1975-03-21

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 21, 1975

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have noticed that their edition of Hansard is not on their desks. I should explain that a combination of factors have contributed to a delay in Hansard this morning, perhaps the most important of which is computer difficulty. It is expected that Hansard will be distributed at about noon today.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very important question of privilege affecting parliament and therefore the privileges of every member of parliament. I think all members will agree with me that one of the most important functions of parliament, and therefore the duty and responsibility of a member of parliament, is to scrutinize-question, as it were-and interrogate the government in reference to estimated expenditures of the various departments of government. This responsibility becomes more important to members who are not supporters of the government. I make nothing of that except to point out that the duty and responsibility of opposition members must be to make certain that careful scrutiny of expenditures is carried out.
Every member of parliament has a mandate to make certain that taxpayers' money is spent wisely, correctly, and according to the law. I am well aware that the new rules change the method of considering the estimates, but I do not interpret the rules to mean that the government can bring forward a bill a few seconds before they ask for interim supply as set out in clause 2 of the bill, appropriating certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976, in the amount of $4,603,596,900.59.
I understand the rule is that once a motion for supply is put-and I shall refer to that in a moment-as it was last evening, and voted upon, the government can then ask for interim supply. I have no argument with that. I am well aware that if the bill is properly presented and is prepared according to the rules of this House, the rules say there can be no debate. However, the Chairman of the committee of supply of the whole House stated that we could ask questions: questions were asked by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), and they were disallowed and no answers were given.
I question very strongly whether-when you read clause 2 of the bill in question and then the details of how the $4,603,596,900 is made up-that the government can ask for three-twelfths of the estimates and then ask for additional sums of money on top of that. What I am saying-and I want to drive home the point, with the greatest respect-is that the government asks for interim supply, as it can, of three-twelfths of the total estimates. I want to emphasize that even when the government does that, none of those estimates are first fully considered by the standing committees. However, they ask for the approval of eight-twelfths of the total amount in several items in schedule A. Let us consider one of these items. They ask for a loan of $135 million for the CNR. If you add three-twelfths to eight-twelfths, you come up with eleven-twelfths. In other words, through the method of interim supply they receive the approval of the House for almost twelve-twelfths of the item in schedule A without the item first being given full consideration by the appropriate standing committee considering the taxpayers' money.
That is why many of us were wrought up last night, and so we should have been. The taxpayers of this nation expect us to be angry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I ask, was this done because the government did not want the committee to examine the reasons for that loan? All this was done prior to the estimates being considered by the appropriate standing committee. Surely no rules of the House were devised to mean that the government should be given control of all the money through interim supply without the committees first examining the estimates.
Law is not an exact science: I have stood in every court in this land and I know that that is so. Some people say a rule means this, and others say it means that. The rules that were devised are supposed to be reasonable and workable. I ask, what happened last night? As I said, I believe the government has a right to ask for interim supply, but not by this method of presenting an additional amount such as I pointed out in respect of the item for the CNR, and many other items. I do not want to take up too much time of the House on this. All I will say is that I believe the rules of the House were breached last night, thus affecting my privileges and the privileges of every member of parliament who has a mandate from the taxpayers of Canada.
Standing Order 58(10) reads as follows:
If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without

March 21, 1975
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply-
I find nothing wrong with that rule. The government can ask for interim supply, but surely they cannot ask for 100 per cent of the estimates. That rule has been read very often; maybe it is the only protection for the taxpayers. Standing Order 82(2) reads as follows:
In order to give effect to the purposes and provisions of section 3 of the Canadian Bill of Rights, it is the duty of the Clerk to cause to be delivered to the Minister of Justice two copies of every bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, forthwith after the introduction in or presentation to the House of such bill.
They must have had roller-skates on last night to have been able to run with that bill to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), because it was put to the House two seconds before the debate was allowed. Mr. Speaker, I have never been more sincere in my life than I am now, and if you feel I have a proper question of privilege I ask you to consider a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: I also have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). It is not identical to the one just put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) but it is on the same general subject. In the interest of orderliness it might be appropriate to ask the hon. member for York-Simcoe to develop his question of privilege.


MR. STEVENS-RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO VOTE SUPPLY AND SET CEILING ON GOVERNMENT BORROWINGS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege which concerns the most important and fundamental privilege of members of the House. I refer to the exclusive right of hon. members to vote supply and to set a ceiling on the amounts that may be borrowed at any time by the government. On December 11 of the last year I rose on a question of privilege concerning the procedure then adopted which gave the government power to raise a further $2.5 billion in loans. With respect, I would refer to what was said at that time, beginning at page 2143 of Hansard. At that time the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) stated:
-I want to make it clear that I am not defending the procedure that was followed. I hope we can avoid this sort of thing in future.
Subsequently, Your Honour stated:
I would only add that the comments of the President of the Privy Council must be taken, if not as a clear undertaking, at least as very close to an undertaking tantamount to the previous one that the hon. President of the Privy Council was good enough to give to the chamber, that is that the supply procedures would be examined by the procedure committee and furthermore the procedures contained in the actual supply bill, being as it is under a very severe guillotine with regard to amendment and debate, would also be taken under consideration by that committee and certainly that is something for which we would hope.
In last evening's debate there was a further $4 billion in loans authorized by the passage of Bill C-55. Since 1967, total loans or liabilities of the Government of Canada have increased by $24 billion, from a total of $32 billion to $56 billion, yet there has never been any comprehensive review of ceiling limits by any committee of this House;

there has never been a debate on these ceiling limits. Instead, this procedure has been used repeatedly.
Last night I attempted to question the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) as to what is the actual, new ceiling limit as far as the lending or borrowing ability of the government is concerned, and I was denied the right to receive an answer to that question. With regard to last evening's debate, the confusion which arises from our current procedure is perhaps shown in the apparent conflict in the rulings of the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House. At one point in the questioning of the President of the Treasury Board the Chairman stated that at that stage of committee of the whole proceedings there was no debate and that the committee had to decide upon this. The Chairman indicated that hon. members could ask questions for information, but he did not want to have an exchange from one side of the House to the other. However, later when I rose and asked whether the President of the Treasury Board could indicate what sums remained unborrowed and negotiated in loans authorized by parliament, the Chairman ruled that the rules did not permit debate and that asking questions is debate. Subsequently, the Chairman indicated that I might have a procedural point of order concerning clause 5, but that I could not ask for information as far as the bill was concerned.
Mr. Speaker, this point was dealt with in part by Your Honour and Your Honour indicated that under this procedure the estimates, whether they be main or supplementary estimates such as is the case with respect to these two bills, are examined in the standing committees. Subsequently, Your Honour stated that the rapid passage of these bills in the evening must be predicated upon the previous opportunity of examining the spending estimates, which after all are the substance of debate either in standing committees or on the floor of the House.
The $4 billion loan limit to which I have referred was not included in the estimates; it was not something that will ever come before any committee of this House. I point out that it is, surely, a most unsatisfactory procedure when we are asked to raise a lending ceiling by a further $4 billion. We are not even made aware of the total ceiling which the government now has available to it with respect to lending activities, yet when questions were put on this subject last evening, because of procedural problems we were not given the privilege of obtaining that information.
If the Chair agrees that my question of privilege is well founded, I will move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to recommend a suitable procedure for the setting of ceilings by parliament on the amount thaft may be raised by loan by the government.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I begin these brief remarks on the question of privilege by reference to Standing Order 58(10) under which the procedure took place last evening. The relative section is in the middle of that subparagraph and reads as follows:
If the motion under consideration at the hour of interruption is a no-confidence motion, the Speaker first shall put forthwith, without
March 21, 1975

further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of that proceeding, and forthwith thereafter put successively, without debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of any item of business relating to interim supply, main estimates, and supplementary or final estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any item in the estimates, or any opposed item in the estimates, and, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 72, for the passage at all stages of any bill or bills based thereon.
The procedure that was followed last night in which the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole had to intervene to suggest that the questions being asked were in the nature of debate seems to be well founded on the rules. Let me deal particularly with two questions raised in the questions of privilege put forward. The first is the matter of borrowing authority. The House will recall-as a matter of fact, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) drew attention to this fact-that when the main estimates were being approved during the first part of this session there was an unusual procedure in which a clause dealing with borrowing authority was included in the bill dealing with the Appropriation Act. At that time Your Honour will recall that I said I did not defend the procedure and that I hoped it would not recur.
On this occasion, however, the borrowing authority that was sought was in the bill approving interim supply. I looked at the precedents, and perhaps my hon. friend will be impressed by the fact that this procedure was inaugurated by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett some 40 years ago and has been followed almost without exception in subsequent appropriation bills, namely, that on interim supply there is usually an extension of the borrowing authority of the government. There was nothing unusual about the procedure. As my colleague the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) said, this is the usual form that has been approved in the past, so he gave the necessary assurance. He also gave the assurance that notwithstanding the fact that interim supply was being asked for and would be approved, there would be an opportunity for the House and standing committees or the committee of the whole to look at the items out of which the interim supply was being extracted.
I say to my hon. friend who raised this question that it would be quite impossible to limit interim supply to exactly three-twelfths of any particular item, because there are occasions when the government finds it necessary to spend the money earlier in the year rather than later.
I do not think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there is a valid question of privilege. May I add, as chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, that we have been looking at supply procedures and there is before the House now the report of the standing committee on which I intend to move concurrence early next week. If the hon. gentlemen or anyone else in their party would like to suggest further amendments, they would certainly be welcome to do so, or perhaps one of their spokesmen could raise the same point. So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest there is no question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps it is best to be clear, at first, that there is no serious suggestion of disorder. It seems to me that it was well understood and expressed by both proponents of the alleged questions of privilege that the procedures followed last night and discussed were not out of order. The complaint was not that those procedures
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
were irregular. Those procedures conformed with the practices adopted in this House for many years. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has pointed that out. Instead of being the end of the problem, it is but the beginning.
The complaint is not that the procedure itself was disorderly, but that important powers are accorded to the treasury benches, without parliament being given an opportunity to scrutinize those powers,to limit and restrict them. The difficulty that poses is very real. I am sure it is clear to hon. members that it involves parliament's most fundamental exercise. The solution, since these procedures conform to existing Standing Orders, is not by way of a question of privilege or point of order; neither is it by way of any remedial action by the Chair. The solution lies in the examination of these procedures in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which is basically the motion proposed by both proponents.
I find it difficult to accept the matter as questions of privilege. I prefer to reserve any decision, in the hope that in the discussion which will arise next week on the motion for concurrence in the report of the standing committee- the committee has experimented with ways to improve supply procedures-hon. members will be assured that the committee will examine this difficulty which arises every time the House votes supply. What aggravates hon. members' feelings is the focal point of the procedure, when money must be voted. It must be voted without debate and without amendment. The matter must come to a vote some time. As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) suggested so clearly last night, hon. members must accept the fact that at some time the House must come to a decision and at that moment it must be done without debate or amendment.
The procedures leading up to that point might be usefully examined by the committee, in the hope that arrangements may be made for seeking legitimate information and that the opportunity for members to examine the ingredients of such important bills might somehow be extended, so that crises may be averted, crises which arise when there is no proper opportunity for hon. members to ask questions, particularly about clauses like clause 5, which surfaces for the first time in the supply bill without there having been an opportunity to ask questions.
It seems to the Chair that that procedure might usefully be improved; but the way to do it is not by way of an order of the Chair. The way to do it, surely, is by way of co-operation among House leaders in arranging further discussions in the standing committee.
Agriculture



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
March 21, 1975


Mr, Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the signs of spring which are beginning to manifest themselves in the capital despite the blustery winds and equi-noxial gales we are experiencing today, signs of spring as evidenced by the fresh daffodils from my riding, Esquimalt-Saanich, which are available in the lobbies to all hon. members and which pages will deliver to all hon. lady members of this House on this first day of spring in International Women's Year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: In view of the unfair competition under which Canadian agriculturalists and horticulturalists in the west suffer from cheap products from abroad in the form of vegetables, cut flowers, shrubs and fruits, I seek the unanimous consent of this House for the following motion:
That the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with his colleague the Minister of Finance, undertake a review of the regulations relating to the seasonal imposition of duties on vegetables, cut flowers, shrubs and fruits from outside our borders, in particular recognition of the early maturing stages in British Columbia, so that agriculturalists in the garden riding of Esquimalt-Saanich shall be able to continue their commercial operations and provide their customers in the east and in the west with garden-fresh fruit, vegetables and flowers for many years to come.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Owing to the fact that railway transport is the principal mode of transport in northwest Quebec for industrial and commercial supplies and that deliveries are terribly delayed, it is not unusual for packages to take two weeks

to cover the 45 miles between Senneterre and Val-d'Or, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to launch an investigation into the excessive slowness of railways in moving goods in northwest Quebec and to report to this House about the steps he intends to take to remedy this situation and assure merchants, industry and the people of northwest Quebec of better railway services, which I claim on behalf of the economy of this area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   CRIMINAL CODE PROPOSED DEBATE ON RETENTION OR ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
This specific and important matter is in respect of the recent increase in the incidence of murder, and to the 1973 amendment to the Criminal Code that abolished capital punishment for murder except for killing policemen and prison guards. This law will continue until December 31, 1977. Of most concern to the Canadian public is the resolution of the question of whether or not to abolish or retain capital punishment. There must be a debate on this matter and on the question of whether to introduce new legislation to abolish or restrict the royal prerogative, exercised on the advice of the cabinet, to commute death sentences when there has been no recommendation for mercy. If my proposal is acceptable, Mr. Speaker, I will move the adjournment of the House, seconded by the member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


Mr. Speaker:: There is not the slightest question about the importance of the subject matter raised by the hon. member. In conformity with Standing Order 26, the hon. member gave the Chair notice of his intention to move for this emergency debate.
While on some occasions in the past I have had no difficulty in seeing a proper emergency situation requiring the implementation of Standing Order 26, I do not on this occasion have any difficulty in saying that it is not the purpose of the Standing Order to bring about amendments to existing statutes or deal with continuing aggra-
March 21, 1975

vations or problems. The question of capital punishment is certainly that kind of situation and should not be the subject matter for a debate under Standing Order 26.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Berger commission chief counsel, Ian Scott, in repeated criticism has stated that Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited has failed to produce studies and other documents related to alternate routes for the proposed Arctic natural gas pipeline, and when questioned by a reporter outside the inquiry he stated that the delay in supplying the reports could lead to a delay in the hearings being held by the commission, does the government itself or through the National Energy Board have any plans to communicate with Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited stating the necessity that they present all the documents the commission requires so that the commission can proceed in an orderly fashion?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consider the hon. member's suggestion. The government's view is that the Berger commission should continue its activities without interference or interruption by the government. I will have to consider whether this could be construed as some kind of interference on our part.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE DECISION TO CONSTRUCT WILL NOT BE MADE PRIOR TO BERGER COMMISSION REPORT
James McPhail Gillies: Surely intervention by the government or the National Energy Board to make certain that the commission can fulfill the responsibilities assigned to it cannot be interpreted in any way as interfering with the logical operation of the commission. I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Can the government now say with absolute certainty that the pipeline will not proceed or a decision will not be made regarding the pipeline before a report is made by the Berger commission?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can say with absolute certainty that no decision can be made before a report is made by the National Energy Board. My understanding is the Berger commission will have finished its report long before the board will have finished its report.


James McPhail Gillies: Do I understand the minister to say that the pipeline decision will not be made before the Berger commission report is finished?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the timetable, and Mr. Justice Berger said this himself, that appears to be a reasonable conclusion.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of earlier statements by the minister that the National Energy Board is an independent tribunal set up to look after the public interest, will the minister assure the House that between the years 1970 and 1975 the National Energy Board was not in any way involved in the planning of northern pipelines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. lady would read the National Energy Board Act, she would find that not only is it a regulatory tribunal, but it has been given the responsibility by parliament to act in an advisory role to government. I would have to check the record, but according to my recollection, representatives of the National Energy Board, including perhaps the former chairman and the present chairman, were indeed involved in advice to the government which established the northern pipeline guidelines which are now being followed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about the government's pipeline guidelines, the establishment of the pipeline guidelines or the board acting in an advisory capacity in this way. I am asking the minister if this independent regulatory body, namely the National Energy Board, was in any way involved in the planning of the pipeline during that period.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: If the hon. lady would do a little more research on this matter, she would find that the board is, of course, reactive to applications in this regard. If she is referring to preparation of general government guidelines such as I have referred to, obviously the board was involved. If she is referring to the preparation of an application by any individual applicant, that, of course, would clearly not be the role of the board. I am confident the board would have acted with great discretion in that regard.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Foreign Investment Review Act was passed by parliament as a result of expressed concerns by Canadians with regard to the problem of foreign ownership in general in Canada
4368

March 21, 1975
Oral Questions
and specifically United States ownership. This was indirectly referred to recently by the Minister of Finance when he said that a good part of our problem of trade imbalance with the United States is connected to the situation. In view of the interpretation put upon the Prime Minister's conversations with West German businessmen and the interpretation made of the recent speech in New York by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is the government still concerned with the problem of foreign ownership? Also, does the Prime Minister consider that existing legislation is adequate to deal with the problem?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes. In answer to the second question, the legislation is adequate in so far as it deals with one problem. However, there are many aspects to foreign ownership and investment control of the Canadian economic environment that the government has followed and will continue to develop, such as taxing approaches, incentives to investment in Canada and so on.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF NEW LEGISLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: In view of what the Prime Minister has said, in light of the statement made in the House by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in March, 1973, namely that we turn control of our future over to those who own our industry, and in light of the limitations in the existing legislation to deal with the broader problem, is the government giving consideration to bringing before the House new legislation to deal with not only takeovers but all new investment in the Canadian economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recall that under the Foreign Investment Review Act, other investment and takeover is covered in a second part of the legislation still to be proclaimed. The government has indicated it will proclaim this part at a date still to be announced.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKE-OVERS
John Edward Broadbent: Since under the terms of the act the government has turned down fewer than one per cent of the applications, that is to say, only nine of all the applications for take-overs, and since a written explanation has been provided in the case of only one of the take-overs as to the degree to which it meets the requirements of the legislation, would the Prime Minister request the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to provide the House with written justification for all the take-overs in the future and for those which have taken place so far?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the
preamble to the question, this is a statistical matter; I do not want to contradict the hon. member but I think if he checks the figures he will find the percentage is not what he has indicated. I will check them and I am sure he will, too. My impression is that of some 60 cases which have

been considered, eight or nine applications have been rejected. This is a considerably higher proportion than one per cent, if my memory is correct.
As to the second part of the question, we shall continue to apply the policy as set out in the law and in the government's statement. The hon. member is making a representation. I propose to review this subject with my colleagues in the not too distant future and I will consider his representation at that time.


MANPOWER
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering the increase in the unemployment rate in Canada, and more particularly in Quebec, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he will recommend the approval of other LIP projects to create jobs and alleviate the burden now resting on the Unemployment Insurance Commission?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I shall need clarification as to what the hon. member means by "other bills" before I can respond.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary following the minister's answer.
Considering that many LIP projects have not been subsidized, although they are valid, does the minister intend to postpone the date for the approval of projects to allow them to be subsidized and to create more jobs, particularly in areas where the unemployment rate is visibly increasing?


Robert Knight Andras: No such decision has yet been taken by the government. The whole matter is under consideration. If there is a decision it will be announced in the House.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary.
Because of the urgency of the problem, would the minister tell the House what the community program comprises which he intends to put forward jointly with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and tell us also whether this program will be implemented in the near future?


Robert Knight Andras: I believe the hon. member is referring to the community employment strategy, now in its developmental phase, which we are negotiating with each of the provinces. This will not be a massive program at its inception; it will in fact be limited to about two projects in each province being selected in consultation with the provincial government concerned. Negotiations are going on very
March 21, 1975

well with my counterparts in the provinces. I believe there will be activity in most places within the next few weeks, but limited to that scope.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport has stated outside the House that the government was alerted to the suspicion that bid-rigging might be going on in the salvage and dredging industries as a result of the Irving Whale case in 1971, what steps has he taken to determine what procedures were followed at that time to protect the public interest?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I asked the minister to investigate, which he did.


James Aloysius McGrath: Could I ask the Prime Minister when he asked the minister to investigate? Did the investigation satisfy the government that the contractual procedures followed in connection with dredging were such as to protect the public interest and that there were in fact no grounds for the suspicion the minister had enunciated?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the moment at which I discussed this matter with the minister, it was as soon as I learned about the possibility of a scandal there. The minister had already carried out an investigation at that time, and he showed me the results of that investigation on which he has commented in this House and outside.


James Aloysius McGrath: Can the Prime Minister determine for the House the date of the investigation? Was it at the time of the Irving Whale incident in 1971 or was it within relatively recent times when the minister made the statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The latter, Mr. Speaker.


POSSIBLE BID-RIGGING IN SALVAGE AND DREDGING INDUSTRIES-CONSULTATIONS WITH MINISTER OF JUSTICE IN 1971
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he consulted with his colleague, the Minister of Justice, in 1971 to solicit his advice in assessing the legality of what was going on in dredging tender procedures?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: In 1971 I was not Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General; in his absence may I direct it to the Minister of Justice or to the acting minister? Can the minister inform the House whether it is the intention of the government to eliminate the service provided by the RCMP patrol vessels operating off the coast of the maritime provinces? If not, would he investigate and advise us?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: I will bring that question to the attention of the Solicitor General and ask him to report.


Robert Muir: May I ask the hon. gentleman if, when he is working on this urgent and important matter, he will keep in mind that these RCMP patrol vessels, along with vessels from the Departments of Fisheries, Transport and other government departments form part of the search and rescue units of the Canadian Coastguard? Obviously, this duty cannot be carried out with 16-foot skiffs.


Otto Emil Lang: I think the Solicitor General is aware of the facts concerning the service provided.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It relates to a statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a letter to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior dated May 4, 1972 with respect to the construction of the Mackenzie Highway to ease the building of a pipeline.
In view of the fact that $100 million has already been spent to date on construction of this highway, and bearing in mind recent statements by Canadian Arctic Gas, has the government reviewed its position with regard to this highway and, if so, would the hon. gentleman advise whether there has been any change in policy?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: We are currently reviewing the situation. When the original cost estimates for this highway were being put together we were looking at some $60 million. We are now looking at estimates in excess of a quarter of a billion dollars. So we are currently examining the whole situation.
29557 - 2)4
Oral Questions NATIONAL PARKS

March 21, 1975


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSAL TO INCREASE ENTRANCE FEE TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND PARK
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? It is in reference to the deplorable proposal to impose a $2 entrance fee to the Prince Edward Island national park. Having had an opportunity to assess the special difficulties such a levy would impose on the people of the Island, is the minister now prepared to add to the good sense of his year's moratorium the deeper wisdom of a full abandonment of this iniquitous and nefarious scheme to keep the people of Prince Edward Island from their own beaches?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Judd Buchanan: In the final part of his question the hon. member did say I have arrived at an agreement for a year's delay because of the acquisition of buffer lands to which I referred in replying to the hon. member for Calgary North. The residents of the parks are not subject to this fee, nor are people whose work requires that they go through the parks. With those exceptions it is our intention to follow through with the plan.


CAPE BRETON HIGHLAND NATIONAL PARK-REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF INCREASED ENTRANCE FEE
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with reference to the Cape Breton Highland National Park where these exorbitant fees are also being put into effect. In light of the fact that the only road that can be used goes through the Cape Breton Highland National Park, and there is no other way you can get through unless you go by water, would the minister consider eliminating what the hon. member for Hillsborough has said is an iniquitous tax, because of the fact these people are already paying taxes to the province in the way of sales taxes and licence fees, and only one-third of the highway is involved with the Cape Breton Highland Park?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in reply to a previous question, people who live in the park and people whose work requires them to go into or pass through the park, as is the case in some towns and villages in the Cape Breton Highland Park, will not be subject to the fee, or if it is required that they pass through the park to get to their homes.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Solicitor General,

but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Solicitor General. It concerns the rather surprising and alarming story today that the RCMP are providing police protection to the Minister of Labour. Could the Solicitor General advise whether that protection was requested by the Minister of Labour or provided as a result of investigations of the police into the Hamilton Harbour matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I will simply say to the hon. member that certain reports came to the attention of the police and appropriate action was taken.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Solicitor General advise whether any other ministers or any other persons involved in the Hamilton Harbour investigation are being provided with police protection?


Otto Emil Lang: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to take a look at the matter.


HOUSING
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the question I want to put to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is really supplementary to a question of privilege which came up a week ago last Tuesday, but I have not been able to get to the minister as yet. This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister recently stated in a letter-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already taken some time with a bit of a preamble. I would really think in the interest of other hon. members who want to pose questions that the hon. member should just ask his question.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister sent a letter to Liberal members of parliament and not to members of other parties in this House indicating he will invite them to preside in place of him at certain functions where CMHC funding is being provided in their ridings, providing speech notes and ground transportation, and in view of the fact he is asking-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member put his question to the minister?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that he is asking those people-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member for Northwest Territories.


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
March 21, 1975


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member of Northwest Territories.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton rising on a question of privilege?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege in view of the fact that I believe this is a very important question and since I have not reached the point of putting it. I was trying to point out this matter by way of a question rather than a question of privilege. I refer to an undertaking or promise made in this House which I, as a member of parliament, and I believe others have taken as an undertaking by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs as a result of his statement on October 24 at page 723 of Hansard. That is an undertaking on which I have relied, and I intend to carry out my function as a member of parliament. The minister suggested that members of parliament, no matter to which party they belong, would attend as the official person representing the CMHC at all functions in their ridings, and I take this right from page 723 of Hansard. The minister has now sent out a letter of invitation to Liberals only to go to those constituencies which are represented by other than government members.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That is my question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Because of the very important nature of the question, and particularly because of its ingredient of political partisanship, I was most anxious to extend every courtesy to the hon. member. My discontinuance of his right to ask a question was not based in any way on the subject matter, but on my repeated request that the hon. member discontinue his long preamble and get to the point of the question. On his second refusal to do so I felt it was in the interest of other members to move on to another question. If the hon. member has a question to put to the minister I would be grateful if he would put it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to put the matter as a question of privilege but I will be glad to change it to a direct question. Will the minister now explain to the House why he has gone back on his undertaking and promise to parliament, which he gave to the members of this House, and why he is no longer inviting members of other parties to official CMHC functions which take place in their ridings, particularly when he expressly stated he wanted them to be there?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to invite members of parliament in each case to be in attendance and participate where CMHC ceremonies take place. I must say that after the most recent intervention I have my doubts whether this is a wise idea.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is a bright remark, Danson.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if all the seals over there want to stop barking we can get on with this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the partisan comments of the minister, which I do not think were in order in reply to a question as simple as that, I wonder if the minister can handle a simple question. Perhaps he cannot give a proper answer, but will he send members of parties other than the government party the same letter he sent to Liberal members of parliament?


An hon. Member:: Come on Barney, give us an answer.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact there has been, and I am going to send at the same time another letter, and I assume that those who represent me personally would be representing the supporters of my government.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of which I gave him notice. The administration of the Northwest Territories and the federal government set up adult vocational training courses in Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, which have met with considerable success, for which the government can be given credit. I would like to ask the minister to explain why it was seen fit to remove the heavy equipment from the Fort Smith school and send it to the "Hire North" site project which is to build the Mackenzie highway, particularly after the mayor and the council of Fort Smith were given assurance by the Northwest Territories government in May 1974, at which time CBC staff members and other press people were present?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, from the information I have been given, it is my understanding that this move was necessary so that instructors could give on-the-job site training to the native people who are being trained to work on the "Hire North" project. In addition I understand there was consultation just a couple of days ago, on the 19th, when Assistant Commissioner Hancock met with the council in Fort Smith to discuss the matter.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Now that the federal government has taken this equipment from the Northwest Territories training school at Fort Smith, will that equipment be replaced?


J. Judd Buchanan: That is something I will have to look into to obtain a reply for the hon. member.
Oral Questions GRAIN

March 21, 1975



ALLEGED INSTRUCTION BY WHEAT BOARD TO FARMERS NOT TO SEED GRAIN-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. On March 13 I asked the minister whether the Wheat Board would be taking on contracts after the strike, and whether it was advisable to seed grain this year in view of the huge backlog. The minister replied that it was advisable to seed grain. However, a report two days later which appeared in the Financial Post indicates that the Canadian Wheat Board has taken the unprecedented step of telling western farmers to cut back on planting because it cannot guarantee it can move the harvested grain. Would the minister care to explain the discrepancy between himself and the Wheat Board, which is in a position to really know?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no discrepancy whatever between the Wheat Board and the statements I have made, but there certainly is in respect of the report. The report to which the hon. member referred is completely false and inaccurate. The chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board called me shortly after the report came to his attention. He said there was no truth to it whatever and that the Canadian Wheat Board is fully in agreement that it is in the best interests of Canada at the present time for us to go for fairly full production next year.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, will the minister, then, guarantee that next year's crop will be taken by the board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the usual letter to the producers has been sent which indicates to them the kind of guarantee of minimum quantities that will be taken by the board, and it is a good assurance of the sales they will want. In addition to that, of course, there is the point that many of the grain bins in the country will be empty and additional production, from the point of view of security of supply, is desirable.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. On February 21, in answer to my question regarding the Pickering airport project, the minister answered in part:
If the hon. gentleman can bring some kind of evidence to show that the majority of the population is against the airport, I am ready to revise the whole thing.
Could the minister confirm his statement by assuring the House that, if proof can be produced showing that a majority of the people of Toronto oppose the present project, he in fact will take appropriate steps to scrap all plans in regard to the new airport?
[Mr. Buchanan.}


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not see what kind of answer the hon. member is looking for, because I have received no evidence that the population of Toronto does not want an airport.


Otto John Jelinek: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With due respect, I must say that the hon. member is asking a hypothetical question. He is asking the minister what action he would take in the event of something happening.


Otto John Jelinek: I hesitate to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is well known that the minister has a reputation for changing his mind on many occasions, and I wonder whether he will reverse the stand he took in answer to my question of a couple of weeks ago.


Jean Marchand: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, there are many places in Canada where there are people who never change their minds.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the present plans being made in respect of the green paper on immigration and my concern that immigrants who come to Canada and conform to the regulations be protected, since I have a very strong feeling that those aliens who misuse immigration bring to bear a certain reaction to immigrants who come in legally, I wonder whether the minister could indicate what steps are being taken by his department to make sure that social insurance cards are not being made available to those who are visitors or aliens of Canada who might be able to obtain employment when they are not entitled to that employment.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, an examination is being made of the social insurance number and therefore the cards. I have to reiterate that it was never intended to be an identification measure or process, although at the same time I might say that de facto it is being used for that purpose and its inefficiency in that respect is causing a great deal of problems, but we are examining this and anticipate introducing some changes in that process before too long.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who
March 21, 1975

promised me earlier in the week, on Tuesday, that he would consult with the Minister of Finance to see whether he could make a statement, and give us the timing thereof, with regard to the consensus program upon which a report was promised before Christmas and before the end of February. I asked the Prime Minister whether he would make a statement to the House before the Easter recess, which is now very close, concerning what the government is seeking a consensus on and the progress that is being made. Can the Prime Minister give me an assurance he will make a comprehensive statement on this program which is considered to be of such importance to the government before we adjourn for Easter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did raise the matter with the Minister of Finance. The situation is that there will be no position set down before Easter. If there is to be one it would be a repetition of the very thorough and on-going statement the minister made in respect of the taxation measure some weeks ago.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I believe the statement was made when the bill was before the committee. In view of the fact that any statements made by the Minister of Finance or by the Government House Leader have been of a general nature and members of the House and the people of the country are completely in the dark concerning what it is the government is seeking a consensus about, would the Prime Minister tell us when he will be prepared to make a statement which is not a general statement of the sort which has been given which means nothing. When will he be prepared to give a statement to the House concerning the contents of the consensus program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not yet determined the date, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to keep within the rules of the House and keep my temper if I may. In view of the emphasis given this program in the Speech from the Throne, and in view of the repeated postponements and no new information given about it, how does the Prime Minister expect the Leader of the Opposition or anyone in the opposition to sit calmly by and receive nothing but evasive answers from the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister smiles. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister simply to stonewall all questions on this subject and bide time, or is it his intention finally after many, many months to give the government and the country at least a little bit of the leadership which he promised in the last campaign?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity may I say I do not expect the Leader of the Opposition to sit idly by and keep his temper. I fully realize that he is doing his job in trying to get a statement from the government on this particular subject. My smile during the question had nothing to do with his concern but with the big smile I saw on the face of the hon. member opposite when someone yelled "shame". I thought this was part of the rhetoric, part of the game. I smiled, but I still believe that the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition is a very serious one. He will realize that on the government side
Oral Questions
we are engaged in a very difficult and delicate operation of trying to keep the inflation rate down by seeking a consensus. In our judgment, this is not the time to make any precise statements about the progress that we believe we are making. I respect the Leader of the Opposition for asking the question. I believe there is a certain amount of rhetoric involved in it, as indeed there is in my answer.



INFLATION-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON PROGRESS IN REACHING CONSENSUS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT AND LABOUR

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Monday I asked him if he would report on the progress made toward reaching a consensus between management and labour with the object in mind of controlling inflation, and he replied at the time that he was viewing the matter with cautious optimism. I wonder now if this cautious optimism will enable him in the near future to repeat once again that deathless phrase which he uttered in January of 1970, namely, "we've got inflation licked".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is a good example of what I call a rhetorical question which is not seeking any information, and is quite different from the question of the Leader of the Opposition.



TRANSPORT


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Can he tell the House whether he is aware that northwest Quebec merchants have decided to boycott the CN services to protest against the reply the minister gave to a question I put to him on March 10 last about the slowness of CN deliveries in their area and, if so, can he tell us what he intends to do to meet the very legitimate request of the people of that part of Quebec concerning the delays in CN freight services?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have already been in touch with the CN and I trust we will be able to get a better service for the people of northwest Quebec.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it concerns the English river system in Ontario and in the area of Kenora. Would

March 21, 1975
Oral Questions
the minister advise the House what steps he has now taken with regard to the mercury poisoning of the native population in that area since his on-site investigation in terms of the health of the native people in that area, and what steps he has taken to cause mercury pollution in the system to be reduced?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, basically the reduction of the mercury in rivers is the problem of the Department of National Health and Welfare, and the Department of the Environment, but my understanding is that measures have been taken in that direction. It is the durability of the mercury currently in the river system which apparently will endure for 70 or 80 years that is the problem, as we indicated to Chief Andrew Keewatin when we were there. Probably the only sensible solution would be relocation, but the band is not prepared at this point to accept that option. That was the indication given to me.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Is the minister aware that Japanese scientists are now studying the long term effects of mercury pollution at Minamoto in Japan? Evidence may be given this afternoon to the Department of National Health and Welfare concerning that. Does he have a representative there to study that evidence and to seek action following that testimony?


J. Judd Buchanan: I am not certain whether our representatives are there, but I am certain that the Department of National Health and Welfare is involved and we will provide any forthcoming information.



HUMAN SETTLEMENTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the United Nations conference on human settlements to be held in June of next year at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. In view of the fact that thousands of delegates from nations around the world will be in attendance, and in view of the enormous logistic problems in providing housing and security for the delegates, can the Prime Minister say who in Canada is in charge of the conference, Canada being the host country, and what progress has been made on the mammoth task of organizing this conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will discuss the matter with the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of State for Housing and Urban Affairs to try to ascertain which group is in the specific control position.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and it has to do with the request that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made to him for an opinion regarding the holdback of grants to Marine Industries Ltd. and the government's position with respect to the matter. Has the Minister of Justice had an opportunity to deliver an opinion with respect to the propriety of holdbacks to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Otto Emil Lang: A number of questions arise in connection with a potential civil liability, and while we have formed certain opinions and had preliminary discussions, we are continuing to look at the specific situation of the different applications for payments which may come forward.


Walter David Baker: Is the minister in a position to undertake to report to the House on that matter before the Easter recess?


Otto Emil Lang: It may well be possible to give more precise indications about whether or not a specific type of payment is being proceeded with before that time.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the massive hydropower development taking place in the lower Churchill Falls area, can the minister indicate to the House whether, under the general development agreement with Newfoundland, studies are being made to create ports coincidental with that development and in order to support the development? I refer to the port of Corner Brook.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: In point of fact, yes, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain whether actual details have been settled as yet with the government of Newfoundland, but we have indicated our willingness in principle to help fund a study to determine what development should take place in Corner Brook. Incidentally, there may very well be some implications of that same study for another port in the hon. member's riding, namely, Stephenville.
March 21, 1975



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it arises out of his answer yesterday to the hon. member for Elgin when he informed the House that an investigation had been going on for some time under the Combines Investigation Act into the fertilizer industry. The minister informed the House earlier that extensive investigations had been carried on by his department and that he will be tabling information. May I ask the minister, as a point of clarification, whether any further action is contemplated on behalf of the minister or his department, depending upon the completion of the investigation under the Combines Investigation Act. In other words, will no further action be taken by the minister until the Combines Investigation Act study has been competed?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are putting the facts together and then we will decide how far we can go with the legislation we have at present. As I said the other day in answer to the question about fertilizer prices, we have legislation before the House that gives us the power to hold the prices, and if we find that unwarranted profits are being made, we have the power to roll back the prices. However, we would be in a better position to act immediately if we had the legislation, but we will use whatever legislation we have in co-operation with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to do what we can do. We are not at all happy with what they are doing.


William Herbert Jarvis: Is it the minister's opinion therefore that the relationship with the fertilizer industry is such at the moment that some legal action may be necessary rather than any persuasive action that the minister might take with the representatives of that industry?


Eugene Whelan: We do know that, for instance, the Alberta pool, if I can use names, did not raise the price of fertilizer that high. We hope for similar action from other companies and co-operatives. I fought hard for co-operatives to receive better tax concessions so that no cosy deals are made.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Jean Marchand: that Bill C-48, an Act to amend the Railway Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.
Railway Act


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean Marchand: that the bill be read the third time and passed.


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


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Before this bill passes, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things I would like to say about it. The fact that this bill has been introduced by the government and proceeded with very rapidly is an indication that the opposition has indeed shown its willingness to co-operate with the government in bringing forth any legislation with respect to transportation. Through the good offices of the deputy House leader of our party an arrangement was made whereby the speakers were limited to one from each party on second reading, and the bill passed committee stage after only two committee hearings, so I think it is fair to say that we on this side welcome this piece of legislation as we welcome any legislation with respect to transportation policy.
The major thrust of this bill, which calls for cost disclosure by the railways on a government to government basis, arises from the proceedings of the Western Economic Conference which was held in Calgary July 24 to 26, 1973. I think it is fair to say that the concept of the bill was inspired by the provinces, and the purpose of the request to the provinces was to give them an oppportunity to evaluate cost data and to consider the effect of the freight rate structure as it relates to the growth and potential of economic development in the various regions of Canada. I think it also goes beyond that, in that the provinces wish to obtain information about the impact on various regulations and facilities with respect to our whole approach to national transportation.
I believe it is fair to say that in the initial stages the provinces asked for full public disclosure relating to the costs and freight rate structures of the various modes of transportation. The government, in its wisdom, saw fit not to proceed on that basis, but rather on the basis of disclosure on a government to government basis. I do not believe we find any objection to that because the freight rate structure and the manner in which freight rates are arrived at are a very important element of the over-all transportation policy; they are, indeed, very important to the over-all approach to overcoming the anomalies and discrepancies existing within our freight rate structure. Therefore, I want to point out that on this basis we agree with the bill.
I think the fact that we have this bill will give the provinces a better opportunity to study and assess the full impact of freight rates; they will be able to proceed in a much more knowledgeable fashion. I believe we must look at our freight rate structure in the light that freight rates must not only be fair but they must be seen to be fair. Hopefully, throughout the deliberations which will take

March 21, 1975
Railway Act
place as a result of this mechanism we will be able to deal with the very complicated issue of freight rate structures in a more knowledgeable and open way. The minister, in committee, indicated that this is merely a first step toward a much broader freight rate and transportation disclosure. He indicated, further, that it will be followed by a more comprehensive measure entitled the Information Act which will make it mandatory for all modes of transportation to provide any information the government may require. I think that in all fairness we will have to look at this matter quite carefully and seriously because the act will certainly have much broader implications and will require a great deal of study and consideration.
I note that the president of CNR, in a recent statement quoted in the Globe and Mail of Saturday, March 15, sounded a warning with respect to the requirement of cost disclosure. It would appear that he is somewhat apprehensive about the impact and the implications of disclosures of this type. I do not know just what is bothersome to the president of CNR, but I want to say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that if the CNR or any railway company has nothing to hide, and if its freight rate structures are fair and based upon cost plus a reasonable return, then it should really have nothing to hide. I also say to him that there need not be any reason to be apprehensive. I think he is concerned about the fact that some of his predecessors, and indeed some people involved in the railway transportation network, have said they do not necessarily base their freight rates on costs but on the basis of what the traffic will bear. If that is the case, the public has the right to know.
I believe the main thrust and the main principle enshrined in the National Transportation Act is competition, and we all know that in areas of Canada where there are strong competitive forces-that is, in trucking, railroads and movement by water-those areas are generally subjected to fair and reasonable freight rates. However, in areas where we do not have that competition-and that is basically the problem existing in western Canada and, I would suspect, in the Atlantic provinces where we do not have that competitive force to keep all modes in line-we find that freight rates are established basically upon what the traffic will bear; that was admitted in committee and indeed publicly. As I have said, freight rates, whether with regard to railways, trucks or ships, must not only be fair but they must be seen to be fair, and therefore they should stand up to public disclosure and public scrutiny.
The minister has indicated that this is the first step toward a much broader Information Act which will be brought forth later. I wonder what the minister proposes to do in respect of trucking. I notice that he indicated the new act would cover all modes of transportation and that it would be broader in terms of information not only with regard to the application and establishment of freight rates but, indeed, other areas as well. I am not sure what authority the federal government will have to deal with the trucking industry, for example, because extra-provincial trucking is not covered by the National Transportation Act; part III of the act has never been implemented. Therefore, when we look at the whole question of the approach to an integrated transportation policy we must not overlook the importance of the trucking industry

which plays a major role in the movement of freight in this country.
In an address to the annual convention of the Canadian Trucking Association on November 26, 1974, the Hon. E. J. Benson, president of the CTC, speaking of the year 1972 said that the railways and the off-highway, intercity trucking industry transported, between them, 238 million tons of traffic and of that tonnage 45 per cent was carried by the trucking industry. Almost half of all the freight that moves from city to city in this country is moved by truck. That is a very large amount of traffic when you consider that most of our bulk commodities such as potash, grain, coal, etc., move by rail. Moreover, of the gross revenue, which amounts to $2.3 billion on an intercity basis, the railways' share was $1 billion, or 43 per cent, while the trucking industry's share was $1.3 billion, or 57 per cent of the revenue. The trucking industry certainly cannot be overlooked in the approach to an integrated transportation system.
What bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that most of us consider that the railways should be more competitive and in a position to provide cheaper transportation than the trucking industry, given the economy in respect of fuel and the fact that they can move goods in much larger quantities, particularly bulky items. I think the fact that this bill will compel the railways to bring forth their facts and figures in order to justify their approach to the formulation of freight rate structures will provide a greater insight to the whole question of how they arrive at specific freight rates. Therein lies the major problem in so far as the impact on regional development is concerned. Surely it is time we took a very firm and positive position and said that transportation in Canada must be utilized as a major instrument for economic development in the regions.
Now, while the government is asking for disclosure from the railways and in the future will be asking for disclosure from other modes of transportation, I want to say something about the failure of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to disclose precisely what is going on in his department. I think it is fair to say that even before this legislation was drafted the railways had made a commitment to the provinces to provide reasonable cost disclosure on the basis of an exchange of correspondence between the chairman of the two railways and the department. This government is far too secretive in its approach to transportation, Mr. Speaker. If the department and the government were to take the public into their confidence, I think we would have a much more informed and rational discussion of the whole subject than we have had to date.
I should like to point to a couple of examples. The study on the 22 specific freight rate items that was requested at the western economic opportunities conference in July, 1973, has been in the hands of the minister and the provinces for some time, but it was very difficult to extract that information from this government and this minister. It was not until a rather bitter debate took place in committee that the minister saw fit to table the information.
March 21, 1975

Transportation is a vital economic lifeline to the future of this country, so why does the government want to hide the information and not give us the report? Is it because they are the governing class? Are they saying, "We have the right to rule: we are the masters"? You would almost think they were the only people who had good ideas; but it is obvious, because of their failure to respond to the transportation needs of this country, that they are bankrupt of ideas. They need some help, and we are prepared to give it. It is rather unfortunate that the government found it necessary to hide this document. There is some very good information in it which could be used to deal with discrepancies and anomalies in freight rates as they affect regions. Why, then, the secrecy? I hope the minister will respond to this question.
A series of studies is going on at the present time, but the minister gives various answers to questions. That is why he gets into trouble, of course; but he can also get out of trouble, because one's interpretation of his approach depends on which answer you read. In one case he indicated that all the studies were completed, and in another answer he indicated that maybe one or two had been completed.
Mr. Speaker, three or four basic studies arose out of the deliberations of the western economic opportunities conference. For example, the equitable pricing proposal advanced by the province of Alberta and its system of freight rate structures were put forward for consideration. I believe that study was completed. Why, then, was it not tabled and made public? There was the Manitoba destination principle, another approach to the pricing structure of freight rates. There was the roadbed study which I understand has been completed. Why have these studies not been disclosed? After all, they were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. Surely, with transportation in the mess that it is, it behooves the government to bring forward information so that we can all look at it and decide what is the best approach to the problem. We have a great deal of concern about this government's failure to bring us up to date on the progress being made.
I was quite amused by the minister's response to some of the questions asked in committee when we were dealing with this very important subject. He indicated that the provinces were opposed to tabling these studies and, frankly, I think that was a rather supercilious answer. The federal government paid for a large portion of these studies; national transportation policy is a federal responsibility, and it seems to me rather ridiculous to suggest that because the provinces are opposed to it we should not have the information. In the final analysis, this parliament will have to judge the legislative mechanisms brought forth to overhaul our national transportation policy.
We have lack of disclosure and lack of action by the government in many areas. For example, what has happened in the rapeseed matter which the CTC has been considering for some time and which has been in the minister's hands since 1970? It was found that, pursuant to section 23 of the National Transportation Act, the freight rate applying to that commodity was prejudicial to the public interest. The CTC brought down an interim decision and the provinces and all applicants appealed that decision. They asked the minister to reconsider it, as they
Railway Act
are entitled to do under certain provisions of the National Transportation Act.
I think the matter was referred to the minister in March, 1974, and he has been sitting on it since. Nothing has been done, and ministerial inaction has been holding up the final decision of the CTC: the question is in limbo. If the government adopts as leisurely an attitude in redressing other freight rate anomalies and discrepancies, some freight rates will not be changed much before the year 2000.
Let me now refer to the matter of rail line abandonment. According to the announcement of December 30, the status of almost 6,000 miles of track will remain frozen until December 31, 1975. Almost three months have elapsed since the announcement, but the government has not provided guidelines and terms of reference for the evolution process. It has not told us how these lines will be evaluated or what the study procedures will be with regard to the 6,000 miles of track. What is the reason for the secrecy? Surely the government knows how the matter is to be dealt with.


Mr. Paproski:: That's where the hon. member is wrong; it does not know.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In the meantime, the status of 6,000 miles of track is left in limbo, as it were. Economic development in certain regions served by these lines is a possibility but that development will not go ahead under present conditions of uncertainty. I do not say that the government should guarantee that the 6,000 miles of track will remain in use until the year 2000. That is not the point. I am merely pointing out that delaying the decision with regard to the 6,000 miles of track until 1975 has created confusion, uncertainty and frustration.
Governments are not short of advice. Advice is provided by provincial committees and technical committees. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) established a study group to look at transportation. In addition, other study groups have been sponsored by the Minister of Transport. We have available the services of all kinds of study groups and technical and advisory committees. Extra technical staff in the minister's office is available for advice. Despite the workings of all these groups, there is a dearth of information. Occasionally we see a press release which is put out for political consumption, but we do not know the hard facts. The minister refuses to answer questions asked in this House; I suspect he does not know the answers.
The minister has failed to inform members of this House where he stands with respect to the over-all transportation policy which the country was promised during the election campaign and again in the Speech from the Throne. So if we sound frustrated and angry, people should not be surprised: we are frustrated and angry because our requests for information are refused. We agree that transportation is in a mess. We want to work with the minister, but the initiative can only come from the government side. The government's inaction is making us angry, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government is like a secret society.

March 21, 1975
Railway Act


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If the minister is not in a position to bring forward a comprehensive transportation plan, he should at least bring forward guidelines which could apply right across the country. I suggest the minister could establish a national conference on transportation in which all experts in the transportation field could participate, in order to arrive at a consensus because, Mr. Speaker, transportation cannot be dealt with in isolation. It is as vital to our nation as our social security system and our energy resources.
The minister's approach to the problem of transportation is disjointed. He says one thing in one part of the country and another in another part. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth. After saying one thing in the Atlantic provinces, he says something different in central Canada and something different again in western Canada. We cannot develop policy if the minister's approach is so disjointed. A parliamentary committee might be helpful in making suggestions on transportation, but the guidelines and initiatives can only come from the government. During the election campaign the government pretended it had all the answers. We agreed with many of its proposals; many of them were similar to proposals we had advanced during the election campaign.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government stole our ideas.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Matters involving grain handling and grain handlers' strikes come within the purview of transportation; but the government has taken no corrective initiatives in this field. We call on the government to take initiatives and to act. Surely somebody in the government is working on transportation. If members opposite had visited western Canada in the last week or ten days they would have sensed the anger and frustration of western producers-anger and frustration brought about by their inability to move products. What is the point of the kind of stabilization program we discussed last week, and will discuss again soon in connection with grain, if we cannot move products to market? The situation is ludicrous.
The provinces themselves asked for disclosure of certain cost information in order to be in a better position to evaluate freight rate structures, the manner in which they are arrived at and their application. Such disclosure is important for the provinces as they are concerned about the impact of freight rates on regional growth. Transportation policy is an important tool in bringing about regional growth. It has been acknowledged that there are anomalies and discrepancies in this country's freight rates; studies have proved it and the minister himself acknowledged it.
The method provided under section 23 of the National Transportation Act for curing these anomalies and discrepancies is far too complex, as is made evident by the appeal in connection with rapeseed. The procedure must be shortened and changed so that freight rate anomalies which are against the public interest can be redressed in short order. An opportunity for intelligent discussion of this matter and intelligent argument is necessary. That is why we welcome this bill.

On February 24 of this year the Department of Transport released a communique which reads in part as follows:
Calgary. At a breakthrough meeting at Calgary the federal and four provincial ministers responsible for transportation arrived at accord on five major principles on transportation policy affecting western Canada.
We welcome that statement which has been a long time coming. We want to be sure action is taken. Anomalies in freight rates can only be resolved on the basis of facts. So far, not one freight rate item has been changed, not one anomaly rectified. It has been acknowledged that we suffer from freight rate discrepancies. The railways voluntarily provided cost data almost two years ago. The government had two years to act. Surely that was long enough for it to put right some of these anomalies. The commitments which have been made-I will not go into them- are embodied in this communique. We take very seriously indeed the pledge and commitment made in the statement of February 24, 1975. As I said earlier, the principles include rejection of horizontal increases, maximum rate restrictions, long-haul and short-haul, and raw and finished products anomalies. These are all very important to the various regions of Canada.
The Minister of Transport said he was opposed to any further general horizontal percentage increases in rail freight rates. We take these pledges very seriously and we are going to hold this government to them. If the government refuses to bring in corrective measures, we can only assume that these communiques are nothing more than political rhetoric and that the Speech from the Throne and commitments made during the last election campaign were simply a bill of goods sold to the Canadian people for the purpose of political expediency.
We in this party support this bill. We hope it is the beginning of a number of broader measures which must be brought forward to redress the whole question of transportation in Canada. I think that as a party we have proven that we are prepared to work with the minister and the government in arriving at a realistic, comprehensive and effective transportation policy. However, as I said before, the initiative and leadership must come from the government side. We certainly look forward to that initiative and we will be reminding the government on a day to day basis of the commitments and promises they have made.


Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on a bill concerning a department involved in my constituency.
We all know that railway companies are experiencing serious problems. It is normal for the provinces to obtain on due time all the information concerning freight rates and it is reasonable for Canadians to expect better services from a company which is theirs and which they own since their taxes assure its existence. It is not reasonable for individuals to be unaware of the costs incurred by a company which belongs to them.
In the transport field, services should be compared to the profits realized by the undertaking. It is not proper to
March 21, 1975

be subjected to the incivilities and sarcastic remarks of a minister whose support is requested.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 will increase the power of the minister to the detriment of the Canadian Transport Commission. It is unfortunate that it should be thought that he does not know what to do with his powers, that he is not interested in his department and that he does not give a darn about the needs of the people.
Mr. Speaker, for years now the government has been promising appropriate measures. This bill does not solve all the problems; it should be more complete to spare us having to study an omnibus bill dealing with all aspects of transport in Canada with a view to finding concrete solutions.
Mr. Speaker, Canada now has a deplorable railway system. The slowness of its services, the outrageous cost of the food served to the passengers, the poor condition of the tracks, to name but a few, must be looked into. Canadians give millions of dollars every year to the railway companies. They have the right to demand adequate services, to know how their money is spent, to find out exactly how much freight transportation costs.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-48 really changes nothing in what already existed since the governor in council and the Canadian Transport Commission could already use it. Section 331.4(2) states that if a railway company refuses to conform to a request from the minister, the minister may exercise the power available to him under National Transportation Act section 82, as an emergency measure. As I said earlier, the bill increases authority that the minister could not use adequately in the past.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that railways are badly administered. I am also convinced that this could have been rectified without Bill C-48. This is why I say that the bill is only a screen to postpone the study of adequate solutions to transportation problems, a study which we consider vital. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to end the study of this bill as soon as possible since it brings no concrete answer to present problems. This is why I say that the minister is not behaving sensibly. I refer to the question which I asked him on March 10. I then asked if it would be possible to investigate railway transportation services in northwestern Quebec, where the situation was deplorable, since a parcel could take up to 15 days to go from Montreal to Val-d'Or. Yesterday, I received a press release from my area which said that a dealer had ordered on January 24 a part which he needed urgently and that he received it only on March 18.
That is why I am saying that the minister does not care for the problems of far away regions like Abitibi, Lac-Saint-Jean and Gaspesie.


Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Railway Act



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Smith (Saint-Jean).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand (Langelier) that Bill C-48, to amend the Railway Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should reply briefly to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) in his contribution to our discussion on third reading of Bill C-48. While the bill does not contain a large number of provisions, its production has already had a positive effect in increasing the supply of information from the railroad companies to the provinces concerned.
As has been pointed out, the bill makes provision for the exchange of information between governments on a confidential basis, but this does not limit its value in dealing with the whole subject of freight rates. It is understandable that the railway companies should not be anxious to see all their confidential data passed on to other competing modes of transportation. The fact is that the railroads have already been providing to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and through him to the provinces, information on a large number of items and in response to a number of requests submitted to the department following the western economic opportunities conference. The railway companies have also been providing information relative to other inquiries put forward by the prairie provinces as well as in connection with other studies which are under way, including the rail roadbed study.
The hon. member for Vegreville made a very good point in that much of the information derived from these studies should soon be made available on a wider basis. The federal-provincial committee on western transportation

March 21, 1975
Railway Act
was set up between the Minister of Transport and the four western ministers responsible for transportation. The arrangement is that the studies remain confidential. However, I certainly agree with the hon. member that we should seek to expand that particular reference. I am sure the minister and the provinces, too, would agree with this approach as we move further along the road to getting a better understanding of the issue.
We have all heard about the inequities which exist. The difficulty has been to define them specifically. I hope that in the coming months we can make available to the transport committee more of the information which has been gathered in some of the studies to which the hon. member referred.
There is one other point on which I might comment. An inquiries procedure has been announced with respect to the examination of the 6,000 miles of branch lines presently in the "in-between" category, that is, whether or not they will be a permanent part of the system. I can tell the hon. member and the House that further detailed announcements on the matter should be made by the Minister of Transport and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) within the next week. These will set out the nature of the inquiries and the kind of information and answers it is hoped the inquiries will produce. I agree with the hon. member that we will have to move fairly rapidly in dealing with this question.
Let me point out to him that the uncertainty in respect of these rail lines has been with us for a long time, as I am sure he is aware. Abandonments have been frozen, deferred and put off indefinitely, while the grain companies and the people living in the communities affected, as well as others who might be looking at these areas for future industrial development, want to know whether they will have a rail line. These difficulties have been with us for a long time, and the purpose of these inquiries is to try to clarify some of the very matters about which the hon. member for Vegreville is concerned.
I think when the hon. member hears the details of the inquiries process and how they are to be conducted, he will be happy with the approach; and I can assure him of the full co-operation of the minister and the ministry. Certainly, if we are to clarify some of the questions and issues which are of very deep concern to western Canada, we will need to get some of these answers-and that is what the whole inquiries process is all about. These inquiries will be looking into some of the problems of rebuilding and improving branch lines, as well as the whole grain collection system.
The hon. member made reference to a broader type of information bill which will involve modes of transportation other than rail. That will be coming in the future. The hon. member points out, quite rightly, that a good deal of the transportation on the prairies is carried out by truck. If we exclude bulk commodities such as potash, grain and coal, it is pretty well even in distribution as between rail and truck. The over-all information bill will be designed to provide the government with the information on these other modes of transportation needed for the development
(Mr. Mclsaac.)
of the kind of policies which will meet the needs of the various areas of Canada.
As my primary interest is in western Canada, I can assure the hon. member of the co-operation of the government side of the House in trying to obtain some of these answers. Bill C-48 is an auspicious beginning in that regard. This process is now working very well in giving us the kind of information we need to set the stage for the development of policies which will resolve some of the concerns of western Canada and other parts of the country.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I intend to comment only briefly on Bill C-48, a bill which in my opinion is nothing more than windowdressing. I am sorry that the parliamentary secretary did not more clearly enunciate the reason for bringing this bill before us; he did not justify the purpose of the bill at all. We have known for a long time that something was required to bring out the facts in respect of freight rate issues. I do not know why this has not been done before, in view of the fact that the authority was already in existence either through the governor in council or the Canadian Transport Commission.
I have only been a member of this House for a few years, but in the years before that there were many debates on freight rates, an issue which has been a bone of contention in Canada for many years. While it is fine to agree with the provinces, as happened at the western economic opportunities conference a couple of years ago, that this information is necessary, surely it could have been made public long before now. Surely this information could have been collected for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in the past and made a matter of public record. Surely the minister should have reacted by taking the initiative, in view of the demand and the number of requests in respect of this information. The minister has had the authority all along to take this initiative and straighten the matter out. He has claimed many times that these matters are beyond his control. I suggest that the principle, the need and the ability may be beyond his comprehension, but they certainly are not beyond his control.
One of the studies in which I am greatly interested was not mentioned by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I understand the study has been on the desk of the minister for almost two years and has been upgraded twice because of changing economic conditions. I refer to the study in regard to rail passenger transportation. I realize that this is a deviation from the issue before us, but it is a very current and pressing matter. The suggestions of the two major railways in this country have been kicking around for some time. In answer to a question I asked a few weeks ago, the minister would only say that he had just started to look at the study. If it has been available for a couple of years and he has just started to consider it, I wonder how long we will have to wait before getting satisfaction. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would undertake to see if he can have this study made public as well, so that some of us can look at it.
We have only had two spokesmen from this party in respect of the bill but they are two of the most knowledgeable men in the House of Commons on rail transportation and freight rates. I refer to the hon. member for Lisgar
March 21, 1975

(Mr. Murta) and the hon. member for Vegreville. I want to add to their comments by saying that while we agree to the passage of this legislation, we feel very strongly that the delay of the last two years has been nothing more than putting aside something for which the minister is responsible and which should have been taken care of a long time ago.


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


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


CIVIL SERVICE INSURANCE ACT
Hon. C. M. Drury (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-26, to amend the Civil Service Insurance Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think it is worthwhile noting that this bill takes care of some difficulties that have existed in the statute and is administrative only, to a great degree. Let me call the attention of the House to the extension of the meaning of the word "children" to include adopted children. I understand there has been some difficulty experienced from time to time in that regard, and this extension will be a welcome addition to the statute law. In addition, the bill will remove a difference, in terms of status in law, between married and unmarried women, thereby correcting a situation which has existed in respect of the children of unmarried female public servants.
All in all, I think the amendments are sound. I am particularly pleased to see, in clause 12 of the bill, that there has been an attempt by the government and the framer of the bill to bring its language into line so that it corresponds with the uniform insurance act provisions which apply in the provinces. This will limit to as great a degree as possible any misunderstanding that might have arisen. I want the government House leader to know that we support this bill and think it is very good legislation for the purpose of cleaning up the law in this particular respect.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Cultural Property


CULTURAL PROPERTY EXPORT AND IMPORT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-33, respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State) moved:: That Bill C-33, An Act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states, be amended by striking out lines 27 to 40 on page 8 thereof and lines 1 to 12 on page 9 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"Export Review Board, consisting of a chairman and not less than six or more than twelve other members appointed by the governor in council on the recommendation of the minister.
(2)	The members of the Review Board other than the chairman shall be chosen in equal numbers
(a)	from among officers, members or employees of art galleries, museums, archives, libraries or other similar institutions in Canada; and
(b)	from among residents of Canada who are dealers in or collectors of art, antiques or other objects that form part of the national
heritage.
(3)	The Review Board may authorize one of its members to act as chairman in the event of the absence or incapacity of the chairman or if the office of chairman is vacant.
(4)	Three members, at least one of whom is a person described in paragraph (2)(a) and one of whom is a person described in paragraph (2)(b), constitute a quorum of the Review Board."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say just a word or two at the report stage of this important piece of legislation. We discussed its philosophy and provisions at second reading stage and also before the committee. Therefore, today I should simply like, first of all, to express my warmest appreciation to hon. members on all sides of the House who were members of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for the very thoughtful and expeditious way they dealt with the bill. I would also point out to hon. members who were not members of the committee that there were amendments proposed at the committee stage some of which were adopted and some of which were not.
One amendment would reduce the value limit for archives, under the provisions for the control lists, from $1,000 to $500. This was a recommendation put to us by archivists generally and by the Dominion Archivist. Another important amendment extends the tax relief, in the case of a referral to the review board for an income tax certificate, to include national treasures less than 50 years old and made by a living person but which are not subject to export control. I think these two amendments strengthen the bill.
While expressing my appreciation to hon. members, may I also express appreciation for the very generous co-operation of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who showed particular sensitivity with respect to the problem we were attempting to tackle in ensuring that we incorporated the delicate balance between constraints and incentives which

March 21, 1975
Cultural Property
is necessary to guarantee successful implementation of this legislation. The amendment which is now before the House at the report stage was discussed, and I think favourably endorsed, by members of the committee from all parties. However, we were not able to deal with it at the committee stage because it required a new royal recommendation, which is before us now, plus the amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is simple. It is to increase the number of members of the board, to allow the board to have increased flexibility and also greater administrative efficiency. I thank hon. members on all sides of the House for their co-operation, and commend to the House the amendment and the bill.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start by saying it is a pleasure to be able to speak on this bill and offer endorsation of what I believe is basically a good piece of legislation. This is really, in essence, what one might call apple pie legislation, but I think it is good apple pie so I believe there will be support for it in the House. There are, however, a number of concerns about the bill, although they are not absolutely devastating, which ought to be aired at this time and perhaps given further consideration as we study the whole complex question in the field of culture and cultural development.
First, as a basis for this discussion, I wish to say that no country really knows the limits of its greatness without taking time to establish what are its roots. Any policy or legislation which assists a nation in preserving its history and protecting its culture is the type of legislation we should all underwrite. I think it is particularly important in a country as young as Canada that we should do all that is important for the preservation of its history. In fact, many people hardly think of Canada as a nation with a historical reference. There are many people in this nation who can almost remember back to the time when this country was started, and on that basis Canadian often conclude that we do not have a historical past, when in fact history is simply human beings in progress. There must be a period in which that progress develops so that we become fully appreciative of that which went before.
So, speaking on this bill, we note there are two principal purposes put forward. The first is to protect us against unwarranted exports of treasures deemed to be of national historic value and, second, to establish a tax advantage for those collectors who assist in developing collections that are in the national interest and which are to be displayed. Having said that, I wish to digress for a few moments in talking about culture and the protection of culture. First of all I wish to underscore something which I think is of tremendous importance. Culture has no rights or wrongs except as judged by other cultures. The sets of values we have across the world are always in conflict when one culture views another. But these conflicts do not exist within the domain of right and wrong at any given point within a culture. So when we take a look at people in certain Mediterranean countries and in Spain, we note that there are people who stand extremely close and yet have different values. Sometimes we even chuckle at that, but the fact is it is the difference between cultures which
makes this something we do not fully appreciate or understand.
My point is that culture is not a fixed identity but, rather, a process in motion which is always in a state of change. I wish to underscore the fact that once government enters the field of doing something about culture, it may run into the danger of starting to attempt to underline what is right and wrong in respect of culture, trying to define what it should be and telling its citizens what their values ought to be. I think the role of the government, clearly, should be simply to record and preserve for historical reference, without any determination to attempt to direct or dictate, under those situations, what our values ought to be.
While underlining that this is good legislation, one also recognizes that because the government now has some influence on what pieces of art, artifacts and cultural activities are good in the national interest, it certainly runs the danger of directing its citizens in terms of influencing them as to what values the government thinks it should have.
Another concern I have about this legislation is with regard to the words "in the national interest." It seems to me that when we consider a piece of legislation in regard to art, artifacts and our cultural heritage, we can certainly wonder at what point these things come to be in the national interest. If we could go back in our imagination for a few moments to some of the war pieces which might have been left on the Plains of Abraham immediately following the war, they would not have been of interest to the prairie provinces or British Columbia if for no other reason than the fact that those provinces had not at that time even been named.
What is of regional interest today may well be of national interest 50 or 100 years from now, but the type of legislation being put forth lends itself to emphasizing the national interest. When one really looks at what is happening in museums and archives today, a large part of the whole national development of the protection of culture is the succession of little museums and little archives dotted across Canada, many of them having particular emphasis on regional and local concerns. Many of these museums will have tremendous importance later in history but may not at the present time be appreciated as being of national interest.
I think the point ought to be made that this legislation does not go far enough in protecting the cultural values of Canadians because it means that something must necessarily be classified as being of national interest before it can be fully protected. Associated with that is another concern I have about this legislation, namely, what happens to the bits of information and artifacts which are protected in some regional place when they do come to be of national interest? If something is being preserved in a museum in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories and suddenly it is deemed to be of national interest, does this mean the local community will give up some of its own collection so that it may be preserved for the national interest? If that is so, I think it is another serious danger in terms of this
(Mr. Faulkner.]
March 21, 1975

legislation and it ought to be reviewed as to its real purposes.
Another concern about the national interest deals with the field of art. We note that if a piece of art reaches such prominence that it is deemed to be of national importance, it will then be retained and held within Canada. I think we must be cognizant of the fact that in many fields of art it is not only important to be recognized within one's own country, but often a part of achieving greatness is being recognized internationally, and obviously it would be difficult to be recognized internationally if the arts, artifacts and writings are deemed of such importance that they are held within this country. While I fully concur with the legislation, I think there should always be concern for those who espouse to greatness if recognition in the international forum will in some way limit them from achieving this.
Another concern that I have is the competition between the regions and the nation. I think it is important that we give all due emphasis to trying to perpetuate this legislation to the maximum degree possible-perhaps there could even be consideration at future dates in this respect-so that there will be the kind of promotion which will protect not just the national interest but will also assist regions and small communities to protect their cultural heritage, because surely it is the collection of all the communities of Canada which constitutes the major national issue and national importance.
I suggest that the minister has proposed two good amendments to the legislation. Both of them are important and I am pleased that they have been introduced. I think they have strengthened the legislation considerably and we appreciate that. There is the question of expropriation in the national interest. It is important to an artist to be recognized throughout the world. Therefore, I think it should be underlined in viewing this legislation that all due consideration ought to be given to any Canadian developing, in a cultural sense, artifacts, writings and paintings for us so that they also have an opportunity to seek international greatness and are not necessarily confined within the Canadian framework, because greatness cannot really be achieved if we hold everything in too tight a fist under the guise of nationalism.
Finally, I must say that I was extraordinarily pleased that the minister did not choose to exercise personal discretion as to the artists but has left that to the independent bodies which he has established within the limits of the legislation. I think it is important that we do not allow government bodies, and particularly ministers of the Crown, to get into the position of establishing for the Canadian people what is or what is not culture. I know there was some discussion in committee that perhaps the minister ought to have exercised more authority in protecting Canadian art.
While I know there are arguments which would certainly permit at least consideration and discussion of that point, I am pleased that in the final analysis the minister resisted because I think that in the long run, while we will lose in a few instances, we will at least avoid the danger, with very tight control, of anybody, for political reasons, being in a position to establish what our values are and what is good culture. I am pleased that it will, instead, be
Cultural Property
an independent body which will be discussing and determining what Canada's culture is, what our values are and what in the long run is of national interest.
I shall conclude at this point by saying that this is a piece of legislation to which we should find no difficulty in lending our support. I have outlined what I think are a few concerns. For emphasis, I would like to reiterate that I think everything possible ought to be done to make sure that we protect our culture, while at the same time doing as little as possible, as a government, to determine what culture is. While sometimes it may not be appreciated in its historical reference, I think it is always a part of the changing complexity of human beings, and it is simply the role of government to record and register, but not to determine, that which is good value or that which is bad value.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to join my colleague, the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), who has spoken with great perception, brilliance and eloquence on a very important matter. I also congratulate the minister. I think it is the first time I have had an opportunity to address myself to an initiative of his, and I think this is a very worthy one.
This bill has been carefully examined in the committee and at the second reading stage. My colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who is a very perceptive man, found both a few hooks and a few harpoons in it and I think we will want to watch for these in the future. I know that the amendments have made improvements, as any good amendment should, and I predict that in the future there may be need for a little more redrafting of this bill because, as we all know, this is a forward step, one that was long delayed but should be all the more welcome.
I have long been pleading in the House for a little more attention to our cultural heritage. We have wasted so much and squandered so much, and on many occasions sold so much, that we should have retained and appreciated. I am never content that the residence of our first prime minister is in the possession of another government, or that the long-time residence of our great and first internationalist, Sir Robert Borden, has passed on into destruction. It should be the residence of either the Speaker of the House or the Leader of the Opposition. But that is all in the past, and now I hope that we have learned the lesson. We are at the stage in our development-and I note which bill is coming next-when we have ravaged our natural environment, so now we shudder at the prospects of what might happen unless we take environmental heed. So, also, in our historic and cultural environment we have been far too careless and heedless, and almost any country in the world could teach us lessons in archival and museum matters.
I think that in all of this debate perhaps too little attention has been given to the fact that this measure is a mere buttress to what has been going on in the private sector. I am very much heartened by the various heritage organizations which are functioning in provinces such as Prince Edward Island and on the dominion scene. The

Cultural Property
government sector cannot do it all alone, nor can the private sector. I like the provisions in this bill whereby the governmental sector may give leadership but not pre-empt the whole field.
On this quiet Friday afternoon, when we are all motivated by the finest of thoughts, at our best behaviour and with the most modest of demeanours, I will follow my usual custom and give the House an example of brevity. I would like to quote someone whom I have quoted many times before, one of the wisest public men we have ever produced. He is a man whose advice has been heeded or is being heeded in part on this day, a man who gave this advice 104 years ago. I refer to the great Joseph Howe, who said:
A wise nation preserves its records, gathers up its muniments, decorates the tombs of its illustrious dead, repairs its great public structures, and fosters national pride and love of country, by perpetual reference to the sacrifices and glories of the past.
In so far as the minister is helping in that tradition, I wish him well and wish the bill speedy passage.


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief because I outlined the opinion of the NDP on Bill C-33 in the second reading debate back on February 7, as well as in committee. I commend the minister for bringing forth the bill, which we accept and support in principle, a bill to protect the export of historic and cultural treasures. The minister knows my criticisms of the bill, the fact that there are loopholes so that in the end there is no way in which there can be an absolute prohibition to export national treasures.
The minister is also aware of our criticism of the granting of tax concessions to the owner of an object that is designated as being of historical or cultural value in order to discourage him from exporting the object. I certainly do not object to the idea of granting tax concessions to those who donate such an object to a recognized museum or art gallery but, as I said to the minister in the debate in committee, I am worried that perhaps some speculators in art objects and historical treasures will be able to take advantage of the tax concession provisions in this bill and do something that the minister does not intend to be done in order to protect our historical treasures.
I am sorry that the minister was unable to accept my arguments in committee in an effort to try to close these loopholes. I have always commended the minister on being so co-operative and for his forward-thinking. We had an honest disagreement on this point. I hope I am not proven correct and that it will not be an avenue open to art speculators to take advantage of the situation under the provisions of this act. If that should occur, I know that the minister is a man who is reasonable enough so that when representations are made he will consider very seriously making appropriate amendments to the bill.
With those reservations, I conclude that the bill is in general a very good one. It is long overdue, but it represents an attempt to protect what we Canadians should be proud of from the point of view of our history and our art work. I hope that the bill will prove to be workable and successful in this area, and I commend the minister for finally introducing it and for his co-operation with the committee in ensuring its speedy passage.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I want to congratulate the minister for introducing the legislation that all Canadians were probably expecting for some time.
Running through the bill I find the committee did an excellent job, and I hope the provisions contained in this bill will be implemented. It is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, to pass legislation, to introduce a bill; above all, it must be implemented.
Today, with the development of Canada, I think it is very important that we have a group of men, of technicians capable of monitoring the movements of our works of art since the purpose of the legislation is to protect our culture, our national heritage, for historical purposes.
History is the summary of our origins and the image of the ways and customs of our ancestors. So we must avoid, Mr. Speaker-and I think it will be the work of the commissioners-turning our works of art, our museum exhibits, into marketing goods. The lure of profit making is always dangerous. I again congratulate the minister when I see on this cultural property export list the proposed control on various items such as provided at subclause (a) on page 3:
(a)	objects of any value that are of archeological, prehistorical,
historical, artistic or scientific interest and that have been recovered
from the soil of Canada, the territorial sea-
And at sub-clause (b):
(b)	objects that were made by ... the aboriginal peoples of Canada-
It is quite important for us Canadians to have souvenirs,
works from all areas of this country. Just last week I visited an exhibition of Canadian Innuit and Indian natives works. They are marvelous works. Included also in those categories are:
(i) glassware, ceramics, textiles, woodenware and works in base metals that have a fair market value in Canada of more than five hundred dollars-
Mr. Speaker, excluded from the control list are all objects less than 50 years old. As long as an artist is intensively producing, and as long as his patrons are still living, a government could hardly meddle with his work. After a 50-year period, however, I feel that the government should keep an eye on the movements of his production, and I hope that the committee will be alert and the experts appointed to check the works of art wholly devoted to their task and careful not to become museum pieces themselves, for it is said that 50 years are necessary to become a museum piece. I hope that the senior experts, termed as "technocrats" by some, will not be around after 50 years to become museum pieces. This commission therefore will be working in the interest of Canadians and to safeguard our Canadian heritage throughout Canada.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you I will be brief, but there are a few things I want to say about this piece of legislation. First of all may I say how fortunate I felt to be able to participate in this particular committee. I think it was an excellent committee in terms of co-operation and sincerity, and I compli-
March 21, 1975

ment all those involved, particularly those who appeared to give expert testimony. I also complement the minister on the flexibility that he and his colleagues showed in accepting amendments, particularly those from our party which his experts helped draft. I believe these amendments will improve the legislation, as will the amendments now proposed by the minister which I support.
At committee stage there was considerable discussion about funding. I realize the quandry in which the minister finds himself when he deals with the prospect of non-lapsing accounts. I know very well the attitude of the Auditor General and the Treasury Board and I can only hope that those who have responsibility for administering this legislation will not be hindered by the fact that there was good reason, I believe, for not affording them the flexibility they might have preferred in a non-lapsing account.
I am happy to see the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) in the chamber. I believe he contributed a great deal toward the committee study of this legislation and I think his proposed amendments would have added another dimension to the legislation. Those amendments would have affected that part of the bill which afforded local or regional cultural pieces of property the same importance as property that has a national dimension. The legislation now before us demands that the property have national importance. I thought the proposed amendments of the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont would have offered a good deal more flexibility to the legislation. I hope that just because these amendments are not before us they are not completely out of mind. I think that at some stage in the future of this legislation serious consideration should be given by the minister and his department to inclusion of local and regional artifacts.
I appreciate the conflict in which we all find ourselves with respect to the tax advantage and the financial aspects of that part of the legislation. Speaking personally, however, I found that the hon. member's arguments in support of his proposed amendments were compelling. I reiterate that although they are not in the legislation I hope they will not be completely forgotten.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I again compliment the minister and say to those who have the responsibility for discharge of this legislation that I wish them well in their deliberations. I am sure they will bring to it the integrity it demands. I wish them well.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my first words are addressed to the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) to express to him the satisfaction I had in working with two of his colleagues, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis). The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot introduced two amendments which I, along with some of my colleagues, supported. I am sure they will significantly improve the objective of the bill. [Translation]
I would also thank Mr. Ian Clark, a special advisor of the Arts and Culture Branch of the Secretary of State, who attended all the proceedings of the committee, and took a significant part in the debate on this bill, in order
Cultural Property
that it will round out the cultural policy initiated in 1971 by the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner).
I would also remind the House that during those debates, I myself had the opportunity to move two amendments. I humbly inform the House that one of them had to be withdrawn because it did not come within the requirements of the royal recommendation of that bill, and I withdrew the other one myself following the talks I had with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
May I remind hon. members of the objectives of that proposed amendment. I think it is important to do so. The hon. member who spoke before me outlined them, and I believe in a very near future this House will have to reconsider its purposes.
I remind hon. members that the suggestion was to withdraw clause 8 of the bill so that any object that must be submitted to the review board would not necessarily be referred to as meeting the degree of national importance.
As a matter of fact, when the Secretary of State made a statement in 1972 concerning his national museum policy, he put a special emphasis on the promotion and development of private museums. But the development of most private museums throughout our history was made possible through the gifts and generosity of patrons of arts who very frequently were at the origin of their collections. Even the National Gallery of Canada was significantly helped by gifts from the private sector since 1968. According to the report I got from the National Gallery of Canada, during the financial year 1968-69, the gallery was offered art works amounting to a total of $403,550; in 1969-70, the gifts amounted to $30,000; in 1970-71, to $930,000; in 1971-72, to $96,000; in 1972-73, to $45,000, and in 1973-74, to $600,000.
The explanation for the unusually high totals for 196869, 1970-71 and 1973-74 lies in three unusually generous gifts involving many works-in 1968-69 the bequest of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey; in 1970-71 gifts from the Douglas M. Duncan collection; and in 1973-74 gifts from the Samuel Bronfman collection.

Mr. Speaker, I believe people are aware of the considerable amounts of money that have been handed over to the National Gallery of Canada and especially the spirit in which these grants have been made.
There is no doubt that the bill, as now written and introduced to the House, will allow and encourage private philanthropists to continue their largess with public institutions.
The bill I introduced, Mr. Speaker, was specifically intended to increase tax exemptions in the case of gifts to private museums.
Indeed, it often happens that works given or sold to private institutions do not meet the national criteria the bill will adopt.
Still, most of those works are of fundamental importance to the completion of those collections, especially to encourage the study of arts and sciences.

March 21, 1975
Environmental Contaminants Act
Mr. Speaker, after the act has been in effect for one year, it might be well, in the report to be made to the House on the application, to consider whether or not its benefits should not be extended to those institutions.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the co-operation and mutual aid which hon. members opposite have shown, especially the special welcome given to that measure, surely represent a further step in the development by our government of a stronger national and cultural policy for the benefit of private institutions.
Indeed, I do not have to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in totalitarian countries where cultural affairs become a service under the exclusive jurisdiction of the government, quite often the cultural activities and the cultural life of those countries have been so much impoverished that their contribution at the international level has significantly been reduced.
In countries of liberal tradition, we have rather realized that the role of government should be to give greater support to private initiative and institutions active in that area.
I believe the cultural policy put forward by the Secretary of State since 1970 tends precisely to encourage and enable private institutions to have as much influence as possible.
The proposed amendment moved was in keeping with this general view. I have no doubt that next year when we shall be in a position to appreciate the results, I shall be able to obtain the support of opposition members for the adoption of the bill by the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Faulkner) agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: That Bill C-33, an Act respecting the export from Canada of cultural property and the import into Canada of cultural property illegally exported from foreign states, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Film and Assistance to the Arts, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
James Hugh Faulkner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 16, 1974, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and

Forestry; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fairweather (p. 2251).
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, when debate on this bill concluded on December 16, 1974, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) was in the middle of an eloquent and effective speech. Today he is in British Columbia serving the needs of his constituents and cannot be here to carry on the debate. He looks forward to contributing actively in committee and on third reading, or on second reading if we do not read the bill the second time today.
As I have been fighting that natural environmental contaminant, the flu, for most of this week, my comments will be more moderate than usual.


An hon. Member:: Save your voice and make a short speech.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister generously suggests I should conserve my voice and speak briefly. As she and the House should know, I only address myself to urgent and important matters.
We welcome this opportunity to debate the bill once more and hope it will be referred to committee. As spokesmen of my party have said previously, we welcome and approve the aims of the bill, which has become known as the environmental contaminants bill. I certainly agree with the intention of the bill, which is to prevent harmful contamination, and to prevent problems connected with contamination from arising.
Because we are committed to supporting its aims we deeply regret that the bill as drafted will hinder the attainment of its aims in far too many cases. The key to the legislation, as other speakers on my side made clear earlier, is contained in clause 4(1) of the bill, which reads in part:
Where the minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have reason to believe that a substance is entering or will enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that they have reason to believe constitute or will constitute a significant danger to human health or the environment...
In other words, the operation of this legislation is contingent upon the minister or ministers having reason to believe, having reason to be suspicious, that something is happening which should cause them to activate the mechanism provided in this piece of legislation. The bill when enacted is to come into force only on the arousing of a suspicion. Only that will bring its provisions into force. Without that the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Health and Welfare will do nothing. In the absence of suspicion or "reason to believe", their role is to be completely passive.
The question we have the right to ask and which I hope the minister will answer later if she speaks this afternoon or in committee is, how is this suspicion to arise? How can we and the people of Canada be sure that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will have adequate cause to know that a danger is arising which will require the provisions of this legislation to be put into force. Are they to rely on divine inspiration or on some sort of
March 21, 1975

extrasensory perception? Are they to rely on little birds flitting around or alighting on their shoulders-


An hon. Member:: If they don't die.


Charles Joseph Clark: -if they don't die, to be sure-and whispering in the ear, "Madam Minister," or "Mr. Minister, there is something here which you should look at, something which looks suspicious, to correct which you will need to invoke the provisions of the act"? In the absence of ESP and little birds fluttering around and settling on ministers' shoulders, how will the ministers know about dangers arising in this country which require the bringing into force of the act? There is no other way that this bill, the nature of which we applaud, can come into effect.


An hon. Member:: Unless we have a disaster.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is the other point, the one we have to avoid-unless we have a disaster. The very real danger with this bill, which poses as reform, is that we will only be able to make use of it when it is too late. In other words this bill would only be used as a curative and not as a preventive measure. That not only offends the requirements of Canada to have legislation that is preventive, but it also offends and rebuts the very basis upon which this bill is introduced in the House.
We have been told that the bill is a preventive measure. However, there is no way by which we can be assured that the prevention will in fact occur, or that it will be anything other than a band-aid cure after a disaster has occurred. It may be that with good luck on some occasions either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of National Health and Welfare will have enough information in advance to cause the mechanism in this bill to move into action. That may happen from time to time, but surely we cannot accept as satisfactory a bill that may only work occasionally. The people of Canada require a much more reliable guarantee, but we do not get that in this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Other hon. members have pointed out that in this age of invention and modification between 50 and 100 new substances are introduced into the environment each year. How is the minister going to be alerted to the dangers that each of those pose with simply the mechanism in this bill? Is she going to wait for little birds to flutter down or, and this is more dangerous, wait for some disaster to occur to which she has to respond?
The bill has other weaknesses, and I intend to refer to them. The greatest weakness is that the bill, as it stands, may never be used because there is no trigger mechanism. There is no guaranteed way by which a minister of the Crown can become seized of knowledge which will cause the bill to be brought into effect. If the bill, on its face and in its provisions, holds the weakness that it may never be used, it is a pretty bad bill and requires substantial amendment by this House.
The bill is not preventive. I make that emphasis because there have been suggestions by the minister, her parlia-
Environmental Contaminants Act mentary secretary, and others who have spoken both inside and outside this House that the bill marks a major change, a change from simply a curative approach dealing with disasters or problems after they have arisen toward a preventive approach, trying to foresee these problems and stop them before they occur.
As I pointed out, the fundamental fault with the bill is that there is no reliable early warning to the minister. That means the bill is not preventive. To call it that is to make a sham of the suggestion. By definition this bill begins to work only after the danger exists.
Many of us in this House are acquainted with the use of the word preventive. We have heard it in terms of preventive welfare and preventive police work. The idea of preventive welfare is to stop welfare cases occurring before they do. Preventive police work is to stop crime before it starts.
The bill is based on what I call a complaints desk theory. If the minister were running a police department she would only have a complaints desk. She would not have any requirement that information come to her to show that there was a problem in the works which requires prevention. She would await a complaint. That is not adequate at a time like this, with a bill like this, and on a subject like the Canadian environment. Whatever else the bill might be, it is not preventive legislation.
The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) suggested a very sensible solution to this fundamental deficiency in the bill before us. The solution would require manufacturers to file information on a regular basis regarding new products or projects being undertaken which may cause the kind of danger that we foresee and for which this bill has been designed. If the suggestion of the hon. member for Vancouver South were accepted, the government would have some cause for suspicion and some evidence which could trigger the mechanism which we are establishing in this legislation.
As the hon. member for Vancouver South and others have pointed out, there is a precedent for this requirement of regular filing. A precedent has been set in the Pest Control Products Act which this House, and the committee studying this bill, should look at very closely so that the bill can live up to its advertising and be in fact preventive and not simply a curative device.
The proposal put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South would place some hardships on the manufacturers, but I do not think they would be substantial. When dealing with as important a matter as the environment, we in this House should not be deterred from doing what has to be done simply because that necessary action might cause some hardships for some manufacturers. If we allowed that kind of limitation to stop us from performing, we would not be doing anything at all in the environmental field. With this bill I very much fear that we are on the edge of doing nothing, unless we accept a suggestion such as that put forward by the hon. member for Vancouver South.
Let me deal for a moment more with the hardships that might be imposed upon certain manufacturers. In her comments in this debate the minister testified that some manufacturers were already making submissions to her

Environmental Contaminants Act department and keeping her apprised of what they were doing. In other words, they are providing her with information that might trigger the mechanism being established in this bill. However, the fact that some are doing it is no guarantee that all will. The likelihood is that those who are not voluntarily providing this information are the very ones who should be providing it.
The minister's testimony indicates that while there might be a hardship involved for some manufacturers, it is not so substantial that it cannot be overcome. In fact it is being overcome. However, there is no guarantee that it is going to be overcome by those manufacturers against whom the bill should be directed. They should be affected by its provisions if we are serious about protecting the environment from hazards which may be caused by new products or new projects. We very much need that kind of guarantee, but we do not have it.
The major fault in this bill is that there is no means to trigger the mechanism which we are establishing. We must rely on blind luck, a little bird to perch on the minister's shoulder, or some other unlikely intervention to trigger the mechanism. There are other faults. As others have mentioned there is no operative clause in the bill to establish the schedule which the bill refers to throughout its base. I hope the minister, when she speaks later, will indicate her intention to amend the bill in such a way as to introduce an operative clause which will enable the establishment of the schedule, something which is necessary to the whole effectiveness of the machinery we are discussing.
There is another fault, if I may point to it. Again I am referring to Clause 4. Clause 4 is permissive, not mandatory. Thus, whenever the minister is visited by this little bird, this ubiquitous bird, she "may"-though she is not obliged to-take certain steps. I should like to know why the operative word in this clause is not mandatory. What circumstances would prevent the minister from taking action? Why is parliament not told of the circumstances which would prevent the minister from acting? There is no reason for bringing in this legislation if the minister, having been given the power, does not show any inclination to use it. I do not suspect the motives of the present Minister of the Environment; I believe that given the necessary power she would exercise it. But why should the word "may" appear in this context rather than the word "shall"? If the powers we are considering are not to be used, we are wasting time discussing them here, and later, in committee.
There are two other serious restraints in the consultation clause of the bill before us, that is, clause 5. Here, it is worth pointing out, mandatory language is used. When we talk about reference by the minister to the provinces and to other departments we find the word "shall" being used. But we use only the junior word "may" when it comes to ministerial action. The hon. lady may take action or not, but having decided to take action it is mandatory that she should consult with the provinces, and so on. Why should we use permissive language when it comes to putting the law into force, and later mandatory language with regard to processes which may very well limit the effectiveness of action once it has been decided upon?

The two parties set out in the bill with which the minister is required to consult are first the provinces, and second "any departments or agencies of the government of Canada as may be appropriate". There are obviously difficult questions of jurisdiction involved here vis-a-vis the provinces. In this context it is worth noting that, whenever a difficult question of jurisdiction arises regarding the control of natural resources, the federal government shows no hesitation about moving in; but when a difficult question of jurisdiction arises regarding the environment, hon. gentlemen opposite get bogged down with lawyers and excessive caution. Consultation with the provinces may be necessary in this case, but the language of the bill points to an interesting inconsistency in the approach taken by the federal government.
I should like to quote briefly at this point from a commentary on the bill prepared by the Canadian Environmental Law Association. I ask the indulgence of the House to read into the record two paragraphs from that report:
Lawyers within the federal Department of Justice seem to have an unreasonable sense of trepidation in allowing that the federal government can make any environmental regulations. The consultative process required with the provinces before any substances are designated to make this act effective is reminiscent of the consultative constraints contained in the Canada Water Act. It is perhaps relevant to note that the Canada Water Act, although enacted in 1970, has been used only once to make any particular contaminant illegal.
The Justice Department's constitutional "experts" appear again to have written legislation which looks powerful on paper but will be difficult, if not impossible, to put into effective practice (assuming the government really wants to put it into practice, which is another question).
That is the view of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. That is how it regards the approach taken by the federal government toward the admittedly difficult question of federal-provincial jurisdiction.
The other requirement to consult has to do, not with other governments, which have clear rights in law, but instead with departments or agencies of the Government of Canada.
It is easy to understand why there should be consultation with the provinces; it is much less easy to understand why consultation with other departments of government should be considered so important that the unusual step is taken of writing it into the statute. It is fair to say-and I say this as a layman, not as a lawyer, that it is probably justifiable to read the word consultation in this context as synonymous with the word veto. The fear I have-and it is shared by others who have watched the Department of the Environment act in other fields-is that the experience of the past may be repeated in connection with this requirement to consult with other agencies and departments.
We may have to conclude that this mandatory requirement to consult with other agencies and departments is in fact a provision which would allow those other agencies and departments to exercise a veto against actions which the Department of the Environment might be taking in the interests of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This mandatory requirement to consult with other departments or agencies in order that they may be in a position in practice to exercise
March 21, 1975

a veto is very alarming to those of us who are interested in environmental questions. Of equal note is the fact that this is a particularly humiliating provision for the Department of the Environment to have to write into its own law. It confirms the fear which many of us have, both in this House and throughout the country, that the Department of the Environment is a second status department within the Government of Canada. This confirms our opinion that this is a department whose views are overridden, and that this is a department which wants to make a presentation before the Berger Inquiry but is persuaded by ministers of stronger departments to back off.
The reason we have this concern is that we have met, on so many other occasions, instances in which the Department of the Environment, instead of undertaking its own assessments of what the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is doing, or what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is doing, or what the Department of Transport is doing, requires these departments to make their assessments first and then it takes a second look at their work. It does not have the kind of initiating power that a Department of the Environment should have if it is going to be effective in preserving the environment of this country. For that we need a Department of the Environment with teeth.
The reasons we particularly regret this mandatory requirement to consult, which I think it would be sensible to read as creating the capacity for veto in other departments, is that it is so sadly consistent with the relatively second status role that the Department of the Environment has played far too often under this government. Let me make it clear that in saying this I mean no personal criticism of the minister-I think she does as well as she can-but that her colleagues are stacked against her. I think that is a situation which is very sad for those of us who are concerned about the maintenance of the Canadian environment.
If we were to write into the law a requirement regarding consultation on projects which involve the Department of the Environment it would be far preferable to have a provision which required other departments to consult with the Department of the Environment, so that the veto power, if there were to be one, would reside with the Department of the Environment. We have the reverse, and that is a matter which I and others here very much lament.
One suggestion I think might be considered by the minister, and I hope will be, and certainly we propose to pursue it in committee, is that if this humuliating clause, which requires the Department of the Environment to go to other departments before it does anything, stands, there at least should be a time limit written in so the provinces, in their cases, or other departments, in theirs, will have only a fixed and limited period of time in which they can make their objections known to the Department of the Environment. To some degree that would lessen the humiliation of this provision in the bill which is, as I say, humiliating to the department.
Let me turn briefly to the question of the adequacy of the testing of contaminants that are forecast in this par-
Environmental Contaminants Act ticular bill. In the first instance, as this legislation is written, any tests would be undertaken by the manufacturer, and that of course assumes the small bird flies out of the air, or some divine inspiration strikes the minister to let her know there may be a danger. Even if the danger is detected, and that is a big if, and the fact that it has to be raised indicates a very vital flaw in this bill, then the first test is undertaken by the manufacturer, or the people who are in a sense creating the problem.
In most cases, I think we, as reasonable members of the House of Commons, would agree that the test undertaken by the manufacturer would be an adequate test, but I think it would be naive for us to say that, just because the test would be adequate in most cases, it could be relied upon to be adequate in all cases. I would be interested in hearing from the minister just how she intends to ensure the adequacy of testing, to see that the tests are not rigged by the manufacturer, under the legislation that she places before us.
I would be interested also in knowing how, under this provision, there is to be any assurance of uniformity of tests among competing companies, and that the same rigour is pursued by one company involved in introducing a particular new product as is pursued by another company. It is important to ask whether the fact that the Department of the Environment in moving the burden of testing to the producer will work in practice as a prejudice against smaller companies which might not have the capacity to test that some of the giant corporations and manufacturers possess.
If that is the case is there going to be a provision written into this legislation, or will some solid assurance be given the committee in this regard, that will allow the Department of the Environment to undertake these studies in an initiating stage rather than having to wait for a report from the manufacturer whose products are under consideration?
After receiving the report from the company which the minister has reason to believe might be introducing a dangerous contaminant, then the matter, according to this legislation, goes to the Environmental Board of Review which has substantial powers, in fact powers under the Inquiries Act. But the question still remains regarding the Environmental Review Board as to what capacity it has to test. It can adduce evidence, as I read the legislation, but as I read it there is nothing here to suggest that the board has the capacity to undertake tests.
My suspicion that the legislation is thus weakened is added to by what we know of the budget that has been granted to this agency so far. For the year beginning April 1, 1975, only $100,000 is set forth in the estimates to establish the Environmental Board of Review. We understand that is to be a board with three officers, and probably a staff. It could well be that the $100,000 in the first year of operation will be consumed in its entirety by staff expenditures and by advertising.
I mention advertising because all of us are a little apprehensive about the practices of the government in advertising virtues it does not possess. The most recent matter in the minds of most of us is the full-page ad that has appeared in newspapers all across Canada-I refer to it as the three stooges ad-which invites people to rush out

March 21, 1975
Environmental Contaminants Act
and buy an information booklet that has not been published, and will not be published for another two months. I think examples like that, and the advertising program of the former minister of state responsible for multicultural-ism, give us cause to be concerned that expenditures of this kind will be diverted foolishly to advertising programs instead of being used to achieve the important purposes with which this legislation deals.
I understand that in the following year the program forecast of the department is for an expenditure by this board of between $600,000 and $700,000 a year. Perhaps that will be adequate to allow some kind of testing, although it may very well not be sufficient. I, for one, would be interested in knowing from the minister whether it is intended that this board of review is to have the capacity to test, or whether it will simply have to rely on the evidence submitted before it by various groups, including the manufacturers whose products are under question.
One other matter of some concern relating to the board is that, as I read the legislation, and it is always possible that my reading is at fault, it is not at all clear what is going to happen to the product involved while the board is sitting in judgment. Is that product prevented from being distributed during the time in which the board sits? Is it prevented from being developed during this time? Or are we in a situation where we have a board, which under the power of the Inquiries Act is required to hear all manner of witnesses, which could be sitting literally interminably during which time, unless there is a prohibition of the distribution and development of such products, manufacturers could be getting themselves and the country locked into a situation where products with dangerous contaminant capacity are being created to a point beyond which we cannot withdraw?
I think the point is clear that if we have a board which can sit interminably hearing evidence, and which does not have the power to stop the development or distribution of the products under consideration, such products could proceed without halt and the board would be in the position of buying time for the manufacturers rather than doing what it is supposed to do, which is to protect the environment and the Canadian people. If this is the case, it is a serious deficiency in this piece of legislation, and one which we would want to have cleared up, Mr. Speaker.
In all these cases where I have suggested there might be abuse by a manufacturer I am speaking not of the normal case but of the worst case. None of us here suspect that there are manufacturers who are sitting around wanting to pollute the environment or the atmosphere. However, there might be some and, if there are some, surely as the Parliament and the Government of Canada we have a responsibility to ensure that such people are limited and stopped by this legislation rather than helped by it. The fear I have enunciated is that we might unconsciously create a provision which would help the people we are trying to limit.
There was one reference by the minister in her speech on November 29, 1974, which alarmed me a little. I shall not deal with this at length. As recorded at page 1815 of

Hansard, for that date the minister said that this new instrument would facilitate the evaluation of those products "and lighten the responsibility of making appropriate recommendations to manufacturers, users, distributors and, if need be, on the methods that could be used to destroy certain chemical substances considered as harmful to the environment."
I hope the minister will elaborate on the specific ways in which this legislation will lighten the present responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, because certainly we on this side of the House do not believe this is a bill which will lighten those responsibilities but rather is one that would increase those responsibilities. If in fact this bill is some disguise for a way to take away from the Department of the Environment power which it is necessary should be exercised, and shunting that off to industry or some other agency of government, we want to know about that. Unless very strong evidence can be adduced before the House this is something we would very strongly oppose.
Finally I wish to deal with the provision for fines under the so-called environmental contaminants legislation. We are dealing here with an attempt to prevent pollution and disruption of the Canadian environment which could have consequences of incalculable cost, not simply in dollar terms but in terms of the health and the well being of our citizens, of future generations, and of other countries.
This is a very serious matter. Offences against the bill would be very serious offences. On summary conviction the fine as set out in the bill would not exceed $10,000. Then there is a provision for imprisonment for six months, or for both the fine and imprisonment. A fine of $10,000 certainly will not scare the trousers off any multinational corporation that is contemplating an act which would cause environmental damage. This is obviously a ludicrously insufficient fine. What is worse is that the $10,000 is a maximum, and there is no minimum stated. The minimum could be a nickel, or simply feed for the little bird that flits around telling the minister when this legislation should be introduced. The system of fines is inadequate and must be reviewed.
I say, and other speakers on this side have made it clear, that we very much share the goal that is evident in this legislation. We believe it is highly important that we turn away from simply reacting to disasters which occur and get into the serious job of bringing in preventive measures to stop those disasters before they occur. Our worry about this bill is precisely that there is nothing here to ensure that we make that turn.
The bill purports to be preventive legislation, but in fact is the same negative type of legislation rather than preventive legislation because of the weaknesses that have been mentioned. So, Mr. Speaker, I support the recommendation of my colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), that the subject matter of the bill be referred directly to the standing committee rather than that the bill be given second reading now. I certainly hope this very sensible amendment will commend itself to the House.

March 21, 1975


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Madam Speaker, I was praising hon. members of the House this afternoon for the quick expedition of our business. Three bills have already been considered this afternoon, but I feel we are really stuck now on the bill to control pollution. I think this bill will be difficult to adopt, although I wish it could have been adopted this afternoon. The purpose of this bill is to protect human health and the environment from the release of substances that contaminate the environment and provide for the appointment of an Environmental Contaminants Board of Review consisting of not less than three persons. We have always felt and still feel that this issue is of paramount importance. As evidence of this, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) asked the following question on March 20, quote:
In view of the fact that the legislation pertaining to industrial and commercial buildings does not apply to mining, and that those companies are not subject to the environmental protection legislation, can the minister tell us whether he will assume his responsibilities immediately by instructing his department's task force which is considering the matter to look immediately into the Thetford Mines problem ...
This was about another case of environmental pollution. I wish to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), because for once he has apparently kept the promise he made in reply to the following question by Mr. Fortin;
The Minister of Environment has stated earlier that she was waiting for the House to pass Bill C-25 relating to substances that contaminate the environment. Our party agrees that it be given priority. However, it is the government, not the opposition, which decides the order of business. To elucidate this, would the President of the Privy Council agree to suggest an understanding so that Bill C-25 be given priority as early as tomorrow ...
The reply of the President of the Privy Council reads in part as follows:
I thank the hon. member for his suggestion. I believe it is the general desire that this bill be disposed of, and I hope it can at least be put through second reading before we break for Easter.
I do not know whether the President of the Privy Council had consulted the Progressive Conservatives when he told us everyone agreed. This afternoon, I think we are late and will muff it as far as referring the bill to the standing committee is concerned. However, I still want to congratulate the Minister of Environment and tell her how happy I am that a lady is in charge of keeping the country clean. I am sure we will have a cleaner country, a healthier environment.
I want to say a word about the environmental contaminants board of review whose establishment this bill authorizes. It will consist of three persons. I trust it will make reports. It will probably serve mainly to put out information, or to help the minister with the complaints she will receive about certain forms of pollution. Our country is not a pretty sight because of pollution. The water, the sea, the air, the highways, the parks, the cities and the countryside are all polluted. Today, one cannot go out without running into the hideousness of pollution.
This is why we wanted this bill to have priority, because it is an urgent need, something demanded by the entire population. For years, we have been wondering what the
Cultural Property
provincial government intends to do in Quebec, what the federal government plans to do in another province and elsewhere in Canada. The air space and navigable waters are under federal jurisdiction while rivers and small streams are under provincial jurisdiction. It is always the same quarrel, Madam Speaker.
I have made many reports to the federal and provincial governments but without avail. This is why I hope that the board will be effective, that watchful inspectors and analyst will be appointed to act as active members of the board so that we will not merely witness the establishment of a board this afternoon. We are sick and tired of abuses, Madam Speaker. We want action, a committee that works, a minister well informed, who orders investigations into the nature, the quantity and the quality of these pollutants. In my riding, things have reached a point where all water bodies are polluted and the aquatic fauna is declining every day, to such an extent that in some rivers one cannot catch a single fish. Why? This is caused sometimes by a saw mill built on the shore that dumps its sawdust into the river, sometimes it is a paper mill that throws its paper residues into the river, all of which kills fish and pollutes rivers.
I am not sure if there will be an agreement with the provinces, because the bill says there will be consultations. We know that consultations with provinces are necessary. However, if the provinces will not budge the federal government will have to do something about it, push the provinces and force them to clean up. It is fine to say that it will be done. But nothing has been done, everything is destroyed and we live in unparalleled pollution.
Madam Speaker, I hope that the minister will be able to obtain the required publicity for the work that she will have to do. The government makes a lot of needless publicity, often for a lot of nonsense. However, this should receive publicity. We should expose those responsible for polluting the water, the soil and the atmosphere and give them bad publicity if they are industrialists. In my opinion, the best way to control an industrialist and make him come to this senses is to give him bad publicity.
A while ago, fines were mentioned and I heard some say that they were not high enough. In my opinion, the best kind of fine would be to publicly expose those responsible for pollution and, once again, to force the industries to spend money to protect the environment, and then, the order could be issued.
Of course, when the population gets no information about the activities of a department, no order is issued. I am certain that the minister then works in a vacuum and that all the commission members will also work in a vacuum because pollution is not the business of two, three or ten people or a minister, but of the whole population. The department must shake the population so that those responsible may be exposed. If a neighbour witnesses pollution by an industrialist or an individual, he should send a petition to the department. If the department does not act, members of Parliament will then have to expose the department for its inaction.
I have nothing more to add, because I would like the minister to speak for a few minutes so that the bill may be
4392

March 21, 1975
Cultural Property
passed in committee since we all wait anxiously for the implementation of this measure.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Will the government House leader be kind enough to confirm for us the government's business on Monday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, the House has made very good progress today. We have moved on some bills, but I had hoped that we might have been able to move on Bill C-25. There are only a couple of speeches to be made and I am hoping it might be possible to dispose of this bill before the Easter recess. So I have kept it in my priority items. However, on Monday I have the intention of calling the motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Then I would hope to call third reading of the housing act which has now been reported from committee. There is some hope that if we acted on that quickly it might be approved by the Senate and receive royal assent before Easter. We also have a series of amendments from the Senate to the corporations bill, and finally we have Bill C-8, which we would like to proceed with also.
I am sorry that I cannot at this stage go any further as to the order of these items except to say that we will begin with the report of the Committee on Procedure and Organization. The others will, I hope, be considered during the day.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Madam Speaker, could we have consent to dispose of this bill on second reading today? It seems that the House is in agreement. If there are only one or two more speeches-


Walter David Baker: Four o'clock, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There being no agreement, and it being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW MINISTRY Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give serious consideration to the establishment of a department of sports.
He said: Madam Speaker, the motion proposed is short and uncomplicated, that in the opinion of this House the government should give serious consideration to the establishment of a department of sports. Why propose such a motion? Obviously I am not satisfied with the manner in which the government discharges its responsibilities to amateur sport. This stems from the fact that the fitness and amateur sport program is lost in the Ministry of National Health and Welfare.
The 1975-1976 estimates for the fitness and amateur sport program total $21,785,000, less than $1 per annum per person. Even that figure is misleading. The minister said in a speech in January of this year that this year his department has spent over $10 million on amateur sport. That is over 40 cents per person. Or am I perhaps being a little bit too cynical? As a percentage of the departmental budget it becomes even more insignificant. It is about one third of 1 per cent, and that is almost the level of importance attached by the department to amateur sport.
Put another way, the total sport budget is approximately 3 per cent of the amount by which the total departmental budget has increased over last year. In other words, the departmental budget increased by $648 million, or $30 for every man, woman and child in this country, while the budget for fitness and amateur sport increased by 21 cents per person for a full year.
That is to be the level of federal participation in amateur sport for the year 1975-76, less than $1 per person for a full year. The budget of just one of the provinces doubles that figure.
Let us look for a moment at the objective of the department. It reads:
To raise the fitness level of Canadians and to improve their participation in physical recreation and amateur sport.
And as sub-objectives:
To increase the appreciation for an understanding of fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
To improve the Canadian delivery systems of fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
To improve the quality of participation of Canadians in physical recreation and amateur sport.
I would like to put on record the fitness and amateur sport program description, which reads:
Promotion and Communications-Strategies and activities to promote a better understanding and active interest in fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
Resources Development-Provision of support for human and physical resources necessary to develop and improve fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
Training-Support of events for participants and athletes which foster the improvement of abilities and performance in fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
March 21, 1975
[Stage Direction]
Competition-Assistance to enable individuals or groups of individuals to engage in events for the purpose of measuring their performance against others or according to established standards.
Program Planning and Management-Planning of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program, management of the activities through Recreation Canada and Sport Canada, and the provision of administrative services in the operation of the program.
This is excellent indeed. What wonderful and inspiring objectives and what excellent programs-and all that for $1 per person, of which 20 cents goes to administrative expenses. It costs $4.5 million to distribute the grants, contributions, and other transfer payments.
Is it any wonder that we have difficulty winning Olympic medals? Of the contributions to encourage, promote and develop fitness, amateur sport and physical recreation for Canadians, a total of $1.8 million is allocated for training. For all my constituents in Vaudreuil that works out to less than $10,000 for the year 1975-76. This is in a constituency where tomorrow just one of the 40 municipalities, the town of Beaconsfield with a population of 21,000, is opening a $1.5 million recreation and sports complex. The town of Vaudreuil, with a population of approximately 4,000, has just built and opened an arena at a cost of $200 per person. These are only two examples of what is being done at the local level, and they illustrate the importance attached to amateur sport at that level.
I can already hear the departmental officials howling that I should not mix federal and provincial responsibilities. My answer to that is that if the federal government cannot show leadership and do a better job, then it should get out of the field entirely and not make a halfhearted token effort.
Our top sportsmen and women should be trained to represent their country in international competition, and the promotion, organization and control should be a federal responsibility with a suitable federal budget to assure success.
The provinces fulfil their responsibilities as can be illustrated by a quotation from the Montreal newspaper La Presse dated December 4, 1968, some seven years ago. It reads:
[Stage Direction]
For the first Quebec Sport Convention to be held in Montreal from December 5 to 8, the High Commissioner for Youth, Leisure and Sports prepared a working paper that will be made available to all participants.
By its importance, the basic principles it defines and the concrete policy it proposes, that paper constitutes somehow the first Quebec Sport Charter.
For many years, international sport organisations and governments in several countries have been seeking to give sport an orientation likely to meet both the many and various aspirations expressed by those who in close or remote connection keep contact with, participate actively in or organize in their environment, social and sport activities.
Quebec also raised many areas of concern in that respect. In the last few years, bodies identified with community leisure organization, promotion of competition sport activities and overall youth education expressed in their most immediate area worthy opinions about the nature and the meaning of continued government intervention in the area of sport.
And further on it continues:
Government
Sport constitutes a general social fact capable of cultural influence of some importance, capable also of playing at both the individual and
Department of Sports
community levels a recreational role, an educational role, a military role and a role of adaptation to and preparation for active life.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently attended the official opening of the 1975 Canada Winter Games in Lethbridge, Alberta, where 3,000 young Canadians participated in everything from skiing to table tennis, and from volley ball to judo. Teams from the ten provinces and the two territories marched into the Sportsplex behind their flags. For many of the athletes, particularly those from the two territories, it was the first time for a firsthand look at another part of Canada.
For the people of southern Alberta it was a mammoth effort of more than two years on the part of thousands of volunteers, involving people from the surrounding communities which were the sites of the events.
It will be the same story when the games move to St. John's, Newfoundland, for the summer edition in 1977, and that province's representatives were in Lethbridge picking up all the tips they could. Manitobans were also watching carefully because the next edition of the winter series, in 1979, will be held in their province.
The provinces are certainly doing their part. It would be unjust not to add that the federal government is contributing financially to these activities. However, the question remains, is the assistance just tokenism? Is it really fulfilling the objective of the department, or is it just a small encouragement to the private sector and the provincial and municipal governments to keep up the good work?
I am going to refer for a moment or two to one part of the effort of the department's sport program. On February 1, 1974, the Department of National Health and Welfare issued a news release which stated:
Health and Welfare Minister Marc Lalonde today announced that applications for 1974 grants-in-aid to Canadian student athletes are now being accepted by his department's fitness and amateur sport branch.
The grant-in-aid program, established in 1970, assists Canadian student athletes who wish to pursue their educational programs while continuing to make satisfactory progress in their competitive sports programs.
Excellent! But the same news release says:
The deadline for submission of grants-in-aid applications is February 15, 1974.
I wrote to the minister to ask:
Why did News Release 1974-8 of February 1, 1974, indicate a deadline for submission of February 15, 1974? Is it because the funds are very limited and possibly were already committed?
The minister's reply said in part:
This date is necessary in order that a reasonably complex selection process can be completed preferably by late April. In this way the student athletes will know whether or not they are receiving a grant and can plan their summer programs accordingly.
I suggest simply that any student who was not at the starting gate on February 1 is probably still unaware of the program. Note the six weeks for the departmental officials for their "complex selection process", but only two weeks for the poor student from the date of the news release, for the dissemination of information, consider-
29557-3'/.
[Stage Direction]
March 21, 1975
Department of Sports
ation, looking for the source of application forms-which is not always an easy task-completing and submitting an application.
In answer to a question on the order paper the minister indicated that the projected expenditure for this program is $1 million per year. That is probably why it is not made easily accessible. In that same answer the minister indicated that total grants for training programs in 1972-73 were $527,000. However, grants for administration for the same year to agencies, organizations, and institutions totalled $1,156,000-more than twice as much as for training. I do not question the necessity to keep alive the national associations, but I do question the priority in the allocation of the very limited funds that are made available.
Incidentally, Madam Speaker, the same answer indicates that 99 organizations are competing for funds, and they include golf, curling, cricket, yachting and some of the more exotic sports, but the word baseball does not appear.
Departmental publicity in regard to its magnanimous grants is not lacking. During the past year news releases have been issued at a rate of more than one a month. Yet another branch of this same department concerned with welfare issues news releases on grants only once every six months. Are we perhaps being given a publicity snow job?
I will conclude my remarks by quoting from a speech made recently by the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to the Sports Federation of Canada.
Steve Eugene Paproski: Was it a $1,000 speech or a $600 one?


Mr. Herbert:: In the course of that speech the minister referred to the:
... great deal of excitement and anticipation among those who work daily for Canada's amateur athletes.
Much of this excitement is being generated by Game Plan ...
One of Game Plan's main objectives is to increase significantly the number of internationally qualified athletes who will be representing Canada.
A lead article in today's Montreal Gazette says in part:
Some serious questions arise from the approach undertaken in the "Let's Get Together" advertising compaign to raise money for the Canadian Olympic Association (COA) ...
Many athletes will continue to live in near penury despite the promise held out in the advertising campaign that they will be assisted by contributions ...
The corporations which have allied themselves with COA could make considerable contribution to Canadian athletic well-being through more direct association with the athletes ...
It would have been far better to have had the $750,000 outlay on advertising used to assist directly athletes who are not in schools, colleges, or universities and cannot find employers who will permit them the generous time off work required for training, competition, and travel...
It is obvious that there has to be broader support for Canadian athletes than that envisaged by Game Plan. What is needed is a plan which will indeed "help" the athletes.
An article in last October's issue of Legion magazine said:
The '76 Olympics has given a special urgency to the federal role in sport.

The first step that this government can take to help the athlete is to create a department of sports.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, at the outset let me compliment the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing forward a motion which deals with sports in general and more specifically with the creation of a department of sports. I think he must have read the Progressive Conservative party's policy paper put together about a year and a half ago.
It is ironic that the hon. member for Vaudreuil should come up with this motion because one of his colleagues who sits behind him, and who does not seem to be in very good shape, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane), seems to be the self-proclaimed-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain on a point of order.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Madam Speaker, I have never once mentioned in this House that the hon. member over there always skated on thin ice. He should not make remarks about my physical appearance as he has enough weaknesses of the mind to deal with in his own case.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, we must let backbenchers on the government side have their say, since they are not permitted to say much during regular proceedings. As I was saying, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain is the self-proclaimed minister of sports on the government side. Recently he produced a sport policy paper which is almost identical to the paper the Conservative party produced one year or so ago. Even the paragraph headings in his paper are similar to the paragraph headings in our proposal.
Let me read some of the hon. member's paragraph headings: Increasing interest and concern; Expanding participation; Growing demand for sports education and facilities; A national new facilities program; Broader use of existing facilities; Expanded teaching and training; Capability for anticipating problems. Those are all subject headings, and are similar to paragraph titles in our policy.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil seemed to be most interested in looking after elite, already established athletes. There is nothing wrong with that. We welcome the support of the Department of National Health and Welfare for this country's elite athletes. Really, our difficulties have little to do with elite athletes, or athletes in this country at the top of their competitive class. We must be concerned with grass roots athletes, and therefore with physical fitness and recreation. Physical fitness is most important for the well-being of our people. Canadians have become increasingly aware of the importance of physical fitness, which affects both body and mind. I should like to see the government encourage people to become more physically fit and participate in recreational programs, which should encompass amateur sports.
I suggest the amateur sports program should involve, first, initiating a federal-provincial conference to study existing physical fitness and sports programs as struc-
March 21, 1975

tured within each individual province, and incorporating the same into an acceptable national policy; second, taking inventory of all existing sports, recreational and fitness facilities and ensuring their maximum utilization under the proposals of this policy; third, encouraging national physical fitness through education, the media, industry and government, and promoting all available facilities and programs on a national basis; fourth, initiating the development of a truly comprehensive coaching program with accompanying accreditation leading to professional status and, fifth, creating new facilities dependent upon regional needs, and determined in addition by the scheduling of national and international sporting events.
While it is impossible for the government to promise support for those who have come to be known as elite athletes, I hope it will continue to offer financial support and assistance to those individuals demonstrating outstanding ability and achievement in sports. I cannot emphasize enough the need to encourage youngsters and adults at the grass roots level to participate in amateur sports and physical fitness programs. From this grass roots base we shall develop our top athletes. Only if our grass roots athletic program is sound will superior athletes emerge, athletes who can do better in international competitions.
The hon. member's motion provides for the establishment of a department of sports. My party made a similar proposal some time ago. But we must be realistic. In these times of economic hardship, of huge government bureaucracy, times when restraint in spending is called for, a department of sports will not be given high priority. The establishment of a ministry of sports might be considered some time in the future, but at the present the establishment of such a ministry will not take precedence over other urgent government business.
The Department of National Health and Welfare which labours under a fantastic workload probably cannot pay too much attention to sports. Unfortunately the minister seems to be more concerned about professional than about amateur sport. I am alluding to his interest in the World Football League, the Canadian Football League, and other professional sporting bodies.
In conclusion I am sure most hon. members and most Canadians will agree that the government will give low priority to the establishment of a ministry of sports, and will give much higher priority to many of the other things it must do in this day and age.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Madam Speaker, I am disturbed because I want to speak for two hours, but can only speak for some minutes. I know other hon. members wish to make their comments. Allow me to congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance), the mover and seconder of the motion, for introducing this subject matter for debate. I do not necessarily support the establishment of a ministry of sport, but I am glad the hon. member for Vaudreuil brought before the House a matter of important national concern.
I remind the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) that this is a non-partisan issue. That is how
Department of Sports
I will treat it. For that reason I will ignore his personal remarks and proceed with my own speech.
I concede that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) first showed his concern in this area when he brought forward a bill. Our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), too, showed his concern by making his relatively well known statement concerning a tasK force. Let me point out that the minister from Hamilton East brought forward a sports policy, that the present minister from Outremont supported that policy and showed interest in what is happening at the grass roots. I am not embarrassed to speak as a Liberal.
I remind the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley that he was using my notes when he spoke. He used my notes, but alleged they are a copy of a Conservative paper.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) suggested I used his notes when I spoke. Let me point out that he was not even in Ottawa when we established our sports policy. It was our sports policy, our notes, to which I was referring. I had just suggested that the paper he came up with, which was only released a few months ago, was nearly identical to ours.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member knows that is not a valid point of order.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I respect the hon. member. I am very pleased he used his own notes because his sound better coming out of his mouth than his do out of my mouth.
Since this matter is non-partisan I would also like to point out that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) was one of the top players on the parliamentary team. He indeed shows an interest in sport. I would also like to point out another young man who is hitting the headlines. He is a member of the NDP. He does not represent a constituency, but he would surely like to do that. His name is Bruce Kidd.
We should be looking at sport as a vehicle for national unity. Regardless of whether my constituents decide that someone else should represent them, in the time that I am here we will continue looking at sport as part of the culture of Canadian people. I think it is also important to mention the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). I was hoping he would have stayed. The Leader of the Opposition allowed his name to stand for the first Atlantic football bowl game in Halifax.
There are many important individuals in this parliament. In sports we do not refer to the players as engineers, doctors or lawyers. We do not even refer to them as nuns, priests or ministers. They are called members of the fraternity of athletes. Everyone becomes equal. That is why sport in itself is terribly important in this country.
A little boy from Trois-Rivieres who is able to go to Penticton to play thinks it is a fantastic experience. He does not ask whether the people there speak French or English. He wants to go. These are the things we should be talking about here.
We should bring to the attention of this department, this minister, the Prime Minister, and this parliament that we

March 21, 1975
Department of Sports
believe sport is an experience which both young and old people can enjoy. If we are indeed going to be faced with the great economic problems of this world, there will still be time for our older gentlemen to sit by the ballpark to watch ordinary softball games. They will not have the money to buy tickets for the great professional sports. Once more they will want to sit at the local diamonds and watch the activity. This is a moment of opportunity for us.
I have been involved in sports over a 30-year period. I ask hon. members to consider this as a last thought. When Handel wrote the Messiah, did he write of the omnipotence of God or did the omnipotence of God show itself through the Messiah which he wrote? When Van Gogh painted the olive trees, did he paint of nature or did nature show itself through his painting? When I coach my football team, do I place the stamp of my name on it or do I give the players the formations, the moment of play, and the system whereby they may express themselves?
This is my plea for sport. It is indeed a cultural experience. It is an experience for those involved and for those who want to have some kind of an aesthetic experience.
What is the praise most often heard in sports? "Wasn't it beautiful?" Beauty has something to do with art, culture and experience. This is what it is all about. We are not asking for some money to be thrown away. We are saying we want our Prime Minister to stand up and say that sport is indeed culture, a part of our life, a ribbon across Canada that ties us together, and a vehicle whereby all multicultural groups can move together and exhibit their national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I travelled to Split, Yugoslavia, with our national basketball team. Normally there is not that big a crowd at basketball games. However, there you saw 11,000 on one side and 11,000 on the other. You saw coming against you a centre who was seven foot two. You saw your guard from British Columbia, who was playing beside your guard from Halifax, who was playing beside your centre from Ottawa, who was playing behind your forward from Quebec, who was playing behind your forward from Saskatchewan, who was standing with the referee who came from British Columbia. If you saw this, you would realize what it is like to see a young boy of six foot two come driving in toward the seven foot two player, place the ball behind his back, give it to the boy from Montreal, who put it in, and then hear the crowd suddenly say "Canada, Canada, Canada". There was not one Canadian present. It was because they respected us. They understood that athletics is poetry in motion.


An hon. Member:: Who won?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: That is a good question. As ambassadors, we won every time.
I remember when my football team beat a maritime university 107 to three. It was not a very happy situation. I remember when we lost 86 to six. The other coach wondered whether he won or lost.
In sport you practice five times a week, and not just the day of the game. If the practices were not any fun what would be the point of playing once a week? Do you think

it is all in one moment, one Canada Games, or one international competition? It is in a whole lifetime. This is part of our country.
It is terrible when people do not understand the emotional aspect. I hope no one says I am not being objective. However, he would be right. I am not objective. I am emotional. I am sold on it.
I remember one other incident. As a young coach, I violently wanted to win. I took 40 young football players and ran them around the field. At the back of the field I saw one running slow. I looked at him and said, "Why are you running slow? Pick it up." His brother came to me and said, "Can't you see he is crippled? He had infantile paralysis. He is my brother." I felt bad. I thought it over and then called them all together. I looked at this boy and said, "I guess you will have a harder time making the team."
That boy made the team. Sport was the great leveller. He did not want to be regarded as a cripple. He wanted to be regarded like everyone else. He went on to McGill and became a Governor General's scholar. He played football and now holds a good position in this country. Right across this country there are people like this.
Sport is the great leveller. When we started out sport dealt with our problems. The Negro came up in sport. We would shower with him, but would not invite him to our parties. The vehicle was open to him.
While I am in this place I will not tolerate being partisan. I appreciate the expertise in his sport of the hon. member who spoke previously. I have great respect for him. We each had a little fun with each other. I now ask him to join with me. I also ask the hon. member from Edmonton, the hon. member from the Social Credit Party, and the hon. member from the New Democratic Party to join with me. We need to have this hope. This is the moment for backbenchers. Regardless of whether you are a member of the government, you can go back to your town and say, yes, we need that rink and that pool. This is our moment. This is the time we should remind ourselves of the well known words:
Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time.
The footprints can go up or down, or they can wander around. Mine will go right up there because that is where youth is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Abbott:: On a question of privilege, I apologize to the hon. member who is about to speak, but it occurs to me that, as in this case, day after day and week after week it is a good thing that maintaining a quorum in this House does not depend on the presence of one member of the New Democratic Party.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I almost think that the hon. member's interruption is worthwhile. I want to thank the hon. member for Mississauga
March 21, 1975

(Mr. Abbott). The spirit of goodwill prevails in this House. We are getting close to the Easter recess and the record will show that today the House made great progress in respect of legislative enactments. So there are times when we can get together and do things in a proper spirit.
I want to say something to the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). I have heard many speeches with respect to the influence of sport in helping to promote national unity, but I do not think I have ever heard a more passionate plea for understanding of the proper place of sport in the life of this country than I did a few moments ago. I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech. I admire him personally, I admired his career before he came here, and I hope he will so conduct himself while he is here that I will admire his career here as well; I have no reason to think I shall not do so although we may have occasion to disagree from time to time.
The passion with which he spoke of sports, bearing in mind that the subject of this debate is a proposal to create a Department of Sports, was so apparent that since I am by nature a Methodist I was reminded somewhat of a revival meeting at which the hon. member was pushing for a call to that department. Such an appointment might not be a bad thing if he could practice in that department the fervour with which he speaks.
I do not know whether the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain or I could be judged as examples of what participation in active sports can do for one's figure. Perhaps we are walking examples of the necessity for the rethinking of programs in the community. My only concern with respect to the motion is not the motive behind it. I think I have indicated that I support the motion in its general purpose. My hesitation with respect to it is in deciding whether or not it is necessary in 1975, in a period when we are calling upon people for restraint, when governments are paying at least lip service to restraint in the sense that it is being mentioned, when inflation is touching people's pocketbooks, when some people in the country are complaining about the growth of the public service, and when the government itself is saying it is hoping to hold the growth of the public service down to 4 per cent in the fiscal year.
This is not the time for us to talk about opening a new department, with all the new staff it would require, and all the difficulty and expense it would mean. Only in those terms would I say that perhaps we should use this period to think about what a department of this sort might do if it were formed. I hope we are not always going to be running through this economic Gethsemane. I hope the government will come to its senses and realize it has a responsibility to fight inflation. Some of these important recreational and cultural things could perhaps be centred in a new department. That is my only reservation.
If it is important that we do these things, we do not need a new department or a new ministry. What we do need is to use the existing departments, the existing structures, and the tremendous expertise which exists and which is capable of being unleashed in the public service, and to draw in from time to time when necessary, having regard to our requirements for priorities, expertise from elsewhere to zero in on the one part of the sports program which needs emphasizing and re-emphasizing-if I under-
Department of Sports
stood at all what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain was saying-and that is the involvement of the young person growing up in an atmosphere of recreation and sport so that he can participate not only when he is young but all through his life, and at the same time educate a society with respect to recreation.
There is the capability now without setting up a new department. I do not quarrel with the objective, but I think there is the capability already. It will take, perhaps, another minister, or certainly a reawakening of the minister with respect to his interest in amateur sport, and perhaps a review of the programs to see whether there is not too much concentration on the large sporting organizations, the national associations, rather than the community associations, the neighbourhood associations.
I am a parent of two growing boys and a growing girl. The latter has just begun to play in softball and perhaps as she gets a little older she will become interested in girls' hockey; the two boys have both played amateur football in the pre-high school leagues. One boy of mine is now playing football in his high school and hockey in his neighbourhood. One of the things we cannot emphasize too much is the importance of this program in occupying those young minds, not just the young minds of my children but the minds of the children of others in the community, occupying their time, giving them some interest, teaching them to involve themselves early in recreation, giving a vent for their tremendous strength and enthusiasm, allowing them to excel in those fields so that they can excel in other fields.
Sometimes we forget; we as parents, as members of parliament, as parliamentarians generally not just on this level but elsewhere, forget that really the unsung heroes of the community are those men and women who take time out of their own lives day after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year to do things for our young people. We should not forget this. I hope I can speak for every member of this parliament in paying tribute to all the men and women of this country who have given of themselves in a voluntary way to assist the development of young people. They develop not only the body but the mind as well.
I should like to say something else. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, in his career before he came here, distinguished himself at another level of athletics and sports and recreation. We owe men like the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain a debt of gratitude for what they have done for our country in developing young men as better citizens, as greater participants and sportsmen, with all the attributes inherent in that name. I think also of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek). He was a world champion athlete and brought distinction to this country. We in this House are fortunate to have men like him who have brought great honour to their country sitting among us.
Last of all, I think the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain touched on a matter that is very close to me, and that is the importance of the understanding we have to develop between nations and in our own country. I happen to be a resident member of parliament and I am here all summer

March 21, 1975
Department of Sports
when my colleagues are at their homes across the country. They drop in from time to time and it is nice to see them no matter where they are from, but I am one of the members who is in this House every day during the summer, and it falls to my lot to receive group after group of young people who come to Ottawa from the far reaches of our country, every province and territory. This occurs throughout the summer months. They come here to have their eyes opened to the greatness of this country which is symbolized in these buildings.
I think there is an opportunity in respect of these programs, many of which are exchange programs funded by the hard work of the young people themselves, and others by the taxpayers, to improve the relationships within our country and with the rest of the world. These programs are among the most important that the government has seen fit to bring about in terms of our country.
More than that, I think we ought to see that there is the same opportunity for the people who participate in amateur sport to develop an understanding of what this country and its various regions mean, while at the same time developing that attribute that is important in any citizen, namely, the attribute of participating in a sportsmanlike way, whether we are talking about a business or a profession, in public or in private life.
Let me say to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that the motivation behind his motion is excellent, and I support him. Unfortunately, I think we have other priorities, and given those priorities there are other vehicles now in our hands with which to carry out what the hon. member suggests in respect of the department, as well as those important objectives the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain so eloquently put before us this afternoon. I am very grateful for having had this opportunity to participate in what I think is an important debate, Madam Speaker.


Serge Joyal: Madam Speaker, I am all the happier to take part in this debate on the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) as this afternoon, after speaking on Bill C-33 to the House, I now have the opportunity to talk to the House on a motion which deals with a matter of significant importance to me, as the representative of the Maisonneuve-Rosemont constituency, since in effect that is where the Olympic Games of 1976 are to take place.
When I was elected a member of the House of Commons last July, one of the first steps I took was to re-read every statement made in this House respecting the Olympic Games, namely the Olympic Act and the speeches which were meant to prepare Canada for that exceptional event.
When I went over some statements by my colleagues from the opposition, I was struck by the fact that they were anxious to make this international sporting event an unprecedented success. I also noticed that they wished the games to take place within modest structures. If some members of the opposition had accepted the invitation by
the mayor of Montreal last Sunday, as other members did, and had had the opportunity to visit the Olympic facilities, they would have realized to what extent they are progressing according to schedule, and how very optimistic we can be about this international event.
However, our debate this afternoon deals with a specific aspect of that event, namely the preparation of Canadian athletes for the Olympic Games of 1976. The motion we are dealing with this afternoon, Madam Speaker, is not a new one. In fact, in 1937, a member of parliament for a Toronto riding put forward a similar one. He did so as he returned from the Commonwealth Games which had taken place in London, and in which the Canadian hockey team almost won the gold medal in its field. Since hockey is one of the most popular sports in Canada, this hon. member, on his coming back to Canada after those international competitions, thought that one of the first measures the government of the day should pass would be precisely the establishment of a Department of Sports.
The previous speaker has indicated this afternoon in a very precise way why we can be doubtful about the establishment of a Department of Sports having the desired results. Indeed, we are dealing with one of the areas where voluntary efforts and voluntary involvement of the citizens are most important. The policy now advocated or followed by the National Health and Welfare Department is to stimulate the development, the growth and the initiatives which might be taken by all the organizations involved with sports at the professional or amateur levels. Those programs established by National Health and Welfare Department are not intended to serve as a substitute for private initiative. These are programs essentially devised to back up the plans set up by groups of citizens who believe that physical fitness is one of the most important objectives to pursue.
In 1969, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to be a spectator at the European Olympic championships in Athens. At that time, I was able to see that the countries which were more successful and had the highest international standing were not necessarily those where sports were managed by a bureaucracy. Quite the opposite, it was those who favoured personal initiative. I am thinking of a French athlete, Colette Besson, who ran the 300 metres and won all the gold medals for track events because she had been able to start practising her sport when bureaucracy had nothing to do with the physical training favoured by her family.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, if we must call the attention of this House to the preparation of Canadians for the 1976 Olympics during the next few months, we should emphasize these personal initiatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hour provided for consideration of private members' bills has now expired. It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 24, 197S