors affecting home accidents attributed to poorly designed or constructed houses, poor automobile or highway design, factors which have an impact on mental confusion and fatigue and which do not appear in some areas of work among the labouring class. Others are pressures to succeed in work assignments and in the area of cosmetic manufacture and distribution.
It is obvious that the list of hazards to health is limitless. In considering the improvement of environmental health, several important factors must be considered in any approach to legislation. First, I think it should be recognized that individuals can do little to control threats to environmental health. An individual Canadian can do little about them. The corollary is, of course, that governments are expected to introduce measures to protect the health of all Canadians in this area. The third point is that many areas of environmental pollution are not yet totally understood, and require extensive research. The fourth is this. In the past, because of growing public awareness and interest, the government has sometimes over-reacted by taking decisions the effects of which are far-reaching and in certain cases undesirable. I suspect this goes back to the thalidomide experience.
Let me give the House two examples which I am sure all hon. members will recall-the controversy about cycla-mates, which were eliminated from the market, and the more recent controversy about DES. This is an aspect which must be considered in any projected legislation.
In the establishment of national priorities and the sitting of national standards, a number of equally important factors must be considered before policy decisions are made which will affect accepted social or individual values. Measures to achieve good health effects might involve detrimental economic implications resulting not only in loss of work but in the loss of non-replaceable natural resources. The unwise uprooting of industry, with consequent loss of jobs as the result of health standards which are too high or too inflexible, would be generally unacceptable to Canadians.
Let me identify a few of the environmental factors which call for intervention by the federal government. There is a need for standards of excellence in the food processing industry designed to ensure a supply of high quality foods with good nutritional content. I am sure everyone who has read the report "Nutrition Survey" is well aware of the need for more control in this area. There

is a need to control the levels of animal fat present in food and dairy products; the connection between supersaturated fats and heart disease has only lately become more clearly evident. There is a need for the continued monito-ing of cosmetic products, a need to upgrade and assure the quality and effectiveness of drugs, vaccines and so on.
I might mention also the need for controls to ensure the safety of prosthetic devices, and the establishment of safety standards to be followed by automobile manufacturers and by those concerned with homes design and construction. Finally, I might mention the value of setting viable, practical standards to govern air quality, water processing and sewage disposal.
Another area requiring urgent federal involvement arises from the phenomenon of urbanization accompanied by the rapid mushrooming of suburbs. Crowding, the isolation of families, the alienation of individuals, are cardinal features of this typically twentieth century process. Movement from one part of the country to another by large numbers of the population has contributed to the confusion.
While I recognize that this area rightfully belongs to the Department of Urban Affairs, important environmental health factors are involved here, particularly in the light of recent progress toward urban core renewal and the developing policy of establishing satellite cities. Factors which must be considered here include the provision of adequate recreational facilities, the avoidance of high density crowding, and the mental health of people uprooted and relocated as a result of the redevelopment of "old city" areas or the development of suburbs or satellite cities. Manpower and health facilities must be adequately planned so that they are readily available.
A major difficulty about developing an environmental health program has been the minister's inability to develop effective collaboration with other concerned and interested federal government agencies. I have no doubt the minister will respond by referring me to clause 3, subclauses (3) and (4). I quote:
The minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare shall, in carrying out any activity described in paragraph 1(a), wherever reasonably possible, act jointly and make use of the services and facilities of other departments of the government of Canada or of any agencies thereof.
And, further:
The minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare may carry out any of the activities described in paragraph 1(a) in co-operation with any government or agency thereof or any body, organization or person.
My point is that from experience in the past I can derive very little re-assurance from the words "wherever reasonably possible" or from the word "may". I suggest that if we are to benefit from a useful environmental health program effective input must be forthcoming not only from the Department of the Environment and from the Department of National Health and Welfare but from the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Urban Affairs, the Ministry of Transport and, indeed, from all other interested groups.
As I indicated earlier, I intend to support this bill. But I wish to emphasize again that in the area of environmental health the minister has picked one tree from the forest; he
April 24, 1974

has failed to show he has an understanding of the total picture.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. With regard to the recommendation of Bill C-3,1 note that this bill is intended "to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment". Throughout the years, many activities-industrial, municipal and individual- have contributed to contaminating the environment, as a result of which health problems have cropped up and some sectors of our environment have been destroyed.
Recently, I wrote to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) requesting the help of his department to remedy a situation that now exists in my riding where a company, over a period of 40 years, has destroyed all animal life; it has destroyed the salmon that spawned there and contaminated the water. Today, when we ask the federal department to make the efforts required to remedy the situation in the province of Quebec, we are told that this matter does not fall within federal jurisdiction, that it is a provincial matter in the case of Quebec. Now, my intervention this afternoon will be strictly limited to asking the minister to tell us, in his closing remarks on second reading, what means he intends using to apply this act in the province of Quebec. He will have to give us his assurance that the amounts will in fact be transferred to the province of Quebec and spent on projects of the type suggested in Bill C-3. That is the problem in this case, as in many others, when it is decided at some time or other that the province will deal with a certain matter.
I would like to congratulate the minister for introducing that bill which has been called for since a good number of years. Although perhaps too late, it tries nevertheless to correct a problem.
Unfortunately that bill does not refer to the control of the federal government when the enforcement of the legislation is entrusted with a province. This concerns me, because in past cases as in the one I mentioned a while ago, the answers of the provincial government are delayed as for example, the necessary correctives on the north shore where the pollution of a river by a certain company should be checked. Steps to prevent the destruction of animal life are delayed, perhaps due to a lack of agreement between the federal and provincial governments. I therefore hope that in his final speech the minister will indicate what pressures or control he expects to use to see that this legislation is enforced in Quebec.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I too want to express the feeling of appreciation that we have on this side of the House for having this bill before us. It is a very, very small step in the marathon walk, but to take this step today is certainly better than to take it a few years from now. It would, of course, have been a lot better had it been taken a few years ago.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the remarks that the minister made to
Environmental Contamination clear up in my mind how this bill is going to be implemented in Canada.
The minister said that the bill could be compared to legislation existing in other countries and that it is far superior to such legislation. That might be so when we look at Bill C-3 alone and at the controls other countries have to protect their citizens from environmental disasters. But, of course, the bill does not go nearly as far as we would all like it to.
The federal government had a wonderful opportunity years ago, before words like "phosphates", "detergents" and "chlorinated hydrocarbons" became household words, to establish some policies by which Canadians in all walks of life could live. The government was slow in recognizing this new phenomenon. It was so slow in fact that provincial governments throughout the country had to make their own laws to protect their citizens from some of the things that were happening. Because of that we now have all kinds of environmental laws in Canada to which we ask industry, big and small, provinces and municipalities, to adhere. This, of course, is disastrous.
I should have liked to see-and eventually this will have to come about-the minister bring in a bill based on strict guidelines that industry could follow. It can be argued that we do not know today what some of the dangers will be tomorrow and that we want to have a flexible approach to this problem. We do not know what man will invent tomorrow and how harmful that invention might be to people and to society. But I am talking about some of the things that are in existence now, Mr. Speaker. I can only assume that this bill will be like so many others that the government has presented to us, a bill that will regulate retroactively.
It may be true that a lot of industrial concerns intending to invest multimillions of dollars in a new invention and program will go through the pain and trouble to engage either their own engineers and laboratories to research the product or to hire the engineers required to provide the government with this know-how.
What about the smaller industry that is producing a commodity of which we have no knowledge today, Mr. Speaker? They are not compelled to come to the federal government and say that they are producing something and that they do not know what its impact will be. If the minister does not know what is happening, the industry will be in business and the product will be on the market to be consumed by our people. Thus damage will be done and the provisions of the legislation will have to be retroactive.
Ever since we started talking about environmental control there has been conflict between industry and the do-gooders, the environmentalists, the bearded fellows who come out of the concrete jungles where the environment leaves a lot to be desired and go up north to tell us how we should protect the environment. There has always been this conflict between such people and industry. Industry does not want to be difficult but they find it hard to live with all these unknown factors.
Such questions arise as: Suppose we put a cleaning plant at the end of this pipe, will there be some federal, municipal or provincial agent around tomorrow wanting us to

April 24, 1974
Environmental Contamination
put something on the stack? And so on. If industry had proper guidelines, taking into account all the things we know about the environment and chemicals, it would not be very hard to go to the engineer and give an undertaking that no more than so many parts per million will go into the water and that the exhaust from the pipes will not be offensive.
I come from an area where recently a great number of pulp mills have been built. Nobody likes to talk about it. You have to be very careful, particularly as a politician, in the city of Prince George when you talk about the offensive odour there most of the year. People say it is the smell of money, the smell of success. However, there are a large number of people who would rather be poor than live in an area where there is this constant offensive odour. Incidentally, it is not harmful to health.
The minister says that with the new law on our statute books we will be in a position to demand information. That might be so, but someone will have to lay a complaint because there is nothing in the bill that compels anyone to tell the minister what he is doing. There will have to be a witch-hunt. Or course, it will be after the fact when the complaint is laid. The legislation will work retroactively and this will be disastrous to industry.
As I said, the federal government had the opportunity to move into this field and be a leader. It could have consulted with the provinces, but it did not do that. As a result, we not only have 12 or 13 different environmental standards, but we have dual standards which each government follows. The federal government uses its own standards for activities it carries on in the Northwest Territories and other northern parts of our country, and it has developed standards which industry must follow. All these things create serious conflicts between rational people who recognize the problem, people who would rather eliminate it but do not have the tools to do so.
The minister said industry would have to bear the cost, that there would be no cost to the taxpayer. That all sounds exciting these days. However, I must ask about the small businessmen who cannot afford the expensive laboratory and research staff it takes to provide the minister with information he will now be able to demand under this bill. I would have liked the minister to be honest and say it is going to be very expensive for Canadians to live in a healthy environment. I could live with that because it is a very serious problem. I would like to see the minister come up with programs that would help industry in the first instance, before the factory is built, to research the product they are going to produce, and help them to instal the necessary abatement equipment. Such a program could be attached to a bill like C-3 which, although it is a small step, is certainly the right step in a marathon walk.
I would like to see the federal government become more energetic in sharing with the provinces and municipalities. I know all kinds of things are now being done.
Municipalities are the biggest offenders, not usually industry. It is areas where people gather to live. The municipalities are the biggest offenders in many areas on environmental pollution. There should be programs by which the junior governments could have access to the federal coffers and obtain the help they so badly need to keep the environment in our cities and towns liveable. I do not see any further intention on the part of the government in this bill to pass that kind of help on to the junior governments.
The minister said this bill provides for the creation of ad hoc boards of review, and that this provision was included at the request of industry. He said it will give any company or individual affected by this legislation an opportunity to state his or her case. Again, Mr. Speaker, that will happen after the fact.
The minister said producers, importers and so on will have an avenue of appeal open to them. He said the industry-oriented boards of review will have powers and responsibility similar to those already enjoyed by the board of review under our Canadian Hazardous Products Act. This is all fine and dandy, but as I have said, these measures are all designed to come into being after the fact.
I do not think the minister would find too much opposition from any member of this House or any party if he were to bring in strong legislation compelling industry and business to keep government aware of their future activities. However, the cost and the onus should not be passed on to industry. We must be prepared environmentally because otherwise it is going to cost us money. Steps taken by municipalities and some of the activities carried on by the provinces will cost money. These resources must come from somewhere. Until we are ready to share with these governments, we cannot expect the kind of co-operation the minister obviously must expect if he thinks everyone will come running to the federal government from here on to provide them with information on all the activities they intend to carry on in the future. I notice it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Frank Oberle: I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what length of time the hon. member has in mind, but we are prepared to sit a few minutes if it will make it possible to finish second reading of this bill.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to carry on for a few moments if the hon. member wants to continue his speech.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are nearly finished. However, I wish to call it six o'clock so that if any of my colleagues wish to carry this debate on tomorrow they will have the opportunity to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 25, 1974