1975-11-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from the revelation today that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) plans a drastic change in the government's multicultural program, which follows upon the elimination, following the 1974 general election, of a minister who was exclusively responsible for multicultural programs in the country.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House reject the program proposed by the Minister of Labour as reported in today's press and urge the minister to make a statement at the earliest possible time on the government's future plans for multicultural programming.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important and urgent issue.
Since within the framework of our present judicial system the policemen are the first to carry the can as the result of paroles among which are noted many relapses and offences of all kinds and considering that we must protect those who maintain order and protect honest citizens and that they must have a say in the matter of parole, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the House should consider the matter immediately to enable the federal government to set up a committee responsible for paroles, whose membership would include in addition to the usual members, the police director of each provincial police force as well as representatives
of the municipal and federal police forces, so that they may take part in the decisions to that effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
sf:	*	*


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of vital importance.
Considering that, according to a study conducted by a McGill University economist, Mr. Ithon, $1 out of every $5 spent on the Olympic Games finds its way to the federal treasury under the guise of fiscal revenues;
Considering that all Canadians benefit from the publicity and international prestige afforded tnese games, that a deficit is now estimated at about $600 million which will be borne only by Montrealers and Quebecers in general, all of which will involve disastrous consequences for other projects that will have to be delayed, in particular public transport and the fight against pollution;
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the Canadian government take a direct part in financing these games other than by the known means, such as the Olympic Lottery and the sale of Olympic stamps and coins.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to provisions of Standing Order 43, this 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 unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.

November 26, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I was hoping to direct my questions to the Minister of Transport. I am sorry he is not in the House today but I shall direct my questions to the Prime Minister instead. Is the Prime Minister in a position to confirm to the House persistent reports that the chairman of Air Canada is about to resign in the light of the most recent recurrences of travel agency difficulties?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question still concerning the controversy surrounding Air Canada. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the honourable Judge Estey submitted more than one report on the Air Canada inquiry to the government and if so, when will both reports be tabled in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my only knowledge is that Mr. Estey has finished his report and that it is in the process of being translated.


SUGGESTED REFERENCE OF 1976 ANNUAL REPORT AND 1975 CAPITAL BUDGET TO COMMITTEE
Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I certainly hope that the government, and the Prime Minister especially, feel some of the frustration that opposition members feel with the very indefinite kind of answers we get because the report has been in the hands of the government for some time. Will the Prime Minister consult with his colleague the President of the Privy Council to put forward a government motion to refer the 1974 annual report and the 1975 capital budget of Air Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications? Will he do this immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I believe that the Minister of Transport received Judge Estey's report about 15 days ago. I understand that it was going to be several weeks in the translation and that the minister asked that this period be cut down. I am sure the hon. member is not arguing that we should break the law and regulations and table it only in one language. The report will therefore be tabled as soon as it is translated.
On the second part of the question, that has to do with committee business: if the committee makes a request I am sure it will be considered by all House leaders.


REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION OF ALOUETTE TRAVEL AGENCY BY COMPANY AND FAILURE TO CHECK BILLINGS BY TRAVEL AGENTS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Minister of Transport. Can the acting minister say how it was possible for Air Canada to continue, responsibly, to approve or recommend to IATA the Alouette Travel Agency in Montreal associated, incidentally, with Captain Hill's company, when Alouette is owned by one Daniel A. Scott whose convictions for fraud, and other corporate disabilities, probably presently preclude him from having a licence to do business under the relevant Quebec statute?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question put by the hon. member and refer it to the minister who I am sure will reply to the hon. member tomorrow if he cares to raise it at that time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A further supplementary question. Can the acting minister also explain why Air Canada has not corrected a practice that appears to be causing the loss of vast amounts of money, because of a strange reluctance to check vigorously and conscientiously, billings from the company's appointed travel agents which claim inappropriate commission over-ride charges, despite the fact that group vice-president, Maurice D'Amours sent out a joint memo with his CP Air Counterpart last March indicating awareness of this fraudulent practice?


Ralph Goodale: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I will draw that matter to the attention of the Minister.


MULTICULTURALISM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister inform the House whether statements attributed to the Minister of Labour in today's press to the effect that the government's multiculturalism program is going to shift from what it has been in the past, the positive encouragement of folkloric activities, to one of fostering good understanding which, if this is the direction of the new program, will constitute a retraction from the proposals made by the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism to the government? I ask the Prime Minister if this means that there is to be a major change in policy, or is this simply a proposal being advocated at this time by the Minister of Labour?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have not had time to read the speech of the Minister of Labour who is responsible for multiculturalism. But I propose to read and discuss it. I repeat: the government is very much committed still to its policy on multiculturalism. That does not mean that we do everything the multicultural advisory committee recommends, although we put considerable importance on the weight of
November 26, 1975

its recommendations. The minister will certainly be prepared to make a statement at the proper time on the government's orientation in applying its policy on multiculturalism.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour having indicated that, among other proposals, the government plans to eliminate federal funding for third language training in schools, may I ask the Prime Minister if that specific idea is government policy and, if so, if it was arrived at after consultation with provincial governments and the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know from what the hon. member is quoting. I will have to see what the minister said and only then will I be able to say if he expressed government policy. I repeat, the government does not intend to lend any less emphasis to its strong belief in the policy on multiculturalism. The government, in many areas, is trying to bring in new programs which will implement the government's policy even better in all fields. This, in some cases, may mean switching funds from one area to another but will not mean reneging in any way on that important program.


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT'S PLANS
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the views reportedly attributed to the Minister of Labour in quotation marks will, if implemented, constitute a major redirection of government policy in this area and a rejection of the proposals of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism, will the Prime Minister make the commitment to the House that the Minister of Labour will make a statement in the House at an early date on precisely what are the government's plans in this important area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of my answer, and in view of the question, this, it seems to me, is clearly hypothetical at this stage.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the Canadian government advised the International Olympic Committee in 1969 that Canada was eager to host the Olympic Games, and that a few months ago it introduced and had adopted legislation to authorize the holding of an Olympic Lottery and the sale of Olympic coins and stamps, could the right hon. Prime Minister explain to the House the apparent lack of interest his government is now showing for these games?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must indeed make an effort to reply dispassionately to this question. In my opinion, it proceeds from most com-
Oral Questions
plete ignorance, which astonishes me on the part of an hon. member who speaks of federal government disinterest. I hope the hon. member will seek information. He need only consider the acts which this government has introduced in the House over the past few years and which are responsible for the greater part of the Olympic Games financing. That is why I feel it is somewhat foolish to speak of federal government lack of interest in the Olympic Games.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As a Quebec City daily claims that federal officials hesitate to publish an order in council announcing the refusal of the government to grant a subsidy to the transport of feed grain, can the minister tell the House whether the federal government really intends to do away with the subsidy on the transport of feed grain towards eastern Canada and more particularly towards Quebec?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been made on that.


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO INDUSTRIAL MILK SUBSIDY
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
I wish to ask the minister whether, in view of the worries of the Dairy Producers Association, he can tell the House if the government intends to encourage a decrease in the subsidies now granted industrial milk producers, or even eventually cancel those subsidies?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we announced how much money we were going to pay on milk subsidies last April. We are paying that much for the current dairy year. We told them to live within their quota, production and so on of one million hundredweight of milk. They are in overproduction at the present time. They are creating surpluses of skim milk powder and other dairy products. We do not intend to increase the subsidy to them. We announced at that time that the subsidy would be decreased as of April 1, 1976.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will

November 26, 1975
Oral Questions
direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that Transair Limited, one of the largest regional airlines in Canada, will be facing a deficit for the first time in recent years and the statement by its president that one of the contributing factors is attributed to the federal government, may I ask where is the long overdue policy on regional airlines announced in 1966, and more recently promised by the former Minister of Transport in June, 1975 during debate on the new transportation policy?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the Minister of Transport, coming from the part of the country from which he does, shares the hon. member's concern about the matter of regional air carriers. I am sure the minister will want to respond to the hon. member in some considerable detail at the first opportunity.


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is action we are interested in, not concern. As Quebecair and Nordair are allowed to have a larger volume of charter flights than Transair and other regional airlines, therefore making an excellent profit, will the minister investigate and see if more charter flights can be allocated to Transair?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly see that that particular point is drawn to the attention of the minister.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not see the Minister of Transport. I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. It deals with a question posed by the right hon. member regarding skycaps in Toronto who are on the verge of losing their jobs, some 26 this month. I know that representations have been made to the minister. Can the parliamentary secretary bring us up to date as to whether these jobs have been saved or not?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member that information at the moment. I will see if I can make it available to him later in the day.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whom I know will be interested in this matter. There is the possibility that by the end of this month some 26 skycaps at terminal two will lose their jobs as a result of an American subsidiary taking over this type of service. Will the minister use his good offices to investigate this matter in order to determine whether these jobs can be saved or, in the alternative, that other employment can be offered to them?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the hon. member's suggestion and will act on it.
[Mr. McKenzie.)


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister with regard to the statement made by the Minister of Labour about the future of multieulturalism in Canada. The Prime Minister has stated that he and the government maintain an interest in multieulturalism. In the interest of multieulturalism, will he give consideration to raising the status of this interest to portfolio level and having a minister in charge of that portfolio, not as an adjunct to an existing portfolio as in the case of the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be aware that that question, although it was quite some time ago, shortly after the beginning of this session, was asked and answered.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? It has to do with reports today that we shall now be expected to wait until some time in the New Year before given details of the government's so-called peace and security plan, supposed to be available on October 14. May I ask whether these reports are true and whether it is the intention of the government to introduce the program before Christmas? Or has some snag developed?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Those reports came neither from myself nor from the Solicitor General, which arb the two reports which would matter in the matter. We have not run into a snag. We are working as a matter of priority to prepare legislation for presentation to the House. When it is presented will depend upon when it is ready and when the schedule of sittings of the House is determined.


Walter David Baker: In view of the importance of this package of legislation in the minds of Canadians, can the minister give the House any undertaking as to time, or is the foot dragging which has been going on for three years with respect to this kind of legislation to be continued?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am delighted that the hon. member should be so anxious to see the legislation and, hopefully, to support it. I assure the hon. member that there is no foot dragging with regard to it. It is being prepared as fast as the draftsmen can prepare it. However, as the hon. member knows, we have been consulting with provincial attorneys general and others as to details of the measures we are proposing to introduce, and this takes time. I repeat that I regard this as a matter of priority, and so does the government. We will introduce the legislation when it is ready and when parliament can deal with it expeditiously.
November 26, 1975


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has to do with his statement several months ago which was interpreted by the Province of Manitoba as a threat. The statement related to the Churchill River diversion in that province. Does the minister intend to proceed with legal action, as trustee of Indian lands in that province? Why does he continue to fund a northern flood committee which has no status to take legal action on its own behalf?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The question of an injunction was an option which was being examined. However, because of engineering difficulties, the diversion was delayed for a year and the urgency was taken out of the matter. The situation now is that the northern flood committee has, by band council resolution, authority to act on behalf of the bands involved. We are, therefore, working with them. We expect we shall shortly be appointing a mediator who will be working with the provincial government, the northern flood committee and ourselves to resolve the problem.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: A question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the ten to one vote by the Vancouver City Council last night not to host Habitat 76, can the minister assure the House that the Government of Canada will proceed with the conference and will assist the City of Vancouver in taking the security measures required to ensure a positive atmosphere for this most important UN conference?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The government intends to continue the momentum of preparations to carry out the Habitat Conference and make it one of the most successful conferences ever held under the auspices of the United Nations. We are now making adequate security arrangements and discussions are under way with the City of Vancouver. I have spoken personally to the Mayor, and the Secretary-General is now in touch with the Council to determine the parameters of any concerns they may have and give whatever support he can to make sure the event is held in a proper atmosphere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to, I suspect, the only friend of the farmers and marketing boards in the whole cabinet, the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the government's policy that farmers and fishermen are exempt from the guidelines under the anti-inflation program, and in view of the fact that a government document says that these boards will have to be reviewed before reaching firm decisions on which ones should be subject to the guidelines and which of their costs should be allowable, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can tell the House if it is still the position of the government that they are exempt from the guidelines; can the minister explain how that statement is compatible with the willingness of the AntiInflation Board to make scapegoats of the marketing boards, ignoring wholesalers, processors and packagers; and does the minister intend to see that the farmers and fishermen remain exempt under the guidelines?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, let me say again that some editorial writers have been grossly inaccurate about how marketing boards operate. For example, today's Globe and Mail editorial is just a bunch of trash as far as I am concerned. It could not do more to inflame the public. There is nothing that a well run marketing board has to fear from the Anti-Inflation Board, or from anyone else, as far as I am concerned. They are under strict guidelines, just as strict as the guidelines that are going to apply to industry and labour.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree with the Minister of Agriculture's statement about the Globe and Mail and others that have made stupid statements about marketing boards, but in view of the fact that his own government officials have said that they are exempt, and then in another paragraph they say it is to be decided which of the marketing boards will be included under the guidelines, and that this proposal is being put forward to the provinces today, I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he can tell the House if the criteria for the pass through of the costs of production presently being used by CEMA or by marketing boards operated by the provinces will be used by the Anti-Inflation Board or the Farm Products Marketing Council, or will the criteria of the Minister of Transport under the grain stabilization bill or the criteria of Mrs. Plumptre be used?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the form of pricing used by marketing boards is public information available for scrutiny by anyone who wants to study it realistically. We have nothing to fear from any marketing board. They are under really strict guidelines now, stricter than those for industry, and we do not have to worry about their being under the Anti-Inflation Board. The vast majority of ministers that we have talked to about this have said the same thing of provincial marketing boards that have anything to do with price setting.

November 26, 1975
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who I am sure is kept fully informed on this subject. It concerns the attitude of the provincial representatives to the government's anti-inflation program and the indications for support or commitment that those representatives have made today. Can the Prime Minister tell the House that all of the provinces are now committed either to allowing the federal government to implement the guidelines in their province in the area of provincial jurisdiction, or that they have given the assurance that they themselves will enforce the federal guidelines within their jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes that the meetings began this morning and they are still going on. They may last until late today, and until they are finished I cannot, of course, give the conclusions reached by the meeting.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I did not ask for the conclusions of the meeting. Since reports were going out over the news on the attitude of the provinces, I thought that the information might have reached the Prime Minister.


AGRICULTURE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am glad to see him back from the Food and Agriculture Organization conference in Rome. Can he enlighten the House on the reason that Canada's candidate, Dr. Hopper, was not elected head of the Food and Agriculture Organization having regard to the fact that Dr. Hopper visited 30 countries to enlist support and that all over the world Canadian embassies and ministers endeavoured to secure support for him for this position?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that he visited 30 countries, and I wish we could all do as well politically; he received 28 votes out of the 30 countries he visited. I would say he entered the campaign to be director of FAO late. I think he was highly qualified and would have done a good job if elected. I think that had FAO followed the true democratic form of elections to which the right honourable gentleman and I are used in Canada, where we vote down to the finishing line and that sort of thing, the result might have been different.
I suggested that Dr. Hopper stay right to the finish line, but he withdrew on his own after the result of the first ballot was known, when the man who is now director of FAO, whom we wish the very best and offer him our utmost co-operation, polled 62 votes. I think that FAO has
[Mr. Whelan.|
become very politicized, and I also expressed concern about this at the conference.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am glad to have the minister's views on elections, but I am wondering whether the Canadian Press also produced a trashy article when it said that the reason that Canada was turned down was that it is difficult to defeat an Arab, and that anyway Canada was too inexperienced in this kind of lobbying. Is that the reason, and would the minister at the same time inform the House whether the various countries that apparently worked for support of the resolution concerning Israel and racism also ganged up on Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to say that they did that, but I will say once again that if we had been running the election I am sure we would have run it in a different form. As far as I am concerned, the people running the election for the Canadian candidate were not experienced politicians; they were mostly civil servants.


John George Diefenbaker: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister is an experienced politician and I should like to know what was wrong with the electioneering that was done which did not meet the approbation of the minister, who is so qualified on the subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the fact that the chief of the defence staff said yesterday before a committee of the House that peacekeeping obligations of defence forces cause a strain that can only be removed by the addition of 1,500 men, and since the Globe and Mail has reported that it has been suggested that this problem might be met by the closing of some bases in Canada, can the minister confirm that, under the present situation surrounding the base at Sum-merside, that base will be immune from any such program at the present time?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a transcript of the statement of the chief of the defence staff before the standing committee, but I am quite certain that our peacekeeping obligations are such that they do not involve our having to close bases in Canada, whether Summerside or any other base. If there is any infrastructure consolidation it will result from other causes than our peacekeeping obligations.
November 26, 1975

Oral Questions AIR CANADA


ANTI-INFLATION GUIDELINES FOR EXPORTERS-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, as a usually reliable source tells me that the guidelines for exporters have now been drawn up and are ready for use, would the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce advise the House when the export industry will be advised of the nature of these guidelines?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether the guidelines are being discussed today with the provincial finance ministers, but that is quite possible. I have the view that the Minister of Finance will be disclosing them here in the course of the debate over the next, however long it takes. In the meantime, I have met with a number of exporter groups and will be meeting with the Canadian Export Association this afternoon. I will be discussing generally with them, not the regulations themselves, but how they think this levy ought to be imposed or dealt with, and I think it is fair to say that the business community with whom I have been talking are satisfied with the nature of the negotiations.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is further to my question of several days ago on the subject of Mrs. Joanna Psarski of Georgetown, Ontario, a Canadian landed immigrant who returned to Poland on the death of her father in September 1973, and who has since been unable to obtain an exit visa from that country. I understand the minister is now in a position to advise the House on the up to date status of the situation, and I know this would be greatly appreciated by her family and all others connected with the case. I hope that he can do so.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Ambassador to Poland presented a list of cases to the Polish authorities on Friday last, on which list was included the name of Mrs. Psarski. I may mention that I raised the same case along with others during my visit to Poland. No decision has yet been made, and until a decision has been made one way or another we can only expect that the Polish authorities will give careful consideration to the desire of Mrs. Psarski to return to Canada. I am also seeing the Polish Ambassador here in Ottawa this afternoon and I intend to raise the case with him.


USE OF IMPORTED WINES ON DOMESTIC FLIGHTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. As a result of many complaints and phone calls, it has been ascertained that the only wine available on a domestic flight in Canada happens to be an imported wine.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Patrick Joseph Flynn: There are many excellent Canadian wines produced in the Niagara and west coast areas, as well as in parts of Quebec. Will the parliamentary secretary ask the minister whether he can give us a full report on this spirited situation?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the usage of food and beverages by airlines is, of course, something for them to determine. I might say that I share some of the hon. member's sentiment in connection with the beef which is sometimes served on aircraft, in that it is often Australian as opposed to Canadian. I will convey the representation to the minister in order that he may reply.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General who, I suppose, was paroled by the Cabinet, I direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Considering that the U.S. Congress is seriously considering severing connections with Interpol, is the Canadian government prepared to suggest the same attitude of disengagement towards this organization, because of the content of the records which has been under study by the Solicitor General since March 1975?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the present President of Interpol is a former Commissioner of the RCMP and these matters are constantly under consideration. I will bring this specific matter to the attention of the minister, however, so that he can give a more complete answer.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 of this year I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to look into problems in respect of construction of senior citizens' housing in the city of Halifax, and in particular

November 26, 1975
Oral Questions
the projects of Centennial Developments in the Quinpool area, which is owned by a developer by the name of Mr. Medjuk. The minister promised to look into this matter six months ago. Today I am advised that the senior citizens' buildings are still not completed and the developer is still in financial difficulty. Will the minister advise the House as to the reasons for non-completion, and undertake to have CMHC assume the responsibility for completion, financing and administering of these senior citizens' buildings?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, after the hon. member's previous question I went into this rather exhaustively and found that one building was 90 per cent completed and the other 95 per cent completed, and they were to be ready for occupancy within a month. I am disturbed to hear that is not the case, so I will look into it immediately and report back.


CENTENNIAL DEVELOPMENTS, HALIFAX-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ACTIVITIES OF MR. CALDER HART
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also investigate the actions of the CMHC regional director, Mr. Calder Hart, concerning his opposition to alternative proposals for social housing in the Quinpool Development?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not look into the conduct of Mr. Calder Hart. He is absolutely a first-rate public servant and an excellent regional director for CMHC. I am sure he has given his best judgment in every way possible. I have complete and utter confidence in him as an excellent representative of the corporation.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether the Federal Court has now made a decision in respect of a challenge regarding the possible prejudice of the Chairman of the National Energy Board, Mr. Marshall Crowe, and whether the hearings will now continue?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, the reference from the National Energy Board has been set down for hearing on December 8. I have instructed counsel to appear on my behalf to argue that, on the basis of the material before the court there is no reason to believe there is either real bias or any reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the chairman.
|Mr. Gilbert.]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the recent beef stabilization program on October 23 will do absolutely nothing to alleviate the hardships of the hard-pressed cow-calf producers of our country, I would ask the Minister of Agriculture whether this represents the totality of the beef support program, and whether arising from that announcement there will be no program specifically designed to assist the cow-calf producers? If that is so, will the minister explain to the House why he has taken this position in light of the fact that on September 19 of this year, I believe, he stated in the city of Edmonton that the cow-calf stabilization program was less than two weeks away?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I answered these questions in the House sometime ago. I said the main reason was that is was impossible and impractical for us to try to initiate a national plan when about six provinces have different plans of their own to look after cow-calf operators. For instance, the province of Ontario has a program, as does the province of Quebec and the province of British Columbia. These are all different programs. How am I going to make a national program work? Most of the provincial ministers have written me and the deputy ministers have met with our officials here to try to work out a proper program to start, I think, in January 1976.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the minister's answer. It is obvious he has lost control of this very important industry. Let me ask the minister whether he is continuing discussions with his provincial counterparts to see if a realistic stabilization program can be brought forth to assist the hard-pressed cow-calf producers, using the provisions of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, which this party supports.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I should say to the hon. member, and I am sure he is aware of it, that he should express his views to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association which has asked us to do nothing at all. The Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association have said to us, "Do not go any further than you have gone; quit interfering with the bill". I hope the hon. member will talk to some of his colleagues who raise hell with marketing boards so we can develop a proper program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Answer my question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State
November 26, 1975

for External Affairs. When he announced to the House on July 21 that Canada was seeking a postponement of the crime conference scheduled to be held in Toronto, he explained:
As host country, we felt that Canada had assumed a major responsibility for the success of this congress, and in such an unfavourable political climate we did not see how we would possibly carry out our responsibility.
May I ask the minister, in light of the fact that since the infamous anti-Zionist resolution in the United Nations a couple of weeks ago political support in Canada for the Habitat conference has declined drastically culminating in the vote last night by Vancouver city council to ask the government to postpone the Habitat conference, how he can explain the decision to go ahead with the Habitat conference in Vancouver in light of the explanation he gave to the House regarding the crime conference in Toronto that at that time the climate was not suitable for it when in fact it has deteriorated since that time? In other words, what is the difference between the crime conference in Toronto and the Habitat conference in Vancouver which made it desirable to cancel the crime conference-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The circumstances which I described in July as pertaining to the crime conference were the factors that I applied for the postponement of that conference. This is an entirely different situation than the one which existed at the conference some months ago. I believe the hon. member would not find it difficult to find considerable differences between the two situations.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO SIGN AGREEMENT WITH UNITED NATIONS TO HOST HABITAT 76 CONFERENCE
Henry Perrin Beatty: In light of the fact that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, have stated that Canada is firmly committed to the holding of the Habitat conference, why has the government not yet signed the commitment which it was asked to sign in August by the United Nations to host the conference, and when does the minister expect this commitment to be signed by Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it is worth pointing out to the House that following the request by the Canadian government to postpone the UN conference on crime, a preparatory meeting was held in New York in August for the UN Habitat conference. At that time the members of the preparatory meeting asked Canada explicitly whether it intended to go ahead with the conference in Vancouver. At that time assurances were given by our representative and by myself at the preparatory meeting to the secretary general of the conference itself.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Will you sign the commitment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member refers to an agreement. There is under consideration an agreement which is normally signed between the host country and the UN
Oral Questions
secretariat. At present that agreement is under negotiation and it will be signed as soon as the negotiations are completed.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the concern in Canada about the attendance of the PLO at the Habitat conference, would the minister say what financial assistance is being made available to the PLO by the government of Canada so that they can attend and cover their costs?


Barnett Jerome Danson: None, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because of the tarnished image of the United Nations following the anti-Zionist resolution and the continued confusion about the value of the UN, would the minister make a statement on motions soon outlining the vast amount of economic and social aid programs conducted by UN agencies throughout the world which provide proof of why the UN needs continued strong support by Canada and other western countries despite lack of money and unfortunate resolutions pushed through by members of the UN?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I certainly agree with the conclusions the hon. member has drawn to the attention of the House. It may not be possible for me to make a statement on motions, but I intend to appear before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence next week, and, if possible, I will take that opportunity to elaborate upon the points the hon. member has mentioned.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ron. Huntington (Capilano):: I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. Can he advise the House whether the acknowledged opportunity available to certain Air Canada executives and their colleagues to option $100 million worth of sugar at a time

November 26, 1975
Oral Questions
of a world shortage and rising prices was made available to them during Air Canada technical aviation negotiations with Haiti, Martinique, Guadaloupe and Jamaica?


Ralph Goodale: I do not entirely accept the background information which the hon. member has presented in the preamble to his question, but I will draw the question to the attention of the minister who will want to make further explanations to the hon. member.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Can the parliamentary secretary advise the House whether the terms and conditions of employment contracts with Air Canada executives permitted Air Canada's executives setting up companies for the purpose of using profit opportunities available to them during the performance of Air Canada duties?


Ralph Goodale: Once again I will make that question known to the minister.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the recent critical report by the advisory group of the investment record of the Canada Pension Plan, is the government considering introducing legislation which will alter the investment aspects of the plan, particularly as regards the rate of interest charged to the provinces?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has pointed out, this has to do with the rate of interest being paid by the provinces for their borrowings from the Canada pension fund. Under the present legislation, any amendment can be brought forth only with the consent of two thirds of the provinces with two thirds of the population. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I will certainly be raising this with our provincial colleagues. I have already made this document available to the provincial governments and I have asked them to study it, but this is a subject which should be discussed with the Minister of Finance because of its substantial implications for the provinces.


MANPOWER
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of which he has received notice. In view of the fact that November 3, the date for the awarding of LIP grants passed into history over three weeks ago and that the awards for Vancouver Quadra have not yet been announced, can the minister say if this delay has been caused by the lack of alternate funding for the Habitat

forum projects? If so, what success have the minister and his cabinet colleagues had to find alternate funds for this international conference and, if not, when will the minister announce the successful Vancouver Quadra LIP projects?


Robert Knight Andras: I can wrap up my answer by applying my comments to the last part and telling the hon. member that I will make my decision this afternoon or tomorrow.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: I have a question which I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence and it has to do with comments of General Dextraze on supplementary estimates during the meeting of the standing committee yesterday afternoon when he spoke of the need of an additional 1,500 men which would mean a payroll addition of as much as $22 million. Can the minister clarify what his intentions are, whether or not the 1,500 men might, for example, be required to supplement the effort we are going to put forth in support of the Olympic Games next summer, or whether this is a general requirement so that the minister and his professional staff may not have to consider base closures?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, again I must say I have not seen the statement of the chief of staff. I know that he understandably requires additional personnel, as many of our men are double tasked and triple tasked, and he would be only doing his duty to suggest that he could use additional personnel, but presently there are no plans to increase the
78,000	in the regular force and the 22,000 in the reserve. Despite the fact that it would be simpler for all if we could increase, the decision is to stay at our present level.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder then if the minister could consult with the chief of the defence staff, and if he is prepared to make either some form of press statement or respond to a question later in the week or make a statement later in the week as to the specific requirement which General Dextraze has for these 1,500 men, and whether in the absence of these 1,500 men it would be necessary for the Minister of National Defence to have to consider closing bases in order to free 1,500 men for the specific task or requirement of the chief of the defence staff.


James Armstrong Richardson: I expect to be making a statement in the House in the very near future which will cover the question raised.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the answer given by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). This goes back to over a month ago on October 17 when, on

November 26, 1975
a similar type of question from the hon. member for Vegre-ville, the minister said that the official opposition should explain its attitude toward the Cattlemen's Association's view on cow-calf operations. On the next day, as Your Honour will remember, I rose in the House and put a question in the following way:
Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I would address my question to the acting minister. Will he please inform the minister that the official opposition to Her Majesty's government in this House is in favour of the Agricultural Stabilization Act terms being carried out in connection with the cow-calf floor price? The government promised this in the middle of September, and I am simply responding to the minister's challenge in his reply to the hon. member for Vegre-ville yesterday, by stating that the official opposition wants to see the terms of the act carried out, including the cost of production formula added in.
My question of privilege is simple. This is the second occasion on which the minister has replied to the hon. member for Vegreville by sliding away from the question and his responsibilities under an act which parliament passed, with the support of all parties, and he is not carrying out the formula as laid down in the act which should be applied to cow-calf producers.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are carrying out the act, as it has been carried out in past years, and we are actually using 100 per cent of cost of production for beef in Canada at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mr- Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises out of your disallowing my question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to the appointment of a minister responsible for multiculturalism. I fully appreciate the fact that a similar question was asked some time ago, but I ask for clarification with respect to the propriety of asking such a question under changed circumstances, circumstances which now are of concern to approximately one third of the people in our country who are neither of French nor English origin.
The situation is very simple. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), who is responsible for multiculturalism, has made a statement, which was brought to our attention also by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), with respect to a very fundamental change in the multiculturalism program. As a result it seemed to me an appropriate question to ask the Prime Minister under these changed circumstances whether he would reconsider his position with respect to the appointment of a minister responsible for multiculturalism rather than having it as an adjunct to another portfolio.
With the greatest deference, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that that is a very legitimate and proper question under the circumstances, which have changed rather dramatically over the course of the last 24 hours, and I would ask for guidance from Your Honour with respect to the allowance of that line of questioning in a subsequent question period. I realize that the time has now expired with respect to this question period, but I can assure Your Honour, from my own point of view and from what I have heard, that this matter is of grave concern to a great number of people in Canada, and I should like the opportunity of pursuing that line of questioning with the Prime Minister subsequently.
Multiculturalism


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) raises a very serious point of order. Although I have no choice in the matter at the moment, upon reflection I am aware that a question in exactly that form had been put not once, but on more than one occasion earlier in the session when it was first announced that responsibility for the multiculturalism program would be in the hands of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I recall specifically the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) answering, and indicating he was satisfied it was in good hands. However, I must say on reflection that I have some sympathy with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar because changing circumstances do give rise to the valid re-introduction of the same question.
The Prime Minister is still in the House, and he seems to be willing to make some comments at this time. Perhaps that might be the most appropriate resolution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I share your opinion on this point of order, and if I am allowed, I will attempt to deal with the question, although perhaps not very differently than I did in previous circumstances.
The matter of organizing the cabinet so that we do not have more ministers than we have is a constant problem. The House will recall a time some years ago when we had a special minister for dealing with multiculturalism, but before that there was a minister without portfolio dealing with certain problems of citizenship attached to the Secretary of State. At another time there was a minister without portfolio dealing with certain sectors of the Department of Transport. At another time there was a minister without portfolio dealing with the Wheat Board, and one dealing with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At specific times in the life of government as certain problems become pre-eminent it is sometimes necessary to designate ministers without portfolio to deal with them. For instance, now I have a minister with a portfolio who is dealing with the problem of the status of women. I am sure that in the mind of the hon. member the status of women is just as important as the question of multiculturalism. I have not chosen to name a special minister for that, nor indeed a special minister for youth or for bilingualism. I understand and share the concern of the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but I understand from his representation, and I suppose from the rather incomprehensible heckling from the other side, that it is being suggested that I enlarge the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Put Jean Marchand to work.


Mr. Nielsen:: Jean Marchand for multiculturalism.


Some hon. Members:: We want Jean.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I also have a minister without portfolio who very recently has been dealing very competently with the problem of La Francophonie, and I could go on and

November 26, 1975
Motions for Papers
recite the special areas which call for special ministers. However, I repeat that if the House is adamant and wants the cabinet to be enlarged, I can undertake to do so with the support of the House, not only in the area of multicul-turalism, but probably in the area of the status of women and other areas.
I wish the opposition would make its point clear on this matter and not ask the government to cut its expenditures while asking at the same time for the enlargement of the cabinet.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State, Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table the annual report of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada for the year 1974, in both official languages.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND TABLING OF REPORT
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table a report of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Foreign Ownership of Land in both official languages.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 63 is acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 63 be deemed to have been carried?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text ]


COPY OF TREASURY BOARD MINUTE CONCERNING HARDSHIP CLAIMS FROM CROWN LEASED BUILDINGS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 63-Mr. Reid:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Treasury Board Minute, dated approximately December 10, 1974, concerning hardship claims resulting from Crown leased buildings.
Motion agreed to.
}Mr. Trudeau. |
Mr. Blais:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,273, 3,102, 3,108, 3,112, 3,150 (revised) and 3,182.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since January 1, 1960, by year, how many people have been granted ministerial permits by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and, what was their country of origin?
2.	For the same period, by year, how many were (a) employed in professional positions (b) employed in non-professional classed positions (c) employed in unskilled positions (d) unemployed, and what was the breakdown of ethnic origin in each group?
3.	For the same period, by year, how many obtained landed immigrant status in Canada?
4.	For the same period, by year, how many of such permits granted were (a) new applications (b) special extensions and, what period of time was applied?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. 1960, 1,992; 1961, 2,272; 1962, 1,268; 1963, 1,386; 1964, 1,307; 1965, 1,565; 1966, 1,011; 1967, 1,371; 1968, 782; 1968, 779; 1970, 485; 1971, 642; 1972, 723; 1973, 4,392; 1974, 17,445. To determine the country of origin of each person issued a Minister's Permit would require a manual examination of Departmental records and would require additional staff resources.
2.	The data required to respond to these parts of the question are not maintained.
3.	To determine the number of persons issued Minister's Permits who subsequently became landed immigrants would require a manual examination of Departmental records and would require additional staff resources. Approximately 75 per cent of Minister's Permits are issued to close dependants of permanent residents of Canada who while under some temporary prohibition were allowed to join or accompany their family through the use of this procedure. When the temporary prohibition (e.g. lack of immigrant visa) has been overcome by Order-in-Council and all immigration requirements met, the persons concerned are landed.
4.	The number of Minister's Permits shown in part 1 are all original issues. To provide a record of extensions would
November 26, 1975

require a manual examination of Departmental records and would require additional staff resources.
1971 CENSUS


Mr. Jones: 1.	Did an "editing instruction" result in inflation of the number of French-speaking citizens outside Quebec in the processing of the 1971 census results and, if so, on what date was it discovered?
2.	What sanctions, if any, have been taken against the employee who was responsible for this editing instruction?
3.	Will corrected figures be available for the number of persons outside Quebec who reported "English only" and "French and English" at the 1971 census and, if so, on what date?
4.	Has CBC been warned that the original figures supplied to it exaggerate the number of French-speaking persons outside Quebec?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. The 1971 Census of Canada was a self-enumeration Census and the following language questions were asked: 1. Mother tongue-Language first spoken and still understood: English, French, German, Italian, Other. 2. What language do you most often speak at home now? English, French, German, Indian, Italian, Magyar, Netherlands, Polish, Ukrainian, Yiddish, Other. 3. Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation? English only, French only, Both English and French, Neither English nor French. In the processing of the 1971 Census data a series of procedures was implemented to eliminate all the inconsistencies in the data being produced. The editing instruction referred to was one of these procedures. It ensured that if a respondent reported one of the official languages as mother tongue and the other official language as language most often spoken at home, then the response to the third question (Can you speak English or French well enough to conduct a conversation?), was changed to both English and French. This editing procedure produced the following results: 97,500 persons who originally reported English only for the third question changed to both English and French. 32,400 persons who originally reported French only to the third question were changed to both English and French. 2,450 persons who originally reported neither English nor French to the third question were changed to both English and French. In total 132,350 persons or 4.6 per cent of the bilingual population were added to the population claiming ability to carry on a conversation in both English and French. In addition, if the responses to the question on mother tongue, and to the question on language most often spoken at home were both English, or both French, and the response to the third question was neither English nor French, the following ensued: 113,480 persons reporting neither English nor French to the third question were changed to English only. This was 0.8 per cent of the English only population. 36,130 persons reporting neither English nor French to the third question were changed to French only. This was 0.9 per cent of the French only population. There was no inflation of the number of French speaking only citizens due to these procedures. Editing procedures were finalized on January 11, 1971 and all processing and publication of data have taken these edits into account. The data given above are available at the national level only.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Because the above procedure is an authorized and statistically accepted procedure, the question of sanctions against an employee does not become relevant.
3.	The results of the edit were incorporated into the official published figures and the question of corrected figures does not arise.
4.	The CBC and other knowledgeable users of census data are aware of the edit procedures as a standard practice and additional information regarding this specific procedure was not therefore passed to our users including the CBC.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	What was the name, title, classification and salary of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics representative on the Bureau of Classification Revision Committee {BCR Conversion Committee or Team) which evaluated Position DBS-FIN-2178 at the time of conversion of the position from Statistician 5 to SI 7?
2.	What were the names and titles of the members of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics Review Committee (DBS Management Review) which reviewed the allocation of Position DBS-FIN-2178 in 1968 for eventual consideration by the BCR?
3.	What was the pre-conversion (1966) classification and classification level of the Chief of each of the following sections which comprised the Financial Statistics Branch of Statistics Canada (DBS) on April 1, 1972 (a) CALURA Administration (i) analysis and integration (ii) corporations (iii) labour unions (b) Business Finance Division (i) financial institutions (ii) industrial corporations (iii) research and integration (iv) housing and building permits (v) construction (vi) capital expenditures (vii) national wealth and capital stock (c) Governments Division (i) consolidation and co-ordination (ii) federal government (iii) provincial government (iv) local government?
4.	What classification standards, if any, were used to evaluate Position DBS-FIN-2178?
5.	Was a job description ever submitted for the position based on the SI standards?
6.	Was there an 11-month default in processing the grievance filed, challenging the group classification and level of Position DBS-FIN-2178 and, if so, for what reason?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Statistics Canada reports the following: 1. Mr. E. G. Porter, Assistant to the Director of Personnel, a PE-4, was the then Dominion Bureau of Statistics representative on the Bureau of Classification Revision Committee referred to.
2.	The members of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics management review committee created to review the results of conversion to the Social Science Support Group were: Mr. N. L. McKellar, Director, Central Classification Staff. Mr. G. R. Labossiere, Director, Organization and Personnel Services. Mr. G. W. Andrews, Director, Manufacturing and Primary Industries.
3.	The classification levels of the Section Chief positions in the Financial Statistics Branch of Statistics Canada were as follows in 1967:

November 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Position	Level
(a)	CALURA	i.	Chief, Analysis & Integration	STAT-5ii.	Chief, Corporation	ST AT-5iii.	Chief, Labour Unions	STAT-5(b)	Business	i.	Chief, Financial Institutions	STAT-3Finance	ii.	Chief, Industrial Corporations	STAT-3(Division	ii.	Chief, Research & Integration	STAT-3iv.	Chief, Housing and Building Permits	STAT-3V.	Chief, Construction	STAT-3vi.	Chief, Capital Expenditures	STAT-3vii.	Chief, National Wealth & Capital Stock	STAT-3(c)	Governments	i.	Chief, Consolidation & Coordination	CH-STAT-1(Division	ii.	Chief, Federal Governments	STAT-5iii.	Chief, Provincial Governments	STAT-5iv.	Chief, Local Governments	STAT-54.	Once the occupational category and group allocation was made, the position was evaluated against the Social Science Support (SI) Standard.5.	No, since a submission in such a format was not required.6.	Because of management expectations that program changes could arise that would affect Position DBS-FIN-2178 the grievance filed by the incumbent W. Taylor, against the classification conversion of his position was held back by management for some months and was subsequently actioned without prejudice to the rights of theincumbent. He withdrew his	grievance	before it could be	1.	Read Meat Poultry	TotalBritish Columbia	5	6	11Alberta	22	4	26Saskatchewan	20	3	23Manitoba	17	8	25Ontario	29	18	47Quebec	28	15	43New Brunswick	5	3	8Nova Scotia	4	2	6Prince Edward Island	1	iNewfoundland	2	2133	59	1922.	1970	1971British Columbia	5	1Alberta	4	6Saskatchewan	7	3Manitoba	5	4Ontario	31	25Quebec	29	22New Brunswick	1	2Nova Scotia	3	-Prince Edward Island	-	2Newfoundland	1 86	65


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 3,150-Mr. Beaudoin: (Revised)
X. Since the inception of the Local Initiatives Programme, how much money has been allocated to the Constituency of Richmond?
2. For each project approved, what was the (a) title (b) amount allocated (c) year of approval (d) town concerned (e) number of jobs created?
reviewed. The circumstances of the delay were explained to the incumbent of the position in a letter sent to him on February 8, 1970.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	By province, how many slaughter-houses presently hold Canada approved permits?
2.	By province, how many applications for the permit Canada approved were made during each year since 1970?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
1972	1973	1974	1975	Total7	7	3	3	269	8	5	9	411	2	2	4	199	13	5	6	4226	18	19	27	14636	19	17	64	1871	1	6	1	125	4	3	2	171	1	1	5-	-	1	294	73	61	118	497Hon.	Robert K.	Andras	(Minister of	Manpower andImmigration): 1.	As per answer tabled	on November 4,1975.	2. (a),	(b), (c) and (d) as	per answer tabled on Novem-	
ber 4, 1975; (e) Please see following amendment.
|Mr. Roy (Laval).
November 26, 1975

1972-73
Order Paper Questions
Line Project title	Amount of	Location	Number of Jobs5 L'Entraide-famille	funding $77,531	Asbestos	Created 158 Fabrique de la Paroisse de St-Fortunat	52,209	St-Fortunat	3010 Arena de Poche	40,248	Ham-Nord	3211 Organisation des loisirs	11,232	Weedon	813 Initiatives locales de la municipalite da canton de Chester-Ouest	27,860	St-Paul de Chester	1314 Travaux-loisirs	21,645	Gentilly	1515 Amenagement de Ravages de che-vreuils dans les cantons de Test	24,336	Bromptonville	1616 Travaux Municipaux	28,024	Tingwick	1619 L'fiveil au milieu ambiant	39,898	Danville	141 Reservoir souterrain et station pompage	48,438	Disraeli	424 Restauration et amelioration	10,530	Windsor	71973-74 8 Aide aux malades et handicapes	30,000	Asbestos	1013 L'Entraide-familiale	46,280	Asbestos	1515 Les Initiatives Locales de Bishopton	23,280	Bishopton	31


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have applications been received from veterans organizations under the special housing assistance for veterans (non-profit) rental housing and, if so (a) how many (b) by whom?
2.	How much money has been allocated under this programme?
3.	How many applications have been received under the AHOP Programme "Special Housing Assistance for Veterans"?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Yes. (a) Two. (b) Royal Canadian Legion, Toronto District "D". Royal Canadian Legion, Alberta Branch No. 35, Red Deer, Alberta.
2.	For the fiscal year 1975-76 the Department of Veterans Affairs has allocated $50,000 to the entire Special Housing Assistance Program for veterans.
3.	Fifty.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 2,833 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, question No. 2,833 was placed on the order paper as long ago as June 20. It deals with a fairly simple matter asking how many consultants had been hired by the Fisheries and Marine Service of the Department of the Environment in the past two years, their names, salaries, and duties, as well as their terms of employment, and whether public tenders were called before they were hired. In the normal course of events that question should have been answered and the answer appear in Hansard. That is the procedure I wish the government to follow.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, we sought to have the matter made an order for return-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) he was on his feet but I misinterpreted his stance as indicating that he wished to raise an objection to questions that remain unanswered. However, it is quite clear that he ought to have been heard on that question. If the hon. member does not give his consent the answer will have to be treated as an ordinary answer.
[Editor's Note: The answer to question 2,833 is as follows:] [Text]


Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many consultants were hired by the Fisheries and Marine Service, Department of the Environment, in the past two years?
2.	(a) What were their names and salaries (b) what was their length of employment?
3.	Were public tenders called before they were hired?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Name	Amount Paid	Period of Contract	Public TendersAcres Consulting	$ 2,000.00	June 1, 1974-August 21, 1974	NoAcres Consulting	4,064.00	22 July 1974-9 August 1974	NoAcres Consulting	2,536.00	March 1975	NoADI Ltd.	1,000.00	June 1973	NoADI Ltd.	22,500.00	January 1975-March 1975	Invited ProposalsAlyea A.	3,000.00	Three months (1973-1974)	NoAnderson, Dr. G. D.	550.00	1973-1974	NoBateman, T.	3,500.00	May 1974-August 1974	NoBeak Consultants	4,514.00	March 1974-July 1974 & March 1975	NoBissell, Ed & Staff	5,000.00	25 days (1973-1974 open)	NoBissell, Ed & Staff	6,000.00	30 days (1974-1975 open)	NoBissell Consultants Ltd.	1,500.00	1974-1975	NoBissell Consultants Ltd.	5,500.00	26 November 1973-10 January 1974	NoBissell Consultants Ltd.	3,500.00	1973-1974	NoBlood Donald	19,870.00	132 days 1974-1975	YesBuilt Environment	5,000.00	1973-1974	NoCamarine Consultants	15,000.00	24 February 1975-30 September 1975	YesCampbell, Blake A.	6,224.00	Apr 1974 & Jul 1974-Aug 1974 May 1974 & Sep 1974 & Dec 1974	No
9470

November 26, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Name	Amount Paid	Period of Contract	Public TendersCampbell, Blake A.	11,880.00	1973-1974	YesCanadair Limited	29,881.00	October 1974-January 1975	Clarke, Redmond	3,600.00	Four months 1973-1974	NoClugston, Mackenzie	2,880.00	10 June 1974-31 October 1974	NoCove, John J.	1,000.00	2 July 1973-31 July 1973	NoCrandall, W. H. & Associates	256,777.00	7 June 1974-31 March 1975	TB 720174Crandall, W. H. & Associates	72,722.85	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	TB 720174Croal, J. P.	1,500.00	November 1973	NoDale, Norman	5,000.00	1973-1974	NoDalziel, J. W.	4,500.000	1 Sept. 1973-1 Dec. 1973	NoDalziel, J. W.	6,000.00	1 Avril 1973-30 June 1973	NoD'Aquino, Sandy A.	736.76	27 May 1974-12 June 1974	NoDept, of Fisheries, N. B.	1,650.00	1973-1974	NoDept, of Fisheries, N. S.	2,850.00	1974-1975	NoDickson, I.	24,000.00	Twelve months 1974-1975	Dobrocky, Seatech	5,674.00	15 February 1975-31 August 1975	YesEagles, J. C.	250.00	1973-1974	NoEngesater, S.	2,300.00	28 August 1974-31 December 1974	YesFissell, David	1,200.00	1 Feb. 1974-31 Mar 1975 & 1 May 1975-30 Nov 1975	YesFougere, Dr. Henri	9,100.00	16 April 1973-15 November 1973	NoFoy, I.	6,055.00	1 June 1975-31 October 1975	YesFrancis, Ralph	2,500.00	Two months 1973-1974	NoGeomarine Association	8,900.00	February 1974	NoGeomarine Association	5,290.00	1 July 1974-4 September 1974	YesGervais, D.	3,800.00	Five months 1974-1975	NoGfelier, Sam	9,500.00	1 May 1975-30 Sept. 1975	YesGilbert, J. A.	2,100.00	24 April 1973-31 May 1973	NoGionet, Huguet	6,375.00	6 March 1972-31 March 1973	NoGionet, W.	4,000.00	12 October 1973-15 March 1974	NoGregory, S.	3,000.00	Four months 1973-1974	NoGrober, R. J.	293.49	1973-1974	NoGroves, Dr. T. D.	2,338.00	Ten months 1973-1974	NoGroves, Dr. T. D.	2,981.00	Eleven months 1974-1975	NoGurney, D. M.	1,500.00	13 June 1975-31 December 1975	YesGytre, P.	1,250.00	Two Weeks 1974-1975	YesHarvey, H. H.	18,898.00	1 July 1974-31 March 1975	NoHarwood, T. A.	3,050.00	January 1973-December 1973	NoHateman, T.	3,500.00	1 May 1973-31 August 1973	NoHeads, Prof. N. S.	2,000.00	Eight weeks 1974-1975	YesHighspan Dev.	5,000.00	October 1974-February 1975	NoHighspan Dev.	3,000.00	January 1975-February 1975	NoHodson, P. V.	300.00	Six days	NoHorwood, Guihan & Cullen	20,163.90	1973-1974	NoRenting Exploration	3,897.11	1 January 1974-April 1974	YesKhandekar, M. L.	500.00	One week (August 20th 1973)	NoKilborn Eng.	242,000.00	28 May 1973-31 March 1974	TB 719177Kilborn Eng.	75,412.00	1 April 1974-1 March 1975	TB 719177Larkin, Dr. P. A.	4,571.00	July, September & October 1974	NoLaval University (Dr. Power)	7,500.00	September 1974-31 March 1975	NoLawrence, Dr. S.	5,000.00	Six months 1974-1975	NoLayec, M.	3,500.00	1 May 1973-31 August 1973	NoLeggett, W. C.	9,000.00	Six months 1974-1975	NoLevelton, B. H. & Associates	8,174.00	May 1974-September 1975	NoLevelton, B. H. & Associates	3,596.00	January 1975-March 1975	NoLewis, J. N.	2,500.00	1973-1974	NoLoftus, K. H.	2,053.33	1 June 1974-31 January 1975	NoMacDonald, C. B.	4.050.00	15 June 1973-31 October 1973	NoMacFarlane, C. I.	3,600.00	1973-1974	MacFarlane, C. I. Maclnnis Dr. J. B. of Undersea	4,000.00	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	NoResearch Ltd.	22,491.71	1 October 1974-30 September 1975	YesMacLaren Atlantic	42,000.00	November 1973-March 1974	Invited ProposalsMacLaren Atlantic	12,500.00	November 1974-January 1975	NoManex Inc.	71,011.90	25 October 1974-31 March 1975	NoManton, Dr. M.	300.00	3 March 1975-7 March 1975	NoMasry, Dr. S.	3,000.00	1 August 1974-31 March 1975	YesMcCrea, Allan M.	13,386.00	1 January 1974-31 March 1975	NoMcDonald, Dr. P.	3,000.00	Ten months 1973-1974	NoMcGill University	5,000.00	February 1975-March 1975	NoMcGriffin, John Stewart	500.00	2 January 1974	NoMcKay, John & Associates	9,900.00	15 April 1974-30 November 1974	NoMcKay, John & Associates	22,307.00	6 March 1974-31 December 1974	NoMcKay, John & Associates	410.00	February 1975	NoMcKay, John M.	7,500.00	1 June 1973-28 September 1973	NoMcKay, John M.	3,750.00	28 June 1973-9 November 1973 (33 days)	NoMcKay, John M.	6,714.00	1 April 1974-30 September 1974 (55 days)	NoMelnychyn, Paul	2,200.00	1973-1974	NoMillen, D.	2,610.00	1 March 1973-31 May 1973	NoMillen, D. 	6,000.00	1 June 1973-31 October 1973	No
November 26, 1975

Order Paper Questions
Name	Amount Paid	Period of Contract	Public TendersNeedier, A. W. H.	10,400.00	1973-1974	NoNeedier, A. W. H.	5,800.00	1973-1974	NoNeedier, A. W. H.	21,000.00	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	NoNeil John	100.00	Honorarium	NoNeville, Dr. R. A.	150.00	Three days (1974-1975)	YesNew Brunswick Research	54,950.00	4 February 1974-4 November 1974	NoNoah, R. J. & Associates	200,000.00	14 May 1973-31 March 1974	TB 719178Noah, R. J. & Associates	79,000.00	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	TB 719178Olafson, R. W.	440.00	Four days (honorarium)	NoO'Neill, F. C. Ec Rivens & Assoc.	1,540.00	April 1974	NoOsborn, Dr. T.	6,980.00	1 July 1974-30 June 1975	YesPaish, Howard & Associates	4,000.00	December 1974	NoParkinson, Dr. G. V.	4,800.00	21 February 1975-30 April 1975	YesParkinson, Dr. G. V.	5,780.00	15 July 1974-7 October 1974	YesParks, R. M.	1,500.00	14 May 1973-30 April 1974	NoParsons, T. R.	12,523.08	1 July 1974-15 March 1975	NoPearse Bowden Economic	1,499.43	1974-1975	NoPearson, J. R.	4,800.00	3 July 1973-1 October 1973	NoPeck, Stephen	7,000.00	7 October 1974-31 March 1975	NoPond, S.	2,250.00	1 April 1974-15 August 1974 (10 to 20 days)	NoProject Management & Design Ltd.	28,115.00	May 1973-31 March 1974	NoQuayle, Dr. D. B.	400.00	Two months 1974-1975	NoRao, D.B.	4,600.00	1 July 1974-31 August 1974	NoReid, Crowther & Partners	8,000.00	18 February 1974-20 March 1974	NoResearch & Productivity	16,251.80	1974-1975	NoRobinson, Roberts & Brown	4,000.00	September & October 1974	NoRogers, J.	7,600.00	1 April 1974-30 November 1974	NoRoss, R. S. & Partners	3,554.00	April 1973-May 1973	NoSancho, N. G. F.	4,900.00	1973-1974	NoSenelco Ltd.	12,500.00	1 February 1974-31 May 1975	NoSherbaniuk, J. A. & Associates	61,123.78	1 July 1974-30 April 1975	TB 730106Slaney, F. F. & Co.	21,991.00	Three days (1974-1975 open)	NoSmith, Robin	525.00	September 1974-December 1974	NoStone, G. A.	1,500.00	Three months	NoSwyer, W.	4,400.00	15 July 1973-15 August 1973	NoTakatsuka, Eitaro	13,200.00	April 1974-March 1975	NoTan, W.	15,000.00	10 June 1974-31 May 1975	YesTaylor, H. A.	4,033.00	18 February 1974-15 March 1974	YesThomson, D. W. & Co. Ltd.	3,197.00	Completed for 31 March 1974	NoTopham, Dr. D. R.	22,500.00	1 November 1974-15 September 1975	YesTopographies Ltd.	1,100.00	1974-1975	NoUnderwood, McLellan & Associates	96,466.00	1 March 1973-31 March 1974	NoUnderwood, McLellan & Associates Underwood, McKinley, Wilson &	67,010.00	1 April 1974-March 1975	NoSeith	9,934.00	28 May 1974-25 June 1974-26 Sept. 1974-8 Nov. 1974	NoUniversity of British Columbia	3,203.00	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	YesUniversity of British Columbia	6,659.00	1 April 1974-30 March 1975	YesUniversity of British Columbia	4,000.00	1 April 1974-31 March 1975	YesUniversity of British Columbia	75,000.00	Two months 1973-1974	NoUniversity of New Brunswick	4,000.00	April 1973-September 1973	NoUniversity of Victoria	1,248.00	1 February 1973-21 February 1973	YesUniversity of Washington	1,500.00	1973-1974	NoWall & Yamahoto	2,000.00	April 1973	NoWhite, Alan	2,500.00	Two months 1973-1974	NoWong, Shaw-King Emmy	1,560.00	10 Sept 1973-14 Dec 1973-7 Jan 1974-29 Mar 1974	YesWright Engineers	7,205.00	30 November 1974 & January 1975-March 1975	No
order paper on October 14. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would look at that question specifically. The information required is factual and should not be difficult to obtain.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the answer is expected next week.
Return tabled.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 3111. That question was transmitted to the appropriate office for the order paper prior to October 14 and it appeared on the
29956-47%

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lang that Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a long, deep and abiding commitment to this issue because of my background in Vancouver, my service during the war in Coastal Command in the air force, my living abroad representing Canada, not to mention, of course, my having been born in Saskatchewan. I am sorry that the other members of the Saskatchewan contingent are not here.


Ralph Goodale: They are here.


Donald W. Munro: From my present residence I look out over one of the great shipping lanes of the world. I deny there is a conflict of interest here. I would suggest instead there is a confluence of interests - everything comes together from my background to give me an interest, a real true interest in the Darling report.
We have waited at least five years for this legislation. The Darling report was issued in October, 1970, and here we are in November, 1975, five long years later. For years many of us have been advocating what this legislation imperfectly proposes - basically reserving the coastal trade for Canadian vessels and a code covering certain aspects of maritime matters.
Our delight at getting a final look at positive legislation therefore is tempered as soon as we read the bill, by a growing realization that the provisions are no more than a partial answer to our long felt needs - the long felt needs of Canada.
I suggest, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this is no more than a promise that "there will be ships on the slips by and by". Unfortunately, we are now dealing with only one of the matters related to our merchant marine.
Let us start by looking at some of the recommendations in the Darling report to see how they are matched in the legislation. I suggest that recommendations Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are dealt with in one way or another in the legislation.
No. 1 deals with the coasting trade; No. 2 with the coasting trade extended to something beyond the normal commercial operation; No. 3 with the continental shelf and territorial seas, bringing us up to date in terms of marine multilateral negotiations; No. 4 with a very dangerous area and one we have been putting up with long enough and one that I thought we were going to get rid of, that is, issuing permits to non-Canadian flag bearers - I shall be returning to this; No. 10 is related in many respects to No. 2, exploitation and exploration around our shores; No. 12 to

government operated marine insurance which unfortunately we do not see much of in this bill, and No. 13 dealing with steamship inspection which I understand we are promised in another edition of this bill.
Judging from the performance of the government in fulfilling its promises, I wonder if we are going to have to wait another five years for two more "books" as they are being called. I hope I am wrong in my suspicions, but I will continue to hold them until I am proved wrong.
Recommendation No. 15 in the Darling report relates to the Alaska Panhandle and is of particular interest. That is not being dealt with in the legislation, and I would hope the parliamentary secretary would be able to nudge the other member of the Saskatchewan triumvirate dealing with the merchant marine in order to let us know whether there are any conversations going on relating to this recommendation, in which it is suggested that Canada should have some special privileges of access through the Alaska Panhandle.
I mentioned that I am distressed the minister is not here but I hope the parliamentary secretary will take note of the matters that are going to be raised, because we have very real concerns. There are gaps in this legislation that we want to draw to the attention of the government. But we are not going to delay the bill unduly because we think it should get to committee where we will be able to explore matters more fully.
Time will permit me to deal with only one or two important matters raised in the legislation, or excluded from it. I shall concern myself with the matters of crewing, and cabotage. The code, included as a schedule at the end of the bill, cannot be considered as complete. I wonder of what use an incomplete maritime code can be? What is such a code if it is not complete and does not deal with certain important matters?
Conspicuous by their absence are provisions dealing with inspection services, standards of shipbuilding, requirements for icebreaking in various areas, and requirements for crewing. If my memory serves me right, the parliamentary secretary suggested that bills we can expect later will deal with crewing and shipbuilding standards. I wonder if these will come under new paragraph Bill-74, or under some completely different code. Frankly I think a maritime code should be just that: There should be just one maritime code, not several, for the sake of simplicity, so that it is available to masters and shore workers, who may know exactly what is involved.
It has been suggested on a number of occasions that we should not be talking of a Canadian merchant marine because of past difficulties we experienced. When a Canadian merchant service existed there was a good deal of trouble with crewing. I draw to the attention of the House that the major crewing union which would be involved with the merchant service has undertaken not to engage in strike action for ten years. According to The Canadian Sailor of July 28, 1975:
The Seafarers International Union (SIU) is willing to sign a 10 year, no-strike agreement with Canadian flag operators for ships in high seas service.
November 26, 1975

It follows, I think, that the union will extend the ten year no-strike agreement to operators of Canadian flag ships sailing in coastal waters. This brings me to my next point.
Not long ago the attorney of the SIU sent the former minister of transport a letter protesting against the appearance in our coastal trade of a ship bearing a name well known in Russian literature, Alexandr Puskin, which planned to operate summer cruises wholly within the territorial limits of Canada. Departures were scheduled from Montreal on August 10 and 17. And they happened.
This, of course, raises the problem of cabotage. I looked for the meaning of cabotage in the dictionary on the Table, but found that the origin is unknown. I then consulted another dictionary in the library, and found that cabotage is derived from the old French term "cabo", which comes from the Spanish cabo meaning cape. If we go back, we find that it means from cape to cape along the shore line; hence, cabotage. That is how sailors sailed in days of old, from cape to cape. That is the meaning of cabotage. But cabotage has come to mean more than this. It applies to the transport of passengers and freight by sea and air. The rule in the air is rigorously defended.
A foreign air carrier cannot embark a passenger in Toronto and drop him in Winnipeg. That privilege is open to the Canadian flag carrier only. That is cabotage. The foreign air carrier can pick up a passenger in a foreign country and drop him in Winnipeg or Toronto, but cannot carry a passenger between two Canadian points. The principle of cabotage is involved.
I say that our rights to our own maritime cabotage are being invaded by foreign flag vessels. Ministerial permits may be granted to foreign flag carriers who wish to indulge in this trade. I say we ought to encourage the construction of Canadian vessels, and let them engage in the cabotage business. They alone should carry freight and passengers in our waters.
Some foreign flag vessels try to circumvent the problem by calling, during their travels in our waters, at nonCanadian ports. Let us say, if they try to respect the principles of cabotage, that they go from Montreal to St. Pierre and Miquelon, down the south shore, then back to St. Pierre and Miquelon, and then to another Canadian port. They can claim that they interrupted their journey by calling at non-Canadian ports. This is how it is being done.
Let me put on record the route the Alexandr Puskin followed last summer. The ship engaged in cabotage within our waters. The route was: Montreal, Quebec, Bagotville, Perce, St. Pierre and Miquelon (weather permitting), and back to Montreal. The Alexandr Puskin was not the only ship to operate in our waters last summer. The Danish vessel M/V Discoverer did the same on our Great Lakes. Its route was: Montreal, Toronto, Welland, Windsor, Parry Sound, Mackinac, Chicago, and back. This is an affront, a denial of cabotage which ought to belong to the coastal state.
This particular legislation does not deal with cabotage, in the sense of reserving such rights for Canadian flag vessels, and therein lies one of the great defects of the bill.
Clause 8(3) defines our coasting trade. It says:
. . . 'coasting trade of Canada' includes
Maritime Code
(a)	the carriage of goods by water or by land and water, the carriage
of passengers by water land towage,
(i) from one port or place in Canada to the same or another port or place in Canada.
That is a perfectly good definition. On the other hand, clause 8 subclause (5) reads:
Where the Governor in Council by order issued under the authority of this subsection, so declares, the coasting trade of Canada does not, during such period of time as is specified in the order, include such of the following as are specified in the order,
(a)	the carriage by water of goods or of such classes of goods as are
specified in the order,
(b)	the carriage by water of passengers, and
(c)	towage ...
Therefor we know what the coasting trade is, and is not. Clause 11 really puts the cap on it. It says:
(1) Upon application made to it by a person resident in Canada who wishes to utilize the services of a particular ship, other than a Canadian ship, in the coasting trade of Canada, the Canadian Transport Commission may issue a licence ...
I take it that the "person" referred to means a legal person or entity. Under the provisions of clause 11 the issuance of a licence is to be related to "the public interest". The question is, who will define "the public interest"? Obviously it is in the interest of the operator of a foreign flag vessel who wishes to capture our cabotage trade to urge that it is in Canada's public interest for him to be allowed to do so. Where is there encouragement for Canadian flag vessels to operate in this fashion? The Stella Maris, under Greek flag, also operated in the Great Lakes last summer.
We encounter the same difficulty on the west coast. We have only one Canadian flag vessel on the west coast. We have a Norwegian flag vessel The Royal Viking on the west coast doing the Victoria, Juneau, Skagway, Sitka, Prince Rupert and Vancouver route. The Prinzendam, under the Dutch flag and with an Indonesian crew, is doing Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Tracey-Arm, Juneau, Skagway, Glacier Bay, Ketchikan, Alert Bay and Vancouver. The only vessel that is of Canadian registry is the Princess Patricia which does this same route. Surely there is some way of dealing with this problem. It has to be tightened up. I am afraid that clause 8, subclause (5) and clause (11) do not deal with it very satisfactorily. Surely the public interest as mentioned in clause (11) is that these cruise passengers in particular be carried on Canadian ships, built in Canada and crewed by Canadian crews! That is "the public interest" in any law that I want to have anything to do with here.
It has often been said, and it has been said to me privately and in letters I have received from some of my constituents, that it would be too costly to build and man our own ships. However, what are the real costs in Canadian terms? I quote very reliable figures. Last year Canada spent $2.7 billion, paying it to foreign shippers, in shipping charges for all categories of Canada's exports and imports. That is the real cost in Canadian terms, $2.7 billion. These funds should have remained in Canada. They should have been paid to Canadian carriers to carry our goods abroad and to bring to this country at least some of the goods we want to consume.

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code
I am not alone in advocating this form of activity for Canada which, after all, is part of Canada's tradition. Not only can I lay claim to having been born in Saskatchewan, but I can trace my origin through my mother to Nova Scotia.


J. Michael Forrestall: Even better.


Donald W. Munro: I have great faith in the breadth of this dominion from coast to coast. In Nova Scotia we used to build some of the great traders of the world for the tea trade and the grain trade. Great racers were built in Nova Scotian yards. We built great ships on the west coast as well.
I suggest that the minister get in touch with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). On February 25 of this year the National Council of the Navy League of Canada submitted a brief to the Minister of National Defence in which they made a great point of this matter. I quote from the submission:
Recent developments are dictating a change in this attitude (towards Canadian registered shipping) because of our extensive offshore continental shelf areas, rich in mineral, oil and fishery resource potential, areas totalling a third the size of the land mass. With the depletion of the land based resources throughout the world these offshore resources become not only more valuable to Canada but increasingly more attractive to other nations and multi-national corporations. We must be alert to the fact that conflicts in the future, as in the past, will tend to generate around the needs for, and control of, essential resources; food and raw materials for industry.
It is the Navy League's contention that the value and importance of this offshore resource wealth has not been adequately recognized by the Canadian public or the government. The interests are fragmented and dispersed through a number of organizations ...
No longer simply a capability to defend one's country from attack from across the oceans, seapower is now recognized as the capability to use the oceans in any way required to further the national aims of the country, through military, economic or political strength. It calls for strong, effective maritime forces; a modern, efficient merchant marine not subject to foreign control; a healthy fishing industry,-"
That is a submission made to the government. I do not know whether a copy went to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). If not, I have at least had an opportunity to draw it to his attention.
We can only regret that there has been such a long delay in bringing forth this measure. Our merchant marine has virtually disappeared through a lack of nutrients. I would like once again to put something on record. I find in this House that unfortunately you have to put on the record every four or five months facts which somehow or other come to be neglected.
In 1948 Canada had 203 dry cargo merchant vessels of
10,000	tons or more. In 1958 this was down to five and some of them, I can assure you, were nowhere near 10,000 tons. In the period 1968 to 1972, when this government was in power, we lost even those three. We lost the fleet we had in 1968. All that remains are three vessels of the 5,000 ton class.


Walter David Baker: We lost more than that in 1968.
An hon. Member; Yes, you lost the election.


Donald W. Munro: As my colleague says, we lost a great deal in 1968. We hope that all is not lost,

especially now that the 200 mile-continental shelf concept is coming more and more to the fore in our thinking. It is most important that we act now in this area, with the widening area over which we expect to exercise jurisdiction, not just in fishing terms, but in terms of our trading practices.
As a major trading nation, a position we hold even if we were rejected as a participant in the Rambouillet conference, we need our own merchant fleet. Here is a strange thing. Your Honour will be interested to hear this as well as the members of this House. We Canadians are offering Algeria technical assistance through CIDA to create a merchant marine. That is what CIDA is up to. It has the gall, I guess that is the right word-


An hon. Member:: Temerity.


Donald W. Munro: -the temerity to offer technical assistance in the construction of a merchant marine to Algeria. When I first heard that I just did not believe it. I wanted to visit this school of merchant marine which was half way down the coast between Algiers and the Moroccan border, but unfortunately I did not have the time to get there. We seem to pretend that we know something about the merchant marine. However, it has to be said that this government that has decided to help the Algerians does not want to help Canadians.
As to our ability to design and build our own ships, I have already referred to the shipbuilding tradition on both coasts. I have not mentioned the need of protecting and ensuring our sovereignty in the Arctic which shipbuilders on both coasts are prepared, ready, and able to do. I suggest that we have a great number of imaginative ship designers. One of the companies in my constituency has been working for some time to have organized at the University of British Columbia a school of naval architecture and marine engineering. They have been working on this for two or three years because of the belief that technology in this area, as in all others, cannot be bought economically. It has to be developed at home to prove really worthwhile. If you import, you are going to pay through the nose for it. We do have the native genius here. I mentioned the other night something we have in the way of car design. But we also have native genius in ship design also just by virtue of the fact that we are a maritime nation with extended coast lines. This project to create at the University of British Columbia a school of naval architecture lacks some $50,000 to get it going.


An hon. Member:: Get it from the Algerians.


Donald W. Munro: We might go to the Algerians. They, after all, as I understand it, are one of the OPEC nations. I will collect a few members of the House and perhaps we will set off as a delegation at Easter time, or at Christmas time, and see if we can raise this $50,000 from the Algerians for this school of naval architecture in British Columbia.
To those who doubt the imaginative ability of our shipbuilding firms I suggest that the next time they are in the library they should take a look at a copy of Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering, which I receive regular-
November 26, 1975

ly. I enjoy looking through it. There are some extraordinarily imaginative designs for ships and maritime structures to be found in its pages. One of the designs which was prepared recently brought a ferry called the Chi-Cheemaun into being. My hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) may well have been aboard this particular ferry vessel. It was designed in my riding and built in Georgian Bay, I believe in his riding. Chi-Cheemaun, is the Ojibway word for "big canoe". In its modern form it is a ferry incorporating advanced first class technology and imaginative design. I am delighted that the opportunity should occur to pay tribute to the firm concerned.
There are many other things to be said about navigation and tanker routes. Time will not permit me to go much further or I might deal with the new products which are necessary to clean up polluted waters and preserve our maritime heritage.
Much has yet to be said about other aspects of the bill, for example about the centralization of the registry and the difficulty this is likely to cause to those living in the outports. One of my hon. friends may be addressing himself to that aspect. However, having talked principally about cabotage, which really offends me as a Canadian, my suggestion is that we terminate our comments quickly and get the bill to committee where hon. members can call witnesses and examine it in detail. We certainly do not plan to hold it up.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) would mind repeating his remarks regarding Alert Bay.' I heard the name mentioned but I did not get the import of his comments.


Donald W. Munro: I would be happy to oblige the hon. member. The vessel to which I referred was the Prinzendam, a Dutch registered vessel of the Holland-America line, with an Indonesian crew. It carried out a couple of cruises last summer from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, Tracey Arm, Juneau, Skagway, Glacier Bay, Ketchikan, Alert Bay and Vancouver on the way back. It was simply cabotage. You can see that from Ketchikan to Alert Bay is one thing. That is not cabotage in the sense we have been talking about because that is from a foreign port to a Canadian port, but if they picked up passengers in Alert Bay to deliver them in Vancouver they were engaging in cabotage, an enterprise which, as defined in this bill, should be carried out by a Canadian flag carrier.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I thank the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for the information he has given me, Mr. Speaker. Alert Bay harbour has been used quite extensively by ships plying between California and Alaska. They drop anchor in Alert Bay since there is a large community of native people there. It has become quite a tourist attraction for American ships travelling along the coast line. The practice also supplies much needed revenue to that community.
I do not wish to take up very much time this afternoon, but I do wish to say I favour the replacement of the myriads of directions which the Maritime Code is intended to supplant. The proposal to incorporate some of the
Maritime Code
recommendations of the Darling Report is, I believe, progressive. The provisions defining Canadian ships and relating to the plying of Canadian waters by Canadian ships except where special licences have been granted, constitute a step in the right direction. I hope, however, that we do not get into the situation in which the United States found itself some time ago following the requirement that ships plying between United States ports must carry United States cargo.


An hon. Member:: The other way round.


Hugh Alan Anderson: In other words, lumber, for example, sent from one coast to the other has to be carried in American ships, which is very expensive. I hope we do not get into that kind of situation.


J. Michael Forrestall: What's wrong with that?


Hugh Alan Anderson: The cost of shipping in the U.S. is one reason why we are able to compete with American lumber on American markets. It is because we are able to ship more cheaply than they are.
I should like to discuss clause 15 on page 56 where the following item is to be found, numbered Bll-15:
Every ship that exceeds 10 metres in length and is owned by a person or persons each of whom is qualified to own a Canadian registered ship shall be registered in accordance with this code.
The succeeding provision covers vessels which do not exceed 10 metres in length and provides for their registration as small craft.
I thought that perhaps some of the hon. members from the east coast, or possibly some members of the opposition parties who come from the west coast would object very strongly to the proposition put forward in clause 24 on page 59 which states:
A central office for the filing of documents relating to ships owned by persons qualified to own Canadian ships shall be established in the national capital region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act.
I am not sure what will be the reaction to that provision of hon. members who come from the east coast or the west coast, but I would point out that already we have in Vancouver, Victoria, and Prince Rupert three registry offices and, honestly, I do not see the necessity of shutting down those three local regional offices and replacing them by one office in Ottawa. It is rather like deciding that all British Columbia motor vehicles should be registered in Ottawa. If hon. members would check the registry in British Columbia, for example, they would find out that the number of craft registered there exceeds several thousand.
It appears it would be necessary under this proposal to send the relevant information to Ottawa by telegraph or mail, or some other means, where presumably it will be available for use at points which are some 3,000 miles away. If someone could explain to me how this would create a better system than the regional system we already have, I would appreciate it. I have seen many situations of a similar nature where regional matters have been shifted to Ottawa when they could have been handled very well locally, and I think this is a perfect example.

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code
I thank the House for having had the opportunity of putting this matter in front of the House prior to this bill going to committee and becoming law. I honestly think that if at some time in the future a central registry is established we will have to consider legislation to turn matters over once again to regional offices. I am sure that the three regional offices in British Columbia are much more capable of handling registrations for the province of British Columbia than Ottawa.
I trust I shall have the support in committee of members of the opposition in either amending or deleting this particular section of the bill. It is not the most important section, but it is a necessity that the regional area offices are kept open. Surely it should not be a case of meeting the convenience of the government. We are not living in a state that does things only for the convenience of government; I hope we are living in a country where things are done for the convenience of citizens. With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members of the opposition for their support and I trust we will be able either to amend or delete the section to which I have referred.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Walter David Baker: We will now hear from a good inland sailor.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, members from the east and west coasts sometimes forget that Ontario has a salt water coast as well.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: So has
Manitoba.


William Arnold Peters: The use we have made of this salt water coast has been indicative of the interest other members from the maritimes have shown toward the utilization of that coast. Now that they have come to appreciate some advantages in their own areas they may be more willing to give some assistance to Manitoba and Ontario which share a common salt water coast.
Coming from an inland area I should like to say I am pleased to support this legislation. We have been developing our sea coast for some 20 or 25 years, and I hope we are now in for a number of changes, this legislation being one of the first and necessary steps that have to be taken.
During the war, and in the period leading up to the war, Canada had a large number of vessels in service for interport trade. It also had Liberty ships, as well as a number of other ships of a similar nature engaged in international service and flying the Canadian flag. As a matter of fact Canada was starting to give credence to the desire to be a third power nation, a nation aware of its trading destiny and of the necessity for a merchant fleet to handle its trade.
Canada has the largest, or certainly one of the largest coast lines in the world. We also are one of the biggest trading nations. We import and export about $15 billion worth of trade a year. To the best of my knowledge there are only three ships of Canadian registry sailing in international waters. For a country with the longest coast line
[Mr. Anderson.)
in the world and with one of the largest trading patterns in the world to have three miserable ships flying the Canadian flag must be a disgrace even to this government.
Only recently has it become possible for us to look at this situation in an impassionate way. It was C. D. Howe who, in large degree, was responsible for building up the Canadian Liberty ship fleet. It was also necessary for financial reasons to get rid of that fleet. He was well aware that all through the history of merchant navies they had to be subsidized, from the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, the Romans on. Since these fleets reflected the image of these people to others, they also became part of their development. In the same way, Mr. Speaker, these ships were subsidized when they were needed during the war. However, after the war we were not willing to continue the subsidies so our shipping fleet was dispersed.
Interest in the development of a Canadian merchant marine has been highlighted by an organization that has received a lot of comment in this House, most of it unfavourable. However, these comments were seldom backed up and there has been much hysteria about this organization. I am referring to the SIU. Some years ago a member of the House who was then the member for a riding in Montreal, the honourable member for Skeena, and myself were asked to attend a conference on safety on the Great Lakes. Since that time the Montreal member become a member of the cabinet, and he is now the member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner). At that time, however, he was parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport, and he invited the then honourable member for Skeena and I to go with him to this conference.
The conference was called by the SIU and was attended by marine workers, the pilots association, a number of employee agencies, as well as all shipping companies operating on the Great Lakes. Safety conditions on the lakes were so bad that these bodies got together and agreed at the meeting to establish a ship-to-shore radio safety protection system. But who opposed that, Mr. Speaker? The Department of Transport. Shortly after the parliamentary secretary of that day came back to Ottawa, the deputy minister of transport was moved to another portfolio. That has been my experience of civil servants attached to the Department of Transport, and it has also been my experience that most government members were not really interested in taking action to deal with shipping problems; they merely discussed them.
Over the years representatives of the SIU came to Ottawa on a regular basis. They talked of the Darling report and of the need to control coastal trade in Canada, of having Canadian goods carried in Canadian bottoms that flew the Canadian flag and were manned by Canadian crews. They were very interested in this for a very selfish reason, if for none other. If these were Canadian crews operating under the Canadian flag, they would be able to organize them.
I think there was a much greater interest than that which involves something we really have not thought about very much. If we are to have a coastal trade we must build ships somewhere, and we are not building ships at this time.
November 26, 1975

These people were joined on a number of occasions by other organizations which wanted to implement the Darling report. They came to us regularly. Finally, Leonard McLaughlin, who was the president of the SIU, established an office in Ottawa. He was one of the few people that openly lobbied the government strongly on the basis of building more Canadian ships, and having more Canadian seamen operating our ships under the Canadian flag.
I am surprised to learn that the Canadian Pacific operates under the Liberian flag, the Panamanian flag, or the flag of some other country. It does not operate under the Canadian flag.


Donald W. Munro: Not passenger
vessels.


William Arnold Peters: How many passenger boats do they have? They have a few ferries kicking around and one or two passenger ships, but they operate a lot of ships and not under the Canadian flag. The Canadian National Railways operates ships through subsidiary organizations in this country, but not under the Canadian flag, and this is really the Canadian government which does not in fact support the idea of having our own Canadian merchant navy.


Donald W. Munro: Merchant marine.


William Arnold Peters: There has not been much support in this regard from the government. There has been some incidental and continuous support, sometimes vigorous, from some members of this House, but we as representatives of the Canadian public generally have not really been in favour of the idea of establishing a merchant navy.


An hon. Member:: Speak for yourself.


William Arnold Peters: There have been some people dedicated to this and I would include among them Leonard McLaughlin, a former president of the SIU, and Mr. Gralewicz, the president at the present time. They have carried on this type of lobby for the development of a Canadian merchant navy.


Donald W. Munro: A Canadian merchant marine.


William Arnold Peters: Coming from inland waters I mix up navy with marine, but it seems to me they are the same thing. I suppose there is a difference. This reminds me of an occasion when I negotiated a contract for a plywood company. I kept talking about veneer and they kept talking about plywood. They were always upset when I talked about veneer, and it took me some time to find out that veneer was not necessarily plywood, but plywood was always veneer. I learned it the hard way, and I hope perhaps I will learn something about this idea of a Canadian merchant navy.
In this bill we are providing a grandfather clause to the Commonwealth agreement for a period of five years. We will not be able to move into Canadian registry unless we have some ships, and we had better start building those ships right now. If we do not I can foresee what the government will do. It will offer permits to anybody anywhere who has got a ship to come into our waters, and it will not demand any money for the permits. It will not
Maritime Code
demand that Canadian crews man those ships, and it will not demand that the Canadian flag be flown. The Government will not demand that our labour standards be upheld on those ships.
These ships will still be operating under the Liberian or Panamanian flags, or any other runaway flags of the world, because then they can hire crews without paying the required wages, and if they kill somebody because of unsafe conditions they can just dump him overboard and nobody will ask any questions. We will still be operating under those conditions unless we implement another part of the Darling report which recommends that we establish a merchant shipbuilding facility.
As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has mentioned, Canadians have done good design work. Canadians will always be remembered for their ability in respect of marine shipbuilding. We have done some excellent shipbuilding in Midland, as the member has suggested, and I am sure there are some ships being built on the west coast and on the east coast. Unfortunately it is not the Canadian government or the Canadian industry that is building them.
No matter how much members of this House may desire it, I suggest these ships will not be built or operated by private industry alone. This requires a combination of private industry and government. A considerable amount of money will have to be put into the shipbuilding industry by the government, and I suggest this would be worth while.
In concluding, let me say that we have not mentioned containerization or our inability to get into that field. We need private facilities operated under government auspices in order that we can provide a merchant marine with the shore facilities. I have not referred to northern services, but if we are not to lose our Arctic potential or, in fact, our sovereignty, we will have to put ships into that area.
Let us remember what has happened to our fishing fleets. We cannot protect them. We do not have enough ships for surveillance or to stop foreign fleets from fishing offshore without our consent. We are not able to supervise this because we do not have the ships. We will not be able to maintain our sovereignty in the north until we establish a shipbuilding industry that will provide the ships we need under the Canadian flag.
As a Canadian I certainly hope I will live long enough to see a Canadian merchant marine flying the Canadian flag, or whatever the flag is that ships fly at sea. It is a little different because it is a seagoing flag. I hope they will fly the flag that will carry across the world, along with our goods, the reputation of Canada as a trading and a seagoing nation. We have large coastal areas in Canada, and three ships will never provide the required merchant marine services of the Canadian people.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the introduction of the Maritime Code, Bill C-61, which I believe was initially introduced on July 23, 1973, and on which the government has been stalling ever since. I welcome the bill because of my background and as a former ship owner in my native town of Lunenburg, Nova Scotia.
9478

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code
I can remember growing up in that area and watching the original Bluenose, the Haligonian and some 100 other deep-sea bankers, as we called our sailing schooners, as they raced out of Lunenburg Harbour to our continental shelf in search of the cod and other species which were utilized in the area. Later on I spent some time on my own ships, and I say to you, Sir, that anyone who has ever smelled the tar and oakum on the deck of a ship, or felt the ship creaking and rolling under his feet, will never quite forget that particular experience.
This bill is basically an overhaul of the regulations covering Canadian shipping, the first I believe since the 1930's. It is really the first overhaul since that time, because then we largely adopted the United Kingdom statute. This housekeeping bill is really not complete, and we on this side of the House are still awaiting the additional shipbuilding assistance legislation that has been promised us now for several years.
There are few members in the House who can speak with authority on this bill, a bill which contains a total of 84 pages and which covers not only the Canada Shipping Act but other acts as well. For this reason we on this side of the House want to be assured of the fullest participation and involvement of Canadian shipping interests when the bill goes to committee. Such groups as the Dominion Marine Association, the Canadian Shipbuilding Association, the Canadian ship repair group, as well as representatives of the unions concerned with shipbuilding should be invited to appear before the committee and give the members the benefit of their views and their knowledge on this particular subject.
As I said a moment ago, this bill is a rewrite of the Canada Shipping. Act, and in clauses 1 to 8 are the technical explanations. Clause 8 states:
(1)	Except in accordance with a permit issued pursuant to section 10 or a licence issued pursuant to section 11, no ship other than a Canadian ship shall engage in the coasting trade of Canada.
In other words, this section preserves the coasting trade for Canadian ships in accordance with the declaration of the former minister of transport on September 24, 1973. He gave the British Commonwealth Shipping Agreement one year's notice that he would give notice of withdrawal at a later date. In the spring of 1974 he finally gave that notice, so in the spring of 1975 we were finally on our own. The former act, as hon. members are aware, gave so-called Canadian recognition to any ship of any country in the British Commonwealth Shipping Agreement, such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc. So in this respect the legislation is finally being brought up to date.
Clause 8 goes on to state:
(2)	For the purposes of this section and sections 11, 12, and 14, a "Canadian ship" means
(a)	a ship built and registered in Canada, or
(b)	a foreign built Canadian registered ship upon which full custom duty has been paid.
The term "the coasting trade of Canada" includes:
(a)	the carriage of goods by water or by land and water, the carriage of passengers by water, and towage,
(i) from one port or place in Canada to the same or another port or place in Canada,
(Mr. Crouse.]
(ii) between a port or place in Canada and any marine structure that is engaged in exploration for or exploitation of natural resources in accordance with a permit or licence issued pursuant to an act of parliament or of the legislature of a province,
This clause appears to me to protect the trade which may exist for Canadians between the mainland and any offshore drilling rigs operating off our coast on our continental shelf. Unfortunately, however, the conflict of jurisdiction over these resources between the provincial and the federal governments, as well as the conflict in the grey area called Georges Bank between the government of the United States, the governments of Maine and Massachusetts, and the Canadian government, have seriously cooled the initiative previously shown by the major oil companies in developing any resources of oil or gas which may exist in this area.
When we learn, as we did recently, that our supplies of oil and gas are drying up and that shipments to the United States must be curtailed by one third, it seems to me that the government should takes steps immediately to resolve the ownership problem on offshore resources. Every effort should be made to determine the proper authority which should receive royalty payments from oil and gas discoveries. The heads of the oil companies have stated publicly that they are willing to pay royalties to someone, but they are not willing to become involved in a legislative hassle between the provincial governments in Atlantic Canada and the federal government in Ottawa, or in a dispute between Washington and Ottawa over ownership of offshore resources.
In my opinion this dispute must be resolved quickly, or otherwise subclause 8(2)(a) and clause 9 are meaningless for we will have no marine structures engaged in the resource development off our coast which will require the services of a Canadian ship. It is as simple as that. We believe from tests made that there are resources there, but the oil companies are mute and have withdrawn their oil drilling rigs from the area. They are obviously waiting for a sign, and the onus is on the government to provide that sign of encouragement which means we will proceed to examine, study, and develop any possible resource we may have in that area.
Clause 10 deals with those whom we exempt. It reads:
1. Upon application made to it by the owner of a ship, the Canadian Transport Commission may issue, without charge, a permit authorizing the ship to engage in the coasting trade of Canada for a period specified in the permit not exceeding twelve months from the day on which the permit is issued.
However, no permit shall be issued unless the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of the commission that on September 24, 1973, and at all times between that date and the day on which the application was filed, the ship to which the application relates was registered in a Commonwealth country, and in the twelve month period immediately preceding September 24, 1973, the ship was lawfully engaged in the coasting trade of Canada. However, there shall be no permit renewals for a date later than April 26, 1980.
Currently we exempt hundreds of ships a year from the provisions of the present act. We had been dishing out exemptions at a greater rate since this spring. However, the former minister of transport said in 1973 that there would be a five year-phase-in period, and in this period
November 26, 1975

so-called grandfather rights would be recognized. In my opinion this pledge should have been accepted when this legislation was drawn up, and in the period between now and 1978 the government should have laid down the guidelines which would lead to the construction of sufficient Canadian ships to look after the requirements of Canadian industry.
According to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) last year Canada spent $2.7 billion on shipping charges for all categories of exports and imports. More than $1.5 billion of that amount is reliably estimated to have been directed to the agents and operators of foreign ocean shipping lines which serve our ocean shipping needs. Unfortunately-and I say this with deep sincerity-the vast bulk of this trade is carried in ships owned, operated, crewed by and paying taxes to and earning profits for non-Canadian entrepreneurs and foreign national governments. More to the point, there is no lasting employment, investment or increased manufacturing activity flowing to Canada from this vast expenditure of our currency. It is surely worth while considering the scale of the operation to examine why Canadian firms and Canadian ships do not participate in this trade.
I believe it is necessary for us to look at the arguments for as well as those against the establishment of a Canadian flag fleet capable of participating in the international seaborn trade. There are many arguments which can be put forward on behalf of establishing a Canadian merchant marine. After all, a ship is like a small city. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I grew up in an area where shipbuilding is of primary importance. A ship requires heat, light, and water, and the installation of these facilities alone provides employment to many different trades.
Ship construction provides jobs in the shipyards, and once completed a ship is constantly providing employment to the ship repair industries, to the crews employed to man her, plus taxes to provincial governments and to federal authorities for the supplies that are required to keep a ship operational. In fact, I know of few endeavours which would stimulate our economy in a manner comparable to shipbuilding.


Donald W. Munro: And it's pollution free.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), states, it is a stimulation to the economy which is pollution free.
We saw this happen in Atlantic Canada when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister of this country. At that time the Conservative administration of the day decided as a national policy to stimulate the shipbuilding industry by the payment of subsidies on fishing trawlers.
The shipyards are still there in Atlantic Canada, still in central Canada, and still on the west coast of this country. All that is needed is a viable policy by the government which will encourage entrepreneurs and shipping minded individuals once again to invest in the construction of deep sea ships. If this action is not soon taken, we will lose the
Maritime Code
skills which we have to build ships, and then our later stage will be much worse than our present one.
Opponents of the Canadian flag fleet claim there is no requirement for a Canadian flag fleet. They state that all is well, and that we have no need to be apprehensive. Needless to say, those who most vigorously oppose such a fleet are the agents in Canada of those very foreign fleets now serving us. Being business minded they quite naturally look with a jaundiced eye upon the prospect of competition from any quarter. However, apart from the facts of commerce, everyone involved in the shipbuilding community knows that in creating a Canadian fleet not a job would be lost. I say that a considerable number would be gained, a fact of vital importance to this nation today, which has something like 8 per cent of its work force unemployed.
In his report tabled on October 19, 1970, entitled "The Elements of an International Shipping Policy for Canada", Howard Darling paints a gloomy picture of the situation facing the nation. He outlines the increasingly nationalistic character of the world fleets, upon which we depend almost entirely. He describes the increasing participation in and direction of these fleets by foreign governments.
Every major shipping nation in the world today is subsidizing its merchant shipping, and they are all insisting on the right to use subsidized fleets as an arm of their foreign policy. Darling's message is that the increasing capital cost of shipbuilding has driven ownership into fewer and fewer hands, hands which are increasingly controlled by foreign governments, and which are therefore no longer to be trusted with the reliable shipment of the $15 billion worth of goods which Canada annually imports and exports. I might add that these exports are vitally necessary if our economy is to survive. For example, Canada relies totally for the over water trans-shipment of manufactured goods and for the importation of oil from Arab and Venezuelan interests on these uncontrollable and fickle foreign carriers. We must ask ourselves what happens if there is a sustained shipping crisis and these carriers fail to show up.
I believe Canada must get on with the job of creating a national flag fleet while there is still time, before we are stranded without a fleet to carry our goods for international distribution. When we were faced with a real crisis at the beginning of the second world war the nation went ahead and established a fleet which was the envy of the world. We took people from Atlantic Canada, who naturally had salt water in their veins, and mixed them up with people from Saskatchewan and from the central provinces of this country, some of whom had never seen salt water, and we made sailors of the lot. They too established records, and were rewarded for their heroism by the amount of tonnage they carried to Great Britain in the cause of the allies during the second world war.
We can still do that today, but we must get on with the job. The changing situation is best illustrated by the recent United Nations trade and development committee proposal for a code of conduct for liner conferences. The self-proclaimed experts within the government point out that only a few countries have formally ratified this proposal. They conveniently ignore the fact that the proposal was supported by West Germany, Liberia, France, Panama, Russia, China, Japan, and 56 other nations with 55 per cent of the world's total general cargo shipping tonnage. Even if that
2995 6-48%

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code
specific United Nations proposal is not adopted, the message it contains is quite clear: developing nations want their goods carried in their own bottoms and are prepared to pay the price to rid themselves of their dependence upon foreign fleets. This is the point we must start considering in Canada, a most vitally important point.
Canada, typically, abstained at the United Nations, and today it is still unclear whether the government supports the UN resolution. The United Nations proposed that exporting or importing nations served by these liner conferences have the right to carry up to 40 per cent of their trade in their national vessels. Nationalism on the high seas was clearly asserted by that UN resolution.
To Canada, with 452 foreign registered ships serving in the liner conferences last year alone, the implications of the 40 per cent Canadian content would be a fleet of more than 175 ships.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is what we want.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: And at some 40 men per ship the possibility exists for an additional 7,000 jobs at sea, not to mention staunching the flow of hard dollars from Canada to Athens, New York, and Tokyo. More important, our own fleet would guarantee us safe, reliable carriers under the direction of the Canadian government and operating under Canadian government policy.
What do we have at present? According to the latest figures available from the water committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, as of December 31, 1974, there were three dry cargo vessels registered in Canada engaged in the international seaborne trade. Two were constructed in 1961, while the third was built in 1958. Not one of these three ships was built in Canada. It is almost unbelievable, yet it is only too true.
Put in another way, not a single container ship, not a single tanker, not a single bulk carrier, and only three merchant ships fly the Canadian flag on the oceans of the world. Our oil, bauxite, and our general cargoes are all imported in foreign vessels for a fee. Our wheat, coal, aluminum, steel and general manufactured goods are exported in foreign flag fleets, also for a fee, and as previously noted last year that fee came to an estimated $1.5 billion. The current estimated cost of a 14,000 ton dry cargo carrier is $10 million, and I point out to the House that this is an approximate figure depending upon the manner in which that ship is outfitted. If it contains much sophisticated equipment, the cost would be higher but it is roughly $10 million for a 14,000 ton dry cargo carrier. At that cost we could build or buy a fleet of 150 ships from last year's payments to foreign cartels alone, not an inconsequential figure. Yet the agents in Canada for the foreign fleets tell us we would be foolish to build our own fleet. That is their privilege, but I submit we do not have to agree with their viewpoint.
Where in this controversy does our government stand? To be sure, that is a very difficult question to answer. The operative parts of Canada's shipbuilding acts were lifted wholesale from the 1947 legislation. The planners in Ottawa who drafted the 1966 National Transportation Act apparently were unaware, when they slavishly copied the old act, that in 1947 we had a fleet of over 300 ships, while in 1966 we had less than 10. Obviously the planners did not
[Mr. Crouse. 1
know this fact. It is equally obvious that if they did know it they did not care.
As a matter of fact any decision on shipping policy must still be made by the entire cabinet, and everyone familiar with the cabinet and the changes that have been made within it in the past year will quickly realize why no decisions have been made-why it was not until 1975 that the government even moved to set up the otherwise ubiquitous interdepartmental treaty despite years of public protestations.
The former minister of transport did nothing toward building a national flag fleet. He found himself unable or unwilling to overcome the resistance of the foreign lobby which perpetuates the status quo. He followed, if I may say so, the usual Liberal policy-do nothing and maybe everything will turn out all right. I submit that is not good enough at the present time.
In my opinion the world climate is definitely threatening our continued reliance upon foreign fleets. We can no longer assume that the foreign fleets will always be there-always ready to serve-always following the dictates of the dollar. This is not always true. The dollar sometimes takes second place to politics. Take oil, for example. Clearly the dollar is no longer supreme. When some countries wish to affect foreign policy they do so by withholding or diverting oil shipments. We must act to ensure that we will never be immobilized by instabilities in the world shipping community. Only a Canadian owned, Canadian manned and Canadian operated merchant fleet is capable of providing this type of guarantee.
In order to bring this about, in my view there should have been companion legislation introduced with Bill C-61-legislation which would serve to encourage Canadian entrepreneurs to invest in a new Canadian deep sea fleet. At present we have ship construction subsidy regulations whose objective is to assist the shipbuilding industry by subsidizing construction at a level comparable to the tariff protection given to other industries.
All builders of commercial and fishing vessels are eligible for assistance, and a subsidy of 17 per cent is paid on commercial vessels, while a subsidy of 35 per cent is paid on the approved cost of fishing vessels. The seaweed in the propeller of this plan, however, is that the government has not made available sufficient subsidies to cover even the cost for those who would be desirous of building fishing vessels to say nothing about those who may wish to build a ship to expand the Canadian merchant marine.
This House and the Canadian people need an assurance, by example, that the government means business when it plans to expand Canada's merchant fleet. A suitable amount of money must be set aside to cover the existing subsidy legislation. In addition I believe there should be a schedule of concessions to assist shipbuilders and owners in order to re-activate the industry.
I am not proposing an increase in the present subsidy but I am proposing some concessions which should be established, and which would be applicable to ship owners desirous of building new ships in Canada. In view of the large amount of capital required to build a new ship at the present time, the concessions to which I refer should be in
November 26, 1975

the nature of capital loans and interest. For example, the interest on loans should be the prime rate of interest as charged by our chartered banks, less a suitable percentage point over a ten year period.
If a ship is built in Atlantic Canada, for example, the owner should receive a loan at the prime rate less 4 per cent for building in Atlantic Canada, or 3 per cent for building in central Canada. This would stimulate the industry in Atlantic Canada where the present unemployment rate is higher than elsewhere. In addition, if the loan is repaid in less than ten years, or within a five year period, there would be an additional 1 per cent concession on the interest rate applicable to the loan, thereby using the carrot and the stick approach to encourage entrepreneurs to develop a viable shipbuilding industry in Canada.
There would be some cost to the treasury in a program of this type, but a lowering of the unemployment rate from 8 per cent to 4 per cent or less would more than wipe out the cost of the program to the central administration. It would also provide untold employment opportunities ashore and afloat for thousands of presently unemployed Canadians.
This afternoon we heard the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) speak on this bill. He referred to proposed clause Bll-24 (1) and (2) which reads:
(1)	A central office for the filing of documents relating to ships owned by persons qualified to own Canadian ships shall be established in the National Capital Region described in the schedule to the National Capital Act..
(2)	The minister shall provide, within the National Capital Region, a suitable place for the proper functioning of the office of the registrar, together with such furnishings and equipment as are necessary for the performance of the duties allocated to him.
That clause shows better than any words I could use the centralistic spirit of the government. Here we are talking about a maritime code. We are talking about establishing new opportunities for Canadians expanding a maritime fleet. Obviously this type of expansion would have to take part either on the Atlantic coast or the Pacific coast. Certainly if we were to have an office anywhere to deal with this problem it should be a regional office located in Atlantic Canada to serve that area, and I dare say a regional office in central Canada, likely in Montreal, where the bulk of shipping is concentrated, plus another one in the west to serve the Pacific.
Instead of that we read about establishing an office in Ottawa. Of all the things in Ottawa I submit this one is not required. The government should give serious consideration to amending that clause of the bill. I agree with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni who first raised the point, and I hope the clause will be deleted or amended to read that the national office will be in the areas affected.
In closing I think it is fitting to place a few of the recommendations of the Darling report on the record. After all, the report was commissioned by the marine transport division of the Department of Transport. No doubt it cost Canadians a considerable amount of money, so I think some of the recommendations should be on the record for consideration when thinking about the requirements of a new marine fleet.
The summary of the contents of the report is quite lengthy so I shall only place a few recommendations on the
Maritime Code
record. In the summary dated October, 1970, Mr. Darling stated:
(1) The negative attitude to international shipping policy in Canada has been due, on the one hand, to unrealistic demands for Canadian flagships having no solid basis in concrete Canadian interests, and on the other hand, to an indifference based on a confidence in the workings of a highly competitive international shipping industry ...
(3)	The varied conditions applying throughout international shipping furnish the context for decisions on Canadian shipping policy. International shipping remains competitive, but its competitive nature is changing. Competition in a free market is diminishing, but competition between large shipping consortia backed in many cases by their states is increasing as it is also direct competition from national fleets that define economic decisions differently. Canada, with its hands-off policy is close to becoming a unique case among the world's main trading nations.
That, I submit, is an honour we can well do without. Paragraph 7 of the report states:
The UNCTAD convention on a code of conduct for liner conferences is in reality a high-level endorsation of completely nationalistic shipping policies. Regardless of whether it ever comes into force it is a clear warning to all nations to protect their own interests with regard to the policies it endorses and which are already being practised by some countries on a scale greater than would be justified by the terms of the convention.
Paragraph 9 reads:
In Canada shipping policy is fragmented between different departments and agencies, each having its own priorities and terms of reference. There exists neither a definition of objectives, a unified administration, an authorization of powers for dealing with the subject matter nor any continuity of purpose or effort. Interventions, where possible at all, require a cumbersome procedure, and are necessarily limited to the vague generalities that are all that can safely be deduced from the equally vague guidelines that are available which for the most part must themselves be thought up.
Paragraph 13 reads as follows:
The principal interest situations that would call for attention include:
(a)	The movement of Canadian resources in the bulk trades, such as ore, coal, etc.
(b)	The role of Canadian ships in the development of the Arctic.
(c)	The examination of Canadian interests with respect to the container consortia that have taken over the greater part of the general cargo trade; this would involve the competitive position of Canadian ports as against American ports.
(d)	The consequences of the bilateral shipping policies of other countries.
(e)	The position of Canadian ports as a result of modern shipping trends.
Finally, paragraph 15 reads:
The basic prerequisites of an effective shipping policy include the following:
(a)	A definition of objectives which will make clear the importance of shipping problems in themselves, rather than to regard them as adjuncts and afterthoughts to other policies.
(b)	A unification or a co-ordination of responsibilities.
(c)	The equipping of the authority with powers commensurate with the stated objectives of that policy.
(d)	A flexible and aggressive administration, able to take initiatives in short term situations and to sustain drives for longer term objectives.
(e)	Apart from whatever steps might be taken in particular interest situations, there should also be a general shipping assistance program available on prescribed terms to any Canadian operator which would permit him to take his own initiative in deep sea shipping but would not involve any government responsibility for maintaining the operation. Such a program should therefore not include direct capital

November 26, 1975
Maritime Code
subsidies beyond the shipbuilding subsidies already available, nor
operating subsidies.
That is exactly what I say, Mr. Speaker. I am not advocating, when asking for an improved and expanded Canadian merchant marine, increased subsidies. I made a concrete suggestion, that we utilize the interest rate structure to encourage entrepreneurs to establish new fleets in this country. Basically, my real purpose for making this proposal is this: I wish to strengthen the security of the state. We must strengthen the security of our nation, and the modest cost to the treasury of this proposal can be justified on that basis. I therefore hope the cabinet will give careful thought to my proposal, indeed, to this whole matter, so that the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine will not be unduly delayed.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, those in politics have long contended that the government is the servant of the people. We are prone to ; lake such statements in elections. We say that we want to serve the people, that the government itself is their servant. The term "civil servant" expresses the same philosophy. It means that those engaged in civil work are the servants of the people.
Bill C-61 contains some exemplary features and is long overdue, but denies everything which has been said about governments being the servants of the people. If the government is to serve the people its services should be as available to most people as readily and as efficiently as possible. As I say, Bill C-61, which is to provide a maritime code of sorts for Canada, contains some redeeming and long overdue features. Yet I am advised that one part deals with the transfer of the west coast shipping registry to Ottawa. Obviously that proposal was designed in the interests of bureaucratic efficiency. It will please those in bureaucratic circles interested in bureaucratic efficiency. It will not please those on the west coast who need the services of the bureau, fishermen, tugboat operators, and other ship owners operating on the west coast. What kind of nonsense is this?
Why is the government to move, almost as far as geographically possible, from the west coast the very service which the people on that coast need? The ship's registry in Vancouver is an active office, and the heavy use made of it shows that it should stay there. Obviously the provision referred to ignores needs on the west coast, and overlooks the efficient and effortless registration of ships in the Vancouver area.
Vancouver is the busiest port in the country and its registry office the largest in Canada, with more than 10,000 ships on file. Some 400 new registrations were added this year. The work is done by a staff of four, headed by the registrar, Stan Baker, and the operation of the office is noted for its smooth efficiency. One can rest assured that if the registration is moved to Ottawa the number of office workers engaged in registering will mushroom upward dramatically; that will happen if the office is moved from Vancouver to the breaucratic catacombs of Ottawa. If you want efficiency, how you can make the operation more efficient by removing it from the area it serves is beyond my comprehension.


Ralph Goodale: You can use telex.


Benno Friesen: The parliamentary secretary suggests that the office can use telex. He must have shares in the company.


An hon. Member:: He can't even type.


Benno Friesen: The existing operation is efficient, yet Bill C-61 proposes closing the office and transferring it to Ottawa, several thousand miles from west coast salt water. A bureaucratic efficiency expert must have thought of this.
It reminds me of the story of the efficiency expert who checked a certain office. He came to the first person, whose feet were on the desk, and asked, "What are you doing?" The guy said, "Nothing." The expert went to the second desk, and found another man with his feet on the desk. He asked, "What are you doing"? The second man said, "Nothing." The efficiency expert said, "Ah, this is duplication." That about sums up the bureaucratic thinking behind the proposed transfer.
I do not support the proposed transfer as the resulting red tape and bureaucratic entanglement will create immense complications for owners of boats, large and small. Right now, owners who want bills of sale, mortgages, or other papers processed can usually count on obtaining service the same day in the Vancouver registry office. No one can tell me that if the operation is centralized in Ottawa for the sake of bureaucratic efficiency that owners and others will be given the same service, especially in these days of postal strikes when telex and other communications services are clogged with heavy use.


Ralph Goodale: Give it a chance.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, there is a member from Saskatchewan telling us how to operate the Vancouver boat registry. That is typical of Liberal party suggestions.
Further to this, every boat over 30 feet in length in British Columbia waters is on file in the Vancouver office. It is ludicrous to ship those files to Ottawa, far from where their usefulness can be appreciated and, above all, utilized. Surely it would be safe to assume that the existence of any system relies on the premise that it is to be efficient, economical, and utilized. The present registry office in Vancouver satisfies all of these criteria.
In the Vancouver office the closing of a contract is simplified immensely. That is hard to believe in a government office. However, physical delivery of the vessel to the purchaser, payment of purchase money to the vendor, and the guarantee of a clear title as transferred can all be done concurrently. If this system is centralized in Ottawa, we can expect confusion, not simplification; expense, not savings; disfunction, not efficiency.
It is common knowledge that correspondence with Ottawa from either coast is notorious for its inefficiencies. I am not prepared to believe that should the ships' office be moved to Ottawa, west coast vessel owners can expect any change in this pattern regardless of how sincere the bureaucrats might be.
I submit that the bill be given careful and diligent consideration by hon. members. I might add that change for the sake of change more often than not provides a
November 26, 1975

disservice and not a service, as it surely will if this bill is passed in its present form. I invite members of the committee, both of the government and opposition parties, to entertain an amendment that will upgrade the value of this bill. I can guarantee that we can anticipate intervention with this kind of amendment by the Canadian Bar Association. They are certainly concerned with regard to the commercial law section and the maritime section.
I encourage the members of the committee to entertain an amendment that will take into consideration the fact that the government ought to be committed to serve the people in a way that is best and gives the most efficient help to them, not to try to remove the services as far as possible from those who need them the most.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the passage of this bill. However, I want to call the attention of the House to a matter that was alluded to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I refer to the question of whether it is sensible, having regard to the nature of these registry offices, to compile everything in a central registry.
With the greatest respect to the minister from Saskatchewan and his parliamentary secretary, I think the government is making a mistake in doing that. I understand the necessity for the control of ownership of ships, the matter of derelicts, and a number of other reasons for the argument. However, when you consider the location of the registry offices in terms of service to the public, it does not make sense on one hand to move this kind of office to Ottawa when, on the other hand, the government is talking about distributing various offices of the public service across the country. It does not make sense at all. It seems to work against a policy which was announced or discussed on another occasion.
They are wrong, just as they were wrong in terms of convenience to the operation of a particular department, having regard to its function, by moving the cheque processing unit of the Department of Supply and Services out of the central region to Matane, Quebec. I do not say that that will not benefit Matane. Of course it will. However, having regard to the function and the requirement of what the office is supposed to perform in so far as the public service is concerned, this cheque processing operation move from Ottawa to Quebec is a nonsensical decision, equalled only by the decision set forth in this bill to move a service or operation from the west coast and other places. It means they are going to close a great number of offices and centralize them. I see the parliamentary secretary is nodding his head no. This may be a matter we should consider in committee.
I hope that in committee we will consider the question of decentralization of any office of the public service, not in accordance with economic convenience but in accordance with the function and the requirement of that office. When I hear members such as the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni or the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, I cannot help but think that this provision in this bill really requires examination. I hope that we will consider it in committee.
Cancer Fund
There is a difference between decentralization of the public service, which I believe is supposed to be done in accordance with certain principles having regard to the function and need of the offices in various parts of Canada, and dispersal of the public service.
Having regard to the function of the public service, the move to Matane was pure dispersal. The government wanted to put something in Matane. It may have had other overtones as well, having regard to the secret documents I produced, really the core documents with regard to implementation of bilingualism in the public service. But I will not deal with that today. However, the question of decentralization is dealt with in those documents. Those reasons are perhaps not the best in terms of the operation of the public service, just as this move to a central registry in Ottawa from the coast and elsewhere has to be explained in committee. There may well be an explanation. However, at the moment it is on questionable grounds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Kaplan:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions on all sides of the House about Bill C-76. I believe Your Honour will find there is agreement, hopefully unanimous, that the bill be dealt with on second reading now, that it be referred at once to the committee of the whole for consideration clause by clause and, if the bill is disposed of at that stage, that it be referred back by the committee and read a third time today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


KING GEORGE V CANCER FUND WINDING-UP ACT MEASURE TO WIND UP FUND
Donald Campbell Jamieson: that Bill C-76, to wind up The King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada and to authorize the sale of the assets and securities of the fund and to transfer the sale proceeds and the balance of moneys to the National Cancer Institute of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 26, 1975
Cancer Fund


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are happy to expedite the passage of this bill but I think it is worth a brief explanation from the parliamentary secretary. He surely wants to make one.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity of taking part in this debate, partly because it is the first opportunity I have had to pilot a public bill through the House. I hope it is significant that in doing so I am acting in response to a request made by an august assembly of distinguished Canadians who are presently the trustees of the fund, namely, the Right Hon. Bora Laskin, the Chief Justice of Canada, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, the Hon. Marc Lalonde, Dr. W. A. MacLean, Chairman of the Canadian Medical Association Committee on Cancer, the late Dr. J. J. Lussier, representative of the teaching faculty of the French-Canadian Medical College, and Mr. J. W. Westaway, Chairman of the Committee on Medical Scholarships of the Canadian Life Insurance Association. Their request was unanimous.
The purpose of the bill is to authorize the trustees to sell, under the supervision of the deputy minister of finance, as honorary treasurer of the fund, all securities and other assets of the fund and to pay the proceeds of the sale, together with all other moneys held in trust in the fund, to the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
The present book value of the fund, and its approximate market value, is about $62,000. Over its life the fund has disbursed an amount of about half a million dollars. The bill- provides for the termination of the trust forthwith thereafter and further provides that, upon payment and termination, the fund and the trustees of the fund, their heirs, executors and administrators, as well as officers and acting officers of the trust, be released and forever discharged from all obligations arising under the fund.
It will be of some interest to Canadians, I am sure, to know that the King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada was the first effort of our national crusade to raise funds to promote cancer research in this country. The fund was the inspiration of the Countess of Bessborough, wife of the then Governor General, in 1934, and a public campaign for funds was launched.
In June, 1935, the fund was placed by Her Excellency in the hands of the distinguished predecessors in office of the present trustees.
The fund was to be used "in search of relief from the high mortality rate of cancer in Canada" including, without limitation, research, diagnosis or treatment, education, and the provision of scholarships or training. The fund was tremendously successful in the initial years in raising money for its purposes. By December 31, 1938, the public, the federal and provincial governments, and Canadian insurance companies had contributed a total of nearly half a million dollars. The trustees began to make annual grants to the Canadian Medical Association.
In 1946 the National Cancer Institute of Canada was incorporated to be the recognized agency in Canada con-

cerned with cancer research. It is representative of universities, agencies, and organizations which are concerned with cancer. It acts as the co-ordinating agency in connection with cancer research and sponsors and supports research activities throughout Canada.
As early as 1937 there were indications that the fund should not be the means by which public charitable support of cancer research should be funded. In February, 1937, the then Chief Justice of Canada, the late Sir Lyman Duff, as chairman of the trustees, stated that he intended to refuse to continue as chairman if the fund was to be associated with the collection of additional moneys. He believed that such action was impossible because of his position, being incompatible with his responsibilities as Chief Justice. The situation thus arose that the Canadian Cancer Society was recognized as the public charitable organization through which appeals for funds would be made and the Society, in turn, financed the National Cancer Institute. This development left the fund, in effect, in an inactive role.
Over the years the trustees have made contributions to the National Cancer Institute of Canada so that by January 3, 1974, the fund stood at approximately $65,000. Since 1935 the trustees have endeavoured to use the fund to its greatest advantage to promote cancer research in this country. Nonetheless, the purchasing power of the proceeds of investments of trust moneys now represents a relatively small fraction of that originally anticipated. In the past decade it has become necessary for the fund to liquidate capital assests from time to time in order to release sufficient cash for annual payments to the National Cancer Institute of Canada.
Accordingly, when the trustees met in March of this year, all concerned were of the view that the fund should be wound up and the assets of the fund paid over to the National Cancer Institute of Canada. Since, however, the trust deed provides that the fund is to be continued until the trustees are satisfied that mortality from cancer in Canada has been sufficiently reduced, and since the fund is one of national character and importance, the trustees resolved to make the facts concerning the fund known to parliament with the request that parliament be asked to enact appropriate legislation.
I would like to look upon this event, Mr. Speaker, not so much as marking the end of a gallant effort on the part of all Canadians who have participated in the work of the fund since its inception-for the effort continues apace through others who have followed its lead-but as an acknowledgment of the progress that has been made in this country and throughout the world, including the development of other fund-raising bodies in Canada for cancer research much have largely supplanted the leadership that once undoubtedly belonged to the King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, before commenting on the bill, one which we all wish to see pressed forward quickly, I should like to extend my congratulations and the congratulations of my hon. friends to the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken. He has indicated this is the first bill he has piloted through the House on behalf of his minister. I should like to extend congratulations to him, not only on that fact but on his
November 26, 1975

appointment as well, and wish him every success in his new office.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned the leadership which has been given by distinguished Canadians who have acted as trustees of the fund, and who now feel the time has come to wind it up. I am satisfied that Canadians as distinguished as those who occupied the office of trustees of the fund could do nothing but give us a proper recommendation with respect to the operation of the fund and its place in the fight against cancer. What they have really said is that its funds might be better utilized in another way, basically for research into the ongoing battle to eradicate or bring under control a disease that has brought death to many Canadians, and sickness and sorrow to many families.
In saying that we favour the principle of this bill, we might take this occasion to pay tribute to the men and women of Canada in all parts of the country who have volunteered their work in cancer societies throughout the land. They have contributed hours and hours of their time, walking the streets collecting pledges from those kind enough to give. We ought as well to have emanate from this House an expression of thanks to these people, and to those very generous Canadians who have contributed to this ongoing fight against a dread disease.
There is no fooling about the matter, Madam Speaker; there is still a long way to go, and great dedication on the part of many Canadians for many years will be required. There are a lot of unsung heroes on the road to the eradication of this disease and of other illnesses in society. Some of these people are members and officers of cancer societies, national, provincial and municipal, people in constituencies represented by all members of the House. I would not want this opportunity to pass without saying to them, through you, Madam Speaker, that we are grateful for their work. We hope that as a result of their work we will take some giant steps on the road to the eradication of this killer disease of cancer.
As I said at the outset, Madam Speaker, we are prepared to expedite this matter through the House today, and I close by once again congratulating the parliamentary secretary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I believe it is an appropriate act on the part of the government to bring in this bill to wind up the King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund for Canada. I am sure we are all grateful to the parliamentary secretary for putting on the record a brief history of the fund and an indication of the amount of money that has been contributed by it to cancer research.
I think it is also appropriate at this time to pay tribute to the work over the years of the Canadian Cancer Society and of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, set up under the auspices of that society. I believe that the parliamentary secretary is quite correct in drawing attention to the research that has been done and to the progress that has been made, and both he and the previous speaker said what should be said when they pointed to the fact that funds are still needed to enable research to be carried out
Cancer Fund
in order to conquer this dreaded killer, the disease of cancer.
I may be getting out on a limb again, but the introduction of this bill does bring something to mind. When I first saw the title I recalled that in the year 1935, when I was minister of a downtown church in the city of Winnipeg, I preached a sermon on the King George V Silver Jubilee Cancer Fund and took some part in encouraging the members of my congregation to contribute to the fund. Little did I think that 40 years later I would be taking part in a debate to wind up that fund. I also recall a death in my own family that year that prompted a particular interest in the question of cancer, and in saying that I am sure I am expressing the interest of a great many people in this country. We hope that research into this disease will not suffer for want of the necessary funds.
We pay our tribute to those who have worked under the aegis of this fund these many years, and we extend our best wishes for continuing success to the Canadian Cancer Society and to the National Cancer Institute of Canada.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Madam Speaker, first I would like to associate myself with the words spoken by those who rose before me about the parliamentary secretary who made such a good case of presenting this bill and gave a brief history of the fund dealt with in this bill.
I would like also to point out that it is interesting when a member or a minister asks the House for co-operation in giving quick approval to a bill, that those requests should be made in the sense and the spirit shown earlier. One cannot but respond favourably to that request. I suggest that is the way to work in the House if our country is really to have an efficient administration.
With respect to the bill proper I support it wholeheartedly because the fund being wound up under the bill rendered enormous services to the people of Canada. And since the assets are being transferred to the National Cancer Institute it means that all records and whatever research may have been done will also be transferred to it, and that the institute will continue to work in search of means to fight that terrible disease.
I agree all the more with this bill that I was invited on many occasions to co-operate with the Canadian Cancer Society in my province, and as an hon. member suggested quite properly earlier, when I was a little younger I knocked on doors to ask for donations to the Canadian Cancer Society.
I have not forgotten those moments of service to that cause, and I am still very much willing to do everything I can to help the Canadian Cancer Society in its fight against that disease, all the more so that members of my family have been victims of that dreadful sickness.
I therefore support the bill wholeheartedly and trust that the National Cancer Institute of Canada can achieve even more with the support it is given by this bill, so that we may, in the future, hope to discover even more efficient means of fighting cancer.

November 26, 1975
Feeds Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mrs. Morin in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Eugene Whelan: that Bill S-10, to amend the Feeds Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Towers:: Madam Speaker, it is nice-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. There cannot be any debate at this time.


An hon. Member:: We are on third reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This is a motion for concurrence so there can be no debate at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, you can put third reading later, by consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: This is a motion for concurrence, not for third reading. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Eugene Whelan: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, it is nice to see that the minister is back in the House because the remarks I wish to make are for his benefit. He has been travelling all over Canada from the east to the west coast saying he is the protector of the farmers' rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yet the bill before this House restricts farmers in what they can do.


Eugene Whelan: Oh, be nice.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is not a realistic approach to the farmers' problems. One of the misfortunes we as members of parliament have to deal with is the fact that a majority of the

agriculture committee do not understand the implications of the problems farmers must face.
This bill in its initial stages appeared to be an innocuous piece of legislation. After we got into it, however, we found it could create a great many problems for farmers in Canada if a bureaucracy in the department decided to make things difficult. I have great respect for the members of the department and what they are trying to do, but we have no guarantee that the people who now represent the Department of Agriculture will always be there, in the positions they now hold. It might well be that some bureaucrat who wants to throw his weight around sometime in the future could create problems for the farmers.


Eugene Whelan: Oh, come on; be nice.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am sure the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would be the first to say he is not always going to be the minister, yet he is the minister responsible for sponsoring this bill.
Let me put our objections on the record for the benefit of those on this side of the House and all Canadian farmers, so that at sometime down the road, when problems arise, we can look back and show the Canadian people that we tried to protect their rights.
Since coming to the House of Commons I have tried on a number of occasions to get the government to adopt amendments I felt would be beneficial not only to the people concerned but to the government as well. Apparently the government does not accept this type of philosophy. Members of the government apparently feel it is a sign of weakness to accept amendments from the opposition. If this House of Commons is to work in an adequate manner the government must realize that people outside the cabinet and the committee have a certain amount of background knowledge which can be used to the benefit of the Canadian people. In this regard I am speaking of the Canadian livestock producer.
Let me put some comments on the record made by Dr. Black of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. I am speaking at this time primarily so that not only the members of the House are conscious of the situation, but in order that I can refer to these comments at a future time, if need be. Dr. Black stated before the committee:
First, let me indicate that neither Dr. Barker nor I is in veterinary practice and we have not been for some years, and that we have no monetary interest in this bill.
Our first concern when we read Bill S-10 was with the definition of a feed. We thought the definition as proposed in Bill S-10 was excessively broad.
Later he stated:
The part of Bill S-10, though, that concerns us most is proposed Section 4, and perhaps I could paraphrase proposed Section 4 in a different way from that in which it is written. It means to us that the bill does not apply to a feed that is manufactured by a livestock producer if it has not incorporated into it any drug or other substance that may adversely affect human health.
That is a big "if", Madam Speaker. Let me state now that we on this side of the House, as well as the farmers and the public, are concerned about the health and well being of the consumer. Let us not put that out of proper perspective. Dr. Black states:
November 26, 1975

Now, we assume that since drugs can be construed by most people to have some influence on human health, we assume then that the inclusion of a drug into a feed by a livestock producer would then bring it under the provisions of the act, and herein lies our concern.
This concern was exemplified recently in a meeting we had with people from the Plant Products Division of the Department of Agriculture when we came away with the understanding that in the future the farmer would only be able to put drugs in the feed in accordance with the medicating ingredient brochures, better known as the MIB's, at present put out by the Department of Agriculture. I think most of us realize that feed manufacturers themselves are limited by the MIB's as to what types of medication they can put in a feed, with the only exception that they can put another drug or a different level of drug or drugs for a different usage in a feed if they do so on the basis of a veterinarians prescription. Now we feel this is excessively limiting if the farmers can only put medication in the feed on the basis of the MIB's. The reason for this is that veterinarians and farmers often consider the feed as a vehicle for the administration of a drug to an animal. The drug has to be approved for oral use, it has to be available for that purpose. Under these circumstances, a veterinarian or a farmer may choose to put a drug in the feed, using the feed as the vehicle, if he has to medicate a large group of animals.
Goodness knows, in this land in which we are living we find that the herds, regardless of whether it is hogs, beef, or flocks of chicken or turkeys, are all becoming larger and it is becoming more difficult to treat them in larger numbers. Certainly it is almost impossible to give them individual treatment. This is why it is of utmost importance that farmers be allowed to treat these animals collectively. Dr. Black went on to say:
He may have to medicate hundreds or even thousands of animals in one treatment, therefore, it is unreasonable to expect him to handle each animal individually and to treat them all orally if this indeed is the route necessary in the case. Therefore, we feel that feed should be kept as the vehicle for the administration of medication to animals.
Just this afternoon we came away from a committee meeting at which we learned that there is a shortage of veterinarians in Canada. The Department of Agriculture is making what I believe to be a noble attempt at training a sufficient number of people to become veterinarians.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The way to start is to send Mclsaac back to Saskatchewan.


Thomas Gordon Towers: That is probably a good solution to some of the problems because I imagine he is a very good veterinarian. I am sure he would be one of the first to realize that there is a shortage of veterinarians, and I am sure he would agree with me also that in a great many cases there is a re-occurrence of disease in herds, while there is a possibility that there may not be a veterinarian available to the farmer to have a drug prescribed for his animals.
I think we must be concerned about limiting the farmer in what he can do because of the fact that there is no veterinarian there to prescribe the medicine. I feel also that we must think about the care and well being of the individual animal. I mentioned this before, and I repeat it, because we are all concerned about it. But-and this is the big but-the farmer can put the medicine through the watering system and thus give it orally, or he can inject it into the animal. I am sure that those who have had experience with this method of treatment realize that there is a far greater danger of residue being left in the animal by injection, either intravenous or intermuscular, but this is
Feeds Act
legal. That is why I feel that this bill is poor legislation which certainly will not protect the consumer and it limits the farmer in the treatment of his herds.
I should like to continue reading what Dr. Black said. It reads:
Now, limiting the farmer or preventing him from doing this does not seem to us to be reasonable because, as I indicated before, the drug has to be approved for use in that class of livestock by the people in the Health Protection Branch. It has to also be available in a form that is suitable for livestock. The withdrawal periods and the dosages must be worked out and approved. So, basically, this drug has to have been approved ahead of time for this type of use in livestock.
Also we feel it is unreasonable to restrict the farmer from mixing it in his feed from another standpoint. The farmer can obtain this drug from an outlet, a feed mill or some other place, and he can administer it to the animals, he can administer it individually or he can inject it perhaps parenterally by intermuscular administration or some other means. Often the route of administration, other than administering it in the feed, will result in a greater likelihood of a residue occurring than if the drug is administered in the feed. On top of that, it is a custom or it is an established tradition in Canadian agriculture that a relatively large portion of medicating farm animals is carried out by the farmer and not directly by the veterinarian. Again we feel that this would tend to limit his scope in this area.
I know, Madam Speaker, that perhaps veterinarians would like to have control over this, and we all know that they receive a fee for their services. This adds to the cost of production. Today we heard the Minister of Agriculture discussing the cost of production as it relates to marketing boards.
The more hindrance we put in the way of agricultural production, the more we will increase the cost to the producer. I think we must look at this realistically and we must approach it intelligently. We must realize that the more restrictions we place on the producer, the more difficulties he will have. Ultimately it will either put him out of business or it will increase his cost of production. Therefore we should be reasonable about this.
One of my great concerns is that we are opening up every farm gate in Canada to a health inspector. There is nothing in the act to suggest that the inspector must have a reasonable assurance that some misdemeanour is taking place in the operation. I take exception to that. I feel there should be some provision in the bill which would require the inspector to submit to the farmer his qualifications and whatever other identification he may have and to tell him what he is doing on the property. We know what happened when we were dealing with the right to privacy by individuals in connection with electronic bugging. Surely while this may not come under the same act, the privacy of the agricultural producer is being sacrificed to a degree. Goodness only knows we are losing our freedom fast enough without enacting legislation which would take more away from us.
I feel that this is poor legislation, and I wish to put that on record and to make it abundantly clear. I am not going to try to change this legislation because I have tried too hard on other occasions; in fact we tried to change this legislation in committee. We realize that perhaps there are misdemeanours which should be investigated, and I have no quarrel with the Minister of Agriculture or the Department of National Health and Welfare for enacting legislation which would provide for inspectors to go on any of

November 26, 1975
Feeds Act
these properties if they can justify their action and feel that they should investigate, but I do not think the assurance of representatives of the Department of Agriculture is adequate when they say that they do not have enough inspectors to go to all the farms in Canada.
Who knows what is going to happen down the road? We are opening up the gate to every farm in Canada for inspectors to walk through, and they do not have to submit any identification to the farm operator in any way, shape or form.
I think this is bad legislation, and that the government is doing a disservice by bringing it in in this manner. Nevertheless the government has a majority; it pushed this legislation through committee and I presume it will push it through the House of Commons. I am not happy with it, and that is one of the reasons why I am pleased at this time to have an opportunity of expressing my concern in this House of Commons.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few brief comments on third reading of Bill S-10. I was and still am a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I was there for discussions on this bill and indeed for some of the evidence which was referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).
I reject the opening remarks of the hon. member. He said that a majority of the government members on the committee are not experienced or knowledgeable in the field of agriculture generally. That certainly is not borne out by the facts, especially when we examine the membership of that committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: This bill is not really a major agricultural bill, but it is a very good example of how a committee can work. We called in several groups which wanted to appear before the committee, the veterinary association, the feed dealers' people, and another group of people interested in both animal science and nutrition.
We heard evidence from those people and sat down and discussed that evidence with officials from the Department of Agriculture. We discussed another provision with officials from the Department of Justice, and had a good deal of across the table, non partisan discussion in going through this bill, which is really a small bill with about four clauses in it. At this moment I believe it is coming back into the House with three of those four clauses changed.
As I said, this bill is not a major one, but it is an important and an excellent example of how a good committee can function. In this case the Agriculture Committee did a good job in dealing with this bill. We discussed very thoroughly the amendments and their implications.
Clause 1, dealing with the definition of a feed, was changed and narrowed in its scope, as a result of our discussions and the hearings we held. I believe the final clause dealing with penalties was modified, again as a result of discussion. Another one, which I know the hon. member for Red Deer was concerned about and spoke about, and about which I was personally concerned, was

not changed. However, in my estimation it was explained and spelled out by the officials a good deal more clearly than a casual reading of the bill a layman would have done.
Clause 4 deals with exemptions. Where a farmer or producer manufactures his own feed, under certain conditions he is exempt from the provisions of this bill. I think the hon. member for Red Deer is well aware that the old business of a farmer manufacturing his own feed was a fairly simple matter of putting some grain through a hammer mill or a plate grinder, and perhaps combining a few bags of supplement for a few cattle, a few hogs, or a few chickens. That was, perhaps, 90 per cent the case, but the situation today in the livestock industry is a good deal different. We are certainly now in a different era of livestock production in Canada. There are many very large operations with their own facilities not only for making feed, but for manufacturing and developing the same kind of feed. Indeed, there are larger operations than commercial feed mills which are subject to the provisions of this bill.
I do not quarrel with the objective of bringing some of those operating under the auspices of this bill. Many of these operations are vertically integrated, to the degree that perhaps the poultry or other livestock are slaughtered right on those same premises. I interpret the bill quite differently than does the hon. member for Red Deer. Veterinary prescribed drugs can be added to feeds manufactured or put together on a farmer's own premises. By regulation the bill provides for that exemption. That has been done in the past, and this bill does not change that practice, which has gone on through the years.
The bill expands the definition of what constitutes a feed to meet better today's needs. I certainly would not be supporting this bill if I thought it interfered with the rights of farmers to the extent the hon. member for Red Deer suggested. I would not be supporting it if I thought it was that kind of bill, but indeed I do support it, and I believe it contains a couple of changes which bring the bill up to date, and it is more realistic in terms of feed in agriculture today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Madam Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that this is a relatively small housekeeping bill. If that had not been so, the government would not have entrusted it to the Senate to introduce. In the main the changes which have been made in this bill have been housekeeping changes. Over the years there have been changes in the feed patterns of agriculture, particularly in vertically integrated operations with automatic feeding programs, where it is absolutely necessary to do the miximg either in concert with the feeding arrangements or at least on the farm rather than in mills, as was previously the case.
During the committee discussions considerable evidence was requested and obtained with regard to drugs which are added to feed. There is a fear on the part of consumers and producers that additions to feed may leave a residue in the end product which may affect the health of the nation. No one suggested that the protection afforded in this bill
November 26, 1975

should be extended only to feed mills. It is agreed that it should also be extended to farm feed mixing mills.
It was generally agreed that there are very few farmers who would do anything on their farms which would be detrimental to the end product. It has been said that drugs have to be added to the production cycle of almost all our agricultural products, and that is so. It is also true that there are instructions in the bill about how the drugs will be administered, but departmental officials have not asked for full control of the mixing which may involve adding some drugs. Our acts are sufficiently tight that those drugs can legitimately be administered by following the directions provided.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) reminds me of the person who says we should eliminate the controls simply because they may be abused. There is not very much wrong with most of the prescriptions issued in this country for people who have difficulty sleeping, or who are nervous or suffer from hypertension, but almost all the suicides are as a result of prescribed drugs. So it is not the drugs that are at fault but the way they are administered. If someone is going to administer them in a dangerous manner it is difficult to protect people from that.
I am concerned that in one part of the bill we have added a number of new things to food that are not actually food at all but work in the feed process and biological function of the animal. I do not think the government has ascertained the long range effect of some of these materials such as nitrogen, enzymes, and some of the other things that provide biological function rather than food value. We have not set up long term testing facilities and I think this is a weakness in our agricultural program. Some of these products have been brought about by changes in protein prices throughout the world, but when they are added as a substitute I think our veterinary services should have a testing program, rather than the producing company, to assess the long range effects of them. In some cases those companies have done the necessary research before the department can put on the label the way a product is to be used.
I believe that if someone comes to my farm with a mixing plant they should be subject to the same restrictions as if I take my produce to the feed mill where the mixing will be done under government supervision. I should be protected when it is done by the operator on my farm. As the Minister of Agriculture said, the operator should at least be able to read the label and know how the machine operates, and I should be assured that the mix is of the proper proportions and done under sanitary conditions.
This bill goes back to the Senate, and of course we would improve on anything they can do. We have done so with a couple of small amendments, but of course the Senate may not agree and the bill may come back to this House. I feel, however, that the department has brought the Feed Grains Act up to today's standards by the introduction of these
Feeds Act
changes. I sincerely hope it will give serious consideration to long term testing as I believe difficulties are developing from new materials being used without enough research being done by the government, independent of the company selling a particular commodity.
I am quite pleased that we were able to make a number of changes in the bill, and I appreciate the efforts of those who appeared before the committee. I think their advice was to the point and enabled the committee to make worth-while changes in the bill.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words and to present a very persuasive argument that I am sure all progressive members of the House will agree with-including the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).
I want to object to the way this bill was brought in, through the Senate. It is a government bill introduced in the Senate, and I think the time has come when we as parliamentarians should be responsible for bills in this House and the other place. Senators are not elected; they are not responsible to anyone; they do not have to face re-election. Many of them are appointed because of political I.O.U.s, and in the Senate they represent their party and lobby for corporations.
In principle I object to any government bill being introduced in the other place. All legislation should be dealt with by the elected representatives of the people and not by those who have no responsibility to meet the people in an election campaign. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) would probably agree. He has been outspoken on this subject and it is a pity he is not here today. It is ironic that one of the bills that goes that route comes under his purview. I think my point is valid not just because I think the other place should be abolished-and I think it should-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but he must speak on the content of the bill, which is a bill to amend the Feeds Act.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have made my point. You have just heard one of the briefest speeches ever made in this House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I should like to call it 6.30.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Pursuant to the order made on Wednesday, November 5, it being 6.02 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Thursday, November 27, 1975