1975-04-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek leave to move a motion arising out of certain purchases made at public expense for the Prime Minister's official residence at Sussex Drive. I would move:
That in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has purchased at public expense $337 worth of matches and $385 worth of candles for his official residence, the House requests the Prime Minister to state whether these purchases indicate a need for enlightenment in high places or whether in view of the failure of government policies to deal with the galloping cost of living the Prime Minister has finally adopted as his motto the title of the popular song, "I'm beginning to see the light."



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two questions for the Minister of Transport or, in his absence, the Prime Minister. Perhaps I could address them to the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister, now that an inquiry is apparently to be held into the affairs of Air Canada pursuant to the Inquiries Act, whether he can assure the House that upon additional evidence being presented concerning other areas of Air Canada's activities, the terms of reference will be extended?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: I expect my hon. friend the Minister of Transport will be here shortly and will answer questions about the inquiry which has been decided upon. It is my understanding that the inquiry will relate to the particular charges and reports which have been made so far.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Acting Prime Minister will surely be aware that conditions in the Winnipeg finance section of
Air Canada are causing great consternation. Will he consider taking steps to inquire why the finance section has become so chaotic and ineffective that a good percentage of the loss incurred by the airline, over $1 million recently, was due to poor accounting and collecting procedures?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my understanding that the inquiry will relate to the accounting procedures of Air Canada.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister will also take steps to find out, on a frank and factual basis, why so many capable executives have left Air Canada in recent years, including the present chief executive officer of Eaton's, whose talents the airline could ill afford to lose and whether this exodus has any significance in terms of the way in which Air Canada is being managed and directed.


SUGGESTION INQUIRY SHOULD BE BROAD IN SCOPE
Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Does the Acting Prime Minister not believe that if an inquiry is launched on a very narrow basis, while still including accounting procedures, the committee of the House studying the annual report of Air Canada might find that answers to many questions are refused on the grounds that the subject is sub judice? Does he not therefore agree that it would be wrong to embark upon a narrow inquiry and that it would be better to hold a broad inquiry covering the whole aspect of the management of Air Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
follow the logic of the hon. member. If the inquiry were to be very broad it would preclude to an even greater extent the normal cross-examination which might take place on the estimates. The purpose of the government is to assist parliament in getting at the facts.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This way, excuses will be made and there will be no facts given to us.


An hon. Member:: It is the opposition which has been asking for the inquiry.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he can give the House some information with respect to the situation in the river ports and tell us specifically what
April 22, 1975

Oral Questions
steps are being contemplated by the government with respect to the legal strike there?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, I can give the hon. member a quick report. It appears that a settlement is very difficult to obtain in connection with the question of job security along the lines the conciliation commissioner, Judge Gold, recommended. This is what is keeping the parties apart. I am giving it one last try to see whether that issue can be resolved. If it cannot, we shall have to consider an alternative which I know all hon. members as well as myself consider unpalatable, that is to say, legislation.


STRIKE OF LONGSHOREMEN IN QUEBEC-ALLEGED ABUSE OF LEGAL RIGHT TO PICKET AS FACTOR IN SETTLEMENT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. The minister seems to indicate that it is the government's intention at this point in time, having given every opportunity for a settlement between the parties, to focus upon the broad issue of the Gold report. Is it not the understanding or belief of the government that the difficulties concerning this legal strike have to do with the much narrower aspect of the illegal use or abuse of the right of men on legal strike to picket? Is this not the area upon which the government should in fact be focussing its attention in so far as legislation is concerned?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the fact that there has been picketing in certain situations, then this is a matter for interpretation by the courts. If someone wants to take out an injunction against picketing, an injunction is issued and if it is disobeyed, we would have to consider very seriously taking legal action against those who disobey the law. When I say "we" I am talking of those people who take out these injunctions, and in this case, being in the private sector, government is not necessarily involved.


J. Michael Forrestall: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. So that we understand the Minister of Labour, can I ask him whether he will confirm to us that the government is now giving consideration to legislation for a return to work of workers who have been on legal strike for about three weeks on the basis of the Gold report?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, without going into what the legislation will contain at this stage-
I think the hon. member will understand my reservation on that score-let me say that when a strike situation does appear to be very difficult of resolution the necessity for legislation is always a consideration of the government.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport, who

has finally come into the House. Has the government reached any decision as to whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into certain financial dealings of Air Canada and, if so, would the minister inform the House of the terms of reference of this inquiry?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this matter came before cabinet this morning and we have decided to have an inquiry under Part I of the Inquiries Act. We have a certain number of names of people who have been suggested by members of the cabinet and others. Before we can disclose them I think it is the decent thing to do to wait for their acceptance, and we have not received any answers yet. I think that before the end of the day we will be in a position to say exactly who will be the commissioner or the person making the inquiry, and we will be in a position-


Mr. Lawrence:: What about the terms of reference?


Jean Marchand: Before publicly announcing the terms of reference, Mr. Speaker, I think I should first see a copy of them. I have the authorization of the cabinet to discuss with the judge whether he is satisfied that he has enough power to fulfil his duty as defined by cabinet.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understand the minister correctly, then at least by tomorrow he should be in a position to tell us what are the terms of reference?


Jean Marchand: Yes, I think so.


John Edward Broadbent: Would he at this time assure the House that the terms of reference, whatever else they may include, will be broad enough to include all the financial dealings of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any restriction. There is one thing which is evident to all members of the House, and it is that we would like to know if there is enough financial control within this big organization, Air Canada, so that the things we think have happened will not happen again. This will be one part of the mandate, and it will not be restricted to that part of the deal referred to by the hon. member for Central Nova. I can give you this general term of reference in that after that we will want to know whether the top management acted quickly enough in this case so we are sure that the interests of the public of Canada were protected as far as this organization is concerned.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON MR. MENARD'S ACTIVITIES AND INTERNAL AUDIT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Menard resigned as Vice-President of Air Canada last March it was reported that an internal audit was done at that time by Air Canada and that shortly thereafter an internal or in-house investigation of his work was carried out which, it was claimed, totally exonerated him of any wrong doing. Will the minister take steps to ensure that the internal audit report done by Air Canada at that time is made available to the public, and
April 22, 1975

also, if there was a written report as a result of the investigations of Mr. Menard's activities, which it was claimed totally exonerated him, will the minister make sure that is made available to members of the House?


Jean Marchand: In the
terms of reference as I see them there is no restriction in that regard. I think the man who will be in charge of the inquiry can inquire not only about the deal with the McGregor Agency, but also in respect of the deal that took place involving the Barbados affair. I do not know whether Mr. Menard is guilty of anything as there has been no judicial inquiry in that case yet. I think we should be satisfied with the scope of the inquiry when we remember that members of the House can ask any questions in the committee on estimates, and that I am going to produce a policy on civil aviation. In that way I think we can obtain answers on anything relating to Air Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Temiscamingue wish to put a supplementary?


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: No, Mr. Speaker, my question is not a supplementary.


SOCIAL SECURITY
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
A few months ago the minister advised the House that a guaranteed annual income pilot project would be tried out in the province of Manitoba. Can he tell us today whether that project is now in operation in Manitoba, what its results are, and whether he intends to extend its application to the other provinces in Canada?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, indeed this pilot project has been operating in Manitoba for several months. It will operate for three years after which a period of critical assessment of 18 months will follow. I am therefore totally unable at the present time, to give a progress report on this experiment.
With regard to the last question of the hon. member, to date I have received no request from any other province for a similar project elsewhere, and the government does not intend to extend it for the time being.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
If the government does not intend to make this project available to other provinces, will the minister hold a meeting of some sort with the other provinces to discuss this project?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba project was approved following intensive discussions with all the provinces; the possibility of launching a pilot project was open to any interested province. Manitoba was the only province at that time to show continued interest, to the point of setting up its own pilot project. As to the assessment of this project, it is clear that we will discuss it as we receive reports on the current experiment. On the other hand, we are dealing with the general scheme of guaranteed income during the current review of social security.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary.
This guaranteed annual income actually helps strengthen the bureaucracy that applies the whole system. Is the minister considering the establishment of a universal annual guaranteed income which would simply be readjusted at the end of the year in income tax returns, so as to reduce this overly heavy bureaucracy and also give more satisfaction to all the people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the proposal having already been studied by the governments concerned, I need not reconsider it. We examined it anew last year and we discarded the option for all kinds of reasons that obviously I cannot detail in the House at the present time.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the statement last night on television by the Postmaster General that he agrees with the principle of indexing with regard to employee contracts in the Post Office Department can he tell the House, in view of his agreement with this principle, whether or not he is advancing this as part of the way to a settlement of the postal strike and, if that is the case, could he tell the House what index he is considering or is in fact advancing with regard to a way of escalating salaries in the postal service as conditions change?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I did say I agreed with the principle of indexing as has the President of the Treasury Board on several occasions. This concept was advanced at the last bargaining session. I think the hon. gentleman will appreciate, however, that if we were to divulge our bargaining position so far as the format or indexing level is concerned, we would in effect be notifying the whole world what our position is and this would make a mockery of bargaining. This is something which will have to be determined through future discussions with the union.

April 22, 1975
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


PROPOSAL GOVERNMENT ADOPT POLICY OF WAGE INDEXING-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement just made by the Postmaster General that he and his colleague the President of the Treasury Board generally approve the question of indexing, is the government about to announce a policy in respect of public service salaries in general that there will be the principle of indexing recognized in negotiating salaries as has now been recognized in one salary settlement dealt with through arbitration proceedings.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be inadvisable to generalize in this way. The Postmaster General and the President of the Treasury Board have indicated that there are circumstances under which this might be suitable. Perhaps this particular negotiation is one of those. It does not necessarily follow that one would want to apply exactly the same principle everywhere.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that all major dredging companies in Canada have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the government of Canada, and in view of the fact that we are now into a time when dredging demands are made on the government in respect of inland ports, great lakes ports and ports on the east and west coast, I should like to ask the minister what he is doing to discharge these responsibilities.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we still have under study a technique of tendering and awarding contracts which will effectively safeguard the public interest.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the country will be reassured by that statement, but I want to ask the minister if he intends, in conducting the day-by-day dredging operations which continue in a demand situation, to do so by using the capabilities of the department or Crown corporations, or by dealing with United States companies or dealing with these companies which have been charged by the police.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: My hope is that we would be able to make use of all the facilities in the dredging industry to accomplish our purpose.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it from that that the minister intends to do business with the companies charged with conspiracy to defraud the federal government on dredging contracts?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Subject to appropriate safeguards, Mr. Speaker.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, to clarify what the Acting Prime Minister said regarding an investigation into the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he would consider implementing a separate inquiry or instruct the private lawyers to encompass the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg in view of the fact that the labour and management problems there have been brought up over 27 times in the twenty-ninth and thirtieth parliaments, the billing schedule is presently eight weeks in arrears, there are over $127 million in outstanding accounts receivable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the question is clear enough for the minister to answer it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: My question is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression that the hon. member had put his question to the Minister of Transport concerning the investigation of the finance branch of Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Say yes.


Mr. Hees:: Yes or no, Jean?


An hon. Member:: Say maybe.


Jean Marchand: I will not commit myself, Mr. Speaker. The problem is that we will be launching today or tomorrow a very important inquiry whose terms of reference will be very extensive and can be related to several questions included in the quite lengthy question put by our friend from Winnipeg. Anyhow, I think we will carry out that inquiry, see its results and whether it would be advisable to go further and take further action. I am not going to launch three or four inquiries on Air Canada one after the other. It would not be proper to do so.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and it relates to questions put yesterday regarding the SIU investigation and report. If the report clearly removes the suspicion of criminality against any member of parliament, why does the minister not table the report, and thus make it public,

so as to remove any doubt that there has been a cover up, thus insulting the intelligence of Canadians who can clearly distinguish between innuendo and improper or illegal conduct?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned yesterday, it is against a long tradition to publish or issue copies of police reports. Not only might this hurt some of the people who were investigated in this case but also many people who made the allegations outside the House and elsewhere. So I do not think we can release the entire police report, but I am looking at the possibility of releasing the conclusions, the terms of reference and certain parts of the report. I am studying that right now.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate part of that answer, Mr. Speaker. Since the Minister of Labour was shown the interim report of the SIU investigation, has he been shown the final report, and, if so, can the minister assure us that any other member who is mentioned in the report will be sent a personally autographed and confidential copy of the report?


William Warren Allmand: No other minister has seen a copy of the report until this time, neither the Minister of Labour nor anyone else.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
According to a Montreal daily, Mr. Georges Lemay, well known by the police authorities, would have been released after serving only two of his eight-year sentence. Can the minister tell us whether this information is true and whether Mr. Lemay has enjoyed preferential treatment from the National Parole Board?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. I read that story, it was incorrect. Mr. Lemay was only released after five years, after the full term of his sentence had run out in accordance with the law and, as the story points out, he has now been arrested on another charge. He has served five years, and when he was released it was not on parole but on the termination of his sentence.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
My question relates to Air Canada's activities. The authorities of Air Canada-France having apparently decided, on April 3, on the advice of Mr. G. Chiasson, to lay off 82 per cent of Air Canada's personnel at Charles de Gaulle airport and assign their duties to another air company, is the minister assured that the regular procedure provided by French law has been followed in the proposed dismissal of such a great number of employees of Air Canada in France, and can he assure the House that all the necessary arrangements will be made to preserve the job security of these employees of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: My
good friend from Saint-Hyacinthe should know that I have so much trouble understanding and enforcing Canadian legislation, that if he asks me whether I am satisfied that French legislation is enforced in France, I cannot tell him-


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I know the Minister of Transport has a persistent humour. However, it seems to me that this is an extremely serious question, which concerns Air Canada personnel, and, under the circumstances, if he is not aware, would he accept to tell the House tomorrow, if possible, whether it is true that 82 per cent of Air Canada personnel at Charles de Gaulle Airport must be laid off?


Jean Marchand: The question seems very reasonable to me, Mr. Speaker, and I will try to get a report as soon as possible. However, whether this stems from implementation of French legislation, I do not know.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is in regard to an announcement that the Ford Motor Company plans to invest $2 billion in the manufacture of small cars over the next number of years. I would like to ask the minister whether he has been in touch with the Ford Motor Company and whether he has received assurances that Canada get a fair share of that investment.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we are frequently in contact with the senior officers of the Ford Motor Company. I am not in a position at the moment to say that there has been any discussion of the details of the program to which the hon. member refers, but I can assure him that, given this information, I will make it clear to him that we would expect the participation of Canada in the program.


Max Saltsman: Is it the intention of the minister to make a definite inquiry of the Ford Motor Company as to the percentage of investment and the job training oppor-

April 22, 1975
Oral Questions
tunities which should take place? While he is doing that does he also intend to be in touch with General Motors, which plans a $3 billion investment over the next few years.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have been in touch with both companies on the question of investment, and I have made it clear to the automobile industry generally that I expect them to invest in Canada on the seme relative percentage basis of the total North American investment as they enjoy in the Canadian market.


Max Saltsman: When will the minister be in a position to report on his representations to both Ford and General Motors as to their plans?


Alastair William Gillespie: I feel that I am reporting back to the House on a regular basis because this is an on-going situation with the automobile industry at the present time, and I look forward to doing so again in the coming weeks.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
This being Women's International Year and Mothers' Day, being only a few weeks away, would the minister be in a position to tell the House whether he has taken or is about to take necessary steps to upgrade the pension of the Canadian National pensioners' widows?


Jean Marchand: -to
upgrade the pensioners of women ... of widows-


Some hon. Members:: -of widows!


Jean Marchand: -of widows! Ha! Yes. I hope the hon. member will make written representations, particularly with respect of the widows he is himself interested in.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is very serious, and it is addressed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that the United States seems prepared to use its armed forces to ensure the safe evacuation of its nationals from Viet Nam, is the Canadian government also planning to use Canadian armed forces, air and naval, to undertake the safe evacuation of Canadians from the area, and is that why there are naval units in the western Pacific?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian forces do have two Hercules aircraft stationed in Hong Kong. They have travelled to Saigon and brought out some Canadian personnel. They are available to evacuate all Canadian personnel as the need arises. The other forces which are in the Pacific are there for training purposes and not in connection with the evacuation.


VIET NAM, CAMBODIA AND LAOS-NUMBER OF CANADIANS TO BE EVACUATED AND PLANS FOR EVACUATION
Donald W. Munro: I will address my supplementary question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs and ask him how many Canadians are still left to be evacuated, and are there at present firm plans and alternatives for their evacuation? In the same general context, what about the safety of Canadians in Cambodia and Laos?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are receiving regular reports on Canadians in Indo-China, some of whom, of course, do not wish to leave. Those who do wish to leave have the alternative of leaving immediately on commercial aircraft, and as my colleague has said, if in the end it is necessary to use Hercules aircraft to evacuate those who still remain before a possible collapse, those plans would be put into effect.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is not a question relating to specific dealings between Air Canada and a particular travel agency. I would like to ask him whether IATA, the international organization which regulates air travel in general, approves of an airline like Air Canada acquiring an interest in a travel agency.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very pertinent question. I presume that the inquiry officer will have to look into that. If a deal took place, I do not know. I am not the inquiry officer, but there is no doubt that if this deal took place, there surely is a problem in the regulations of IATA, of which Air Canada is a member.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to follow up with a supplementary to questions asked by the hon. member for St. John's East to the Minister of Public Works, who indicated that he is
April 22, 1975

prepared to accept the services of dredging companies now charged, subject to safeguards. Is the minister in a position now to elaborate on that statement? What are the safeguards he has in mind at this particular time?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be in a position to say what the appropriate safeguards are, but discussions are currently taking place with the Ministry of Transport, the National Harbours Board, the Department of Justice as well as Public Works to try to determine what is both practicable and adequate.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Can the minister advise whether he is having any discussions, with respect to the safeguards, with the companies which are now charged, and is it the intention of the government to advise the House and the public what these safeguards will be and whether in fact he will seek the approval of the House regarding these safeguards and the contracts before entering into them? I ask these questions because of the very serious nature of the matter and because of the peculiarity of the entire situation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think that I would probably be very glad to inform the House of the safeguards, but perhaps seeking approval of the techniques to be adopted, which I am sure will commend themselves to the House, would be a timeconsuming procedure which would hold up effective work in this area.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. I can understand the predicament in which the minister finds himself, but I wonder if he could advise the House and the Canadian people what the safeguards are before entering into any contracts with the dredging companies, particularly those which are presently charged? Could the minister do that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there is really no great difficulty about that because the period between calling for tenders and entering into contracts is necessarily quite long.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Yves Caron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
Following the great number of questions some hon. members have asked in the House last week from the Minister of Agriculture, and since the problem of grain supplies for eastern farmers has not yet been settled as far as the elevators are concerned, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to take special steps to settle this very urgent problem as soon as possible and, if so, what are they?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: An excellent question.
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the people who are on strike do not come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. The grain is still moving. There are still ships moving in the St. Lawrence. Grain is moving out of Prescott and some out of Montreal. We know that feed mills are still being supplied at the present time but we do not know how long that will last.


IMPRESSION GIVEN TO STUDENTS CONCERNING SEX-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the right hon. Prime Minister, but in his absence I will direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. An official of the Department of National Health and Welfare stated recently in a discussion, and I will quote this as it is in writing. I hope you will bear with me-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would just put his question.


Peter Elzinga: I have no question without the quote, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


Peter Elzinga: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The quotation is:
Publications were put into what is called "Generation", a package of information distributed to high school and university students giving them full information on what the problems are ... At present we have an advisory committee, a working group that is doing a special study on how to go into new ways of trying to convince people, such as, you know "Sex is okay, but V.D. is out".
This is my concern and my question to the Acting Prime Minister is-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What does Mitch know about sex?


Peter Elzinga: -is it this government's policy to convey to high school students the impression that sex is okay but venereal disease is out?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I find some support in the House for the first part of that statement.


DECISION OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY TO ESTABLISH FLOOR PRICES-CANADIAN POSITION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
5064

April 22, 1975
Oral Questions
Due to the fact that the 18 member International Energy Agency has agreed to the establishment of minimum international floor prices for energy and has agreed that this decision should be made by July 1, can the minister tell the House what position Canada is putting forward with respect to the floor price to protect our investment in energy and domestic fuel?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, at 3.30 this afternoon we have a meeting of the National Resources Committee specifically to discuss our adherence to the IEA. I hope the hon. member could put that question to me and my officials who will be present so that we can discuss it more fully.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary. Will the minister give an assurance to the House and the people of Canada that before an agreement is made on the floor price it will be discussed in the House of Commons?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We can start discussing it this afternoon.
.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: My question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the Prime Minister's statement Friday that the Pickering Airport development will disrupt the lives of only some 2,000 people at Pickering, and in view of the fact that the town of Stouffville, having a population of some 5,000 was found by the airport inquiry commission to be within the undesirable noise disturbance area for the new airport, would the minister indicate if the government now intends to expropriate the town of Stouffville with its 5,000 people as recommended by the airport inquiry commission or has the Prime Minister just chosen to include these residents in his "nobody" class for the purpose of his Toronto speech?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think all questions relating to expropriation should be addressed to the Minister of Public Works who has that responsibility.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Then, if I may I would put that question to the Minister of Public Works. I hope he was listening.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: To the Minister of Public Works. In view of the Prime Minister's statement in Toronto that only 2,000 people would be affected by the development of Pickering Airport while Stouffville, an area covered by the noise area according to the Airport Inquiry Commission has
5,000	people, would the minister indicate if it is the government's intention to expropriate the town of Stouffville as recommended in the Airport Inquiry Commission report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no present intention to expropriate the town. An offer has been made for those who want to leave to regard the government as purchaser of last resort, but there is no intention to expropriate.


PICKERING-POSSIBILITY OF DELAYING CONSTRUCTION IN VIEW OF DECLINE IN AIRLINE GROWTH FORECASTS
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the general decline in Canadian airline growth forecasts, with Air Canada now setting its growth projection at only 2 per cent for this year compared to 8 per cent, the figure advanced at the beginning of the year, would the minister indicate if consideration is being given to delaying construction of the Pickering airport for at least a year so that these declining growth patterns may be taken into account rather than running the possibility of building an airport with no one to use it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows that the economic situation which affected Air Canada affected all airlines in the world, particularly North American airlines, one aspect of which was the increase in the price of fuel. I do not know what the situation will be next year. I think we have taken all precautions because we are only building one runway and it will be ready in a few years. In the meantime, we will be in a position to judge if we should go ahead or stop.


HOUSING
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the drastic drop in housing starts for March to 138,000 on a seasonally adjusted basis, compared to the minister's annual target of 210,000 starts, is he going to adjust his annual target of 210,000 starts or what steps does he intend to take to increase the starts?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member obviously shares my concern about the drop in starts over last year. I do not intend to lower my target. I intend to take those initiatives that are necessary to meet the targets.


SUGGESTED LOWERING OF MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES TO STIMULATE HOUSE BUILDING
John Gilbert: A supplementary question. In view of a recent survey of economists by the Financial Post who almost unanimously stated that the most important single thing necessary to stimulate housing is to lower interest rates on mortgages, may I ask the minister if he agrees with this finding and if he will recommend lower interest rates on mortgages to the Minister of Finance?
April 22, 1975


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the many elements for consideration in my recommendations to the Minister of Finance.


FISHERIES
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Fisheries.
Did the ministeror officials of his department receive complaints from Iles-de-la-Madeleine fishermen about ships flying the French flag and fishing herring in the 12-mile territorial zone near the Iles-de-la-Madeleine and, if so, what action does he intend to take?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received any such information, but I shall look into it as soon as I leave the House and submit a reply to the hon. member later on.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the energy crisis and the increasing price of natural gas, may I ask the minister what policies are being developed to guard against diminished nitrogen fertilizer supplies in this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the National Energy Board has conducted an extensive series of hearings and is now in the process of preparation of a projection of Canadian natural gas supplies for the next ten years. I think he will have a better idea when that report becomes public as to the state of our supply and perhaps the action can be taken.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of National Defence to advise the House of the details surrounding the reported theft of a number of grenades in transit from Dundurn, Saskatchewan, to Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack and, in response
Oral Questions
to a telephone call, their discovery in various locations in the city of Chilliwack.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the grenades which were missing for a short period of time have all been located and are in safe custody.


Alexander Bell Patterson: In view of the minister's answer, I now wish to ask what security measures are taken by the Department of National Defence or the Department of Transport when such transfers are being carried out.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the highest possible degree of security is taken, particularly when handling explosive weapons of that kind.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the government's decision to refrain from any protests about the aggression of communist forces in South Viet Nam on the excuse that this might endanger the safety of Canadians in that country, have any representations been made to the Hanoi government about the safety of Norman and Joan Johnson, two missionaries from Hamilton, Ontario, who are believed to have been captured at least a month ago by the Viet Cong?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to answer this question since I have the information for the hon. member. He will recall that when we contacted the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Viet Nam through their representatives in Paris, we were referred to one of their earlier statements in which they offered assurance that all foreigners in South Viet Nam not engaged in military activities would be well treated. More recently we have received information from other sources indicating that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson are alive and in good health. Although they are being detained in a prisoner of war camp, I understand that Mr. Johnson is being allowed to do some missionary work during daytime hours. Our efforts to secure their release are, of course, continuing.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I wish to ask specifically whether our government, through our representatives in Hanoi, have made specific representations to the Hanoi government, the central command, about the release of Mr. and Mrs. Johnson, in keeping with the statement the minister just made. Are they going to live up to that statement?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not think there is any distinction whatever between the North Vietnamese and the PRG. If he knew more about it, he would be more careful in the use of his words. We believe it is more effective to deal with the PRG at the present time than to deal with the North Vietnamese.
29557 - 451/2

April 22, 1975
Oral Questions HEALTH


DENTAL CARE PROGRAM IN SASKATCHEWAN-REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF INDIAN CHILDREN
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns the availability of certain dental care in northern Saskatchewan. In northern Saskatchewan, dental care is being advertised for certain children between the ages of three and 16, excluding those who are under the federal Indian health services. Have representations been made to the minister to have this service available to those who are presently under Indian health services or, conversely, has the department initiated any discussions with the province of Saskatchewan to have the plan co-ordinated?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have discussions underway with the government of Saskatchewan on this subject. Our policy is that the government of Saskatchewan should take care of Indians outside of reserves, while my department will be responsible for the Indians on reserves. However, I must say I am having difficulty convincing the government of Saskatchewan to exercise its responsibilities in this regard.


Stanley James Korchinski: Will the minister advise whether there have been any representations from the Indians with regard to this matter?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have had representations from the Indians from time to time on the subject of health services. I believe discussions were held with Indian representatives on this particular point several months ago.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDS FOR RESEARCH ON IMPLANTABLE ARTIFICIAL PANCREAS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is as a result of a letter I received from the Brant county medical officer of health. It refers to the fact that the Medical Research Council has three times in a row turned down an application for a grant to develop an implantable artificial pancreas in those who suffer from diabetes. This involves many hundreds of thousands of people throughout the world. Will the minister reconsider and grant more funds to the research team at the Banting Best Institute in Toronto?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my answer will be very simple. The Medical Research Council is an independent body; it determines the amount and the allocation of grants at its complete discretion. I do not intend to intervene, nor do I have the power to do so, in the decisions taken by the council in respect of some research projects. These projects are not determined by politicians but rather by a group of scholars who carefully consider every project submitted.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour.
Considering the interest shown for many weeks by hon. members from both sides of this House and the fact that the minister said earlier today that a last effort would be made today to reconcile the interested parties in the longshoremen's strike, could the minister tell us whether Mr. Poirier is still mediator for the federal government and, which is very important to all farmers, how long the government intends to wait before bringing forward the special measure mentioned by the minister earlier today?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Poirier is still the mediator, I can advise the hon. member. I think he will agree that affairs affecting the port of Stanley qualify him for that particular job. As to the latter part of the hon. member's question, we are not prepared to wait very long.


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to my question yesterday, the Minister of Transport indicated that I seemed to be well aware of all the facts. He continued "and if he is not, he will be informed of them tomorrow". Since we did not hear anything from the minister, I wonder if I might assume that my facts were correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the last several years Canadians have seen an increasing number of changes in corporate organization in Canada through acquisitions, amalgamations and mergers as well as through the growth in size and activity of many corporations.
In a growing economy it is natural that participating corporations will grow in size, strength and capability, and this is also desirable. It is always, however, necessary to ensure that while maintaining flexibility in Canadian corporate activity so that business can continue to meet the changing challenges of domestic and international commerce, the dynamics of change in corporate life are, nonetheless, contained with the needs of the public interest. Concentrations of corporate power in Canada must not be allowed to take place where the result would be injury to the fair operation of the capital and financial marketplace. The availability of the resources necessary to
April 22, 1975

Canadians as a whole to continue to participate in an expanding and successful economy is of fundamental importance to Canadian society.
With current activity suggesting that further large-scale concentrations of corporate power in Canada may be taking place, particularly in relation to conglomerate enterprises, the government has decided that it is necessary to inquire into whether and to what extent such concentrations of corporate power confer sufficient social and economic benefit to Canadian society as to be in the public interest. The government considers these questions to be serious and to require prompt examination, including whether existing legislation and planned amendments to the Combines Investigation Act are sufficiently comprehensive as to ensure protection of the public interest.
The government is, therefore, today appointing a royal commission under part I of the Inquiries Act to investigate the economic and social implications of major concentrations of corporate power in Canada and to make recommendations as to safeguards which may be required to protect the public interest in the presence of such concentrations.


An hon. Member:: Another one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is the first since we have been in office. I do not know what "another one" means here. The commission is being instructed to report with all reasonable dispatch.

Mr. Speaker, a former secretary of the cabinet, former deputy minister of finance and, more recently, director of the International Monetary Fund, Mr. Robert Bryce, will be appointed chairman of the commission. In the very near future, two other commissioners will be appointed to assist him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as usual I speak for a constructive opposition, and I think an inquiry of this sort will serve a useful purpose. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether an inquiry with regard to the concentration of corporate power within Canada alone will necessarily be completely enlightening: it is quite possible to have concentrations of power internationally which, though not looming very large within Canada, could have a substantial effect, even a highly detrimental effect, upon life in this country. I would therefore think it highly important for the Government of Canada to take some initiative with regard to the examination of the concentration of corporate and perhaps other forms of power on a worldwide scale with a view to examining the effects upon the world at large and upon Canada in particular.
I shall have two or three questions to put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the implications of his statement. For example, does it mean that the government intends to hold up the legislation now before us to amend the Combines Investigation Act until this inquiry has been completed? Does the government intend to hold up, for example, the proposed take-over of Argus Corporation by Power Corporation until this inquiry is complete? Has the government given any consideration to the investiga-
Concentrations of Power
tion of other possible concentrations of power within our country?
I do not want to raise any howls from the unions or anything of that sort, but I think it might be prudent for the commissioners appointed under the Inquiries Act to be given authority to look also at other possible concentrations of power which may have an unfortunate effect upon the social and economic life of this country, contributing, for example, to the inflationary push. I will seek the privilege of questioning the Prime Minister on these points at an appropriate time.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is now ten years since John Porter's monumental study of power in Canada, entitled "The Vertical Mosaic," was published. During those ten years, Liberal governments, which normally specialize in royal commissions, have not even followed their usual course of setting up an inquiry into the subject. It has taken them ten years to set up a royal commission to look into the concentration of corporate power. Moreover, in the period I have mentioned the lamentable state of Canadian society from the point of view of those concerned with justice and opportunity, so well described by Professor Porter, has become worse, as was so ably documented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the speech he gave last fall in Toronto.
Looking at the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made, I see at the outset an encouraging sign. The terms of reference give the commission power to investigate the economic and social implications to the public interest of major concentrations of power in Canada. That is encouraging. But if we look at the authority to make recommendations, we find that the commission has the authority only to recommend safeguards to protect the public interest in the presence of such concentrations. The conclusion I reach is that the commission will be entitled only to set out procedures designed to mitigate existing situations. However, it is not going to be authorized to come up with a set of proposals that would recommend any principle of fundamental change in the system itself if it found such concentrations of power were not desirable in the public interest of Canada.
The situation concerning the concentration of power in the western world has already been ably documented by many scholars in many lands. In our own country we have had, I think, one of the most distinguished contributions to this literature just recently published. I refer to the work of professor Wallace Clement of Carleton University, which is not far from the Hill. The title of his book is "The Canadian Corporate Elite". In fact, he is the son-inlaw of a Liberal member and I congratulate the member on his family connections.
In my view, we do not need a royal commission to look into the problems posed by the concentration of power. The kind of findings that have been made in general in recent years in other countries have been brought together in a thorough, coherent and cogently argued way by Professor Wallace Clement in his recently published book. What are some of his findings, which I hope will be considered by the commission? First of all, that during

April 22, 1975
Concentrations of Power
recent years the opposite of what the statement says has happened. At one point in the statement there are suggestions that further large-scale concentrations of power in Canada "may be" taking place. That is a euphemism. It is not simply suggested by Professor Wallace Clement but it has been documented that in case after case and in sector after sector of the Canadian economy we have had an increasing concentration of economic power among a small elite in our society.
That is my first point, Mr. Speaker. My second point bears on the question whether the commission will have the right to make recommendations for change.
Our banking industry in Canada has played a crucial role in financing foreign corporations in their attempts to take over major sections of the Canadian economy. Is this commission going to have the authority to recommend a change in the fundamental nature of the Canadian banking system?
My final point bears directly on one of the tasks assigned to the commission in terms of whether concentration of power is of social and economic benefit to Canada. The conclusion Professor Clement reaches in his book is that concentration of economic power in Canada is fundamentally inimical to those who believe in social and economic equality; that to achieve a society in which equality of opportunity is at all possible, a fundamental change in the nature of economic power in Canadian society is required. I doubt very much whether we are going to get that kind of recommendation from this kind of commission.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, some forty years ago, the Stevens enquiry was ordered in Canada to achieve just about the same objectives as those the Prime Minister set out in his statement. We have seldom heard of it since. I would hate this new commission to have the same fate; I would like to know where we are going.
Mr. Speaker, the new royal commission announced by the right hon. Prime Minister will certainly discover cartels, monopolies, coalitions and concentrations, but not only in the field of big companies where obviously they exist. We, of the Social Credit Party of Canada, have a basic principle, which we clamour and express right across Canada. I quote:

We firmly believe that the individual is the most important factor in organized society. Because he is a divinely created being with spiritual, mental and physical needs and potentialities he has inalienable rights which must be respected and preserved.
Because of this belief, we are unalterably opposed to communism, fascism and all forms of totalitarian government which make the individual citizen subservient to the state.
We stand opposed to political organization whose aims are the furtherance of the sectional interests of organized labour, business, or finance.

Mr. Speaker, the royal commission of inquiry announced by the Prime Minister should take in consideration what the then Prime Minister learned in 1931 and what I learned myself in the encyclical QuacLragesimo Anno, to wit:
... they hold the money and completely control it, control credit also and rule the lending of money. Hence they regulate the flow, so to speak, of the lifeblood ...
Mr. Speaker, if that commission only investigates to find out large corporations, we do not need it. The present legislation deals with corporations, monopolies, thieves and so on. Mr. Speaker, not only is there concentration in the hands of corporations, but there is also concentration in the hands of labour unions, which is also a danger for the average citizen.
I learned this morning about the complaints of the CNTU that there are agreements between the QFL of Montreal, the James Bay Corporation, the government, the City of Montreal and what have you to control labour.
Mr. Speaker, that commission should be instructed to consider labour relations or conditions as much as trade, industry and corporations in Canada. We will then surely find solutions to the problems which we are now facing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to hold up consideration of the amendments to the Combines Investigation Act or certain aspects of those amendments until the commission completes its work? I ask this in view of the reference of the Prime Minister to the terms of reference of the commission as including whether existing legislation and planned amendments to the Combines Investigation Act are sufficiently comprehensive to ensure protection of the public interest, and so on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, on the contrary: we hope that the opposition parties will co-operate with the government in expediting the adoption of phase one of our competition policy, the legislation that is presently before the House. We certainly intend that that shall become law, parliament willing, by the end of June.
The government has made it clear that this phase one is to be followed by a second phase in the next session of parliament. The second phase would contain many provisions, but I think it is probably fair to sum up the spirit of that proposed legislation as being intended to ensure greater efficiency of the economic system in Canada. It is possible that if we get the recommendations on this in time, we could incorporate some of them or at least consider them before the end of the next session. If there should be some delay, we could still proceed with the second phase and consider acting again in the session after next, if such action seems to be warranted following the report of the commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to argue with the Prime Minister about this; I just want to know what his intentions are regarding the legislation. Is it the intention of the government to take any interim action to prevent further large-scale movements toward concentration of corporate power in the country? To be specific, is it the intention of the government to hold up the proposed takeover of the Argus Corporation by the Power Corporation pending the report of the inquiry to be conducted by the commission announced today?

April 22, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, the government has no legal means to hold up such a transaction even if it found it desirable to do so. The full import of my statement today is that we want to have more knowledge in order to know whether this type of concentration of economic power is in the public interest. Certainly, at this time there is no intention on the part of the government to attempt to hold up this particular transaction. To repeat, even if we wanted to do so, we do not have the legal means. Of course, it may be that the concentration of power after the contemplated merger takes place will be such that there may have to be some action taken under the present Combines Investigation Act in certain areas; but that is a hypothetical situation for the time being.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, it is pretty difficult to unscramble an egg, but in any case I thank the Prime Minister for his frankness. I would ask whether it is going to be a matter of government policy, now, not to request a particular deferral or postponement of action unless the government has the power to enforce it. It seems to me-I have noticed this on a few occasions, at least-that in the past the government has made requests of people in business and in other forms of life in this country not to do something when the government did not have the slightest vestige of legal power to justify it, but sought co-operation and nearly always obtained it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is true, Mr. Speaker. I do not mind confessing that the setting up of this royal commission is an indication by the government that it is not clear to us what will be the effect of the proposed takeover of Argus by the Power Corporation. Perhaps it is clear to the opposition and, if so, I will be glad to entertain any representations on this from the Leader of the Opposition.
As far as we are concerned, we are not able to reach any clear conclusion at this time as to whether this might improve the economic efficiency of the Canadian system, whether it would produce more, or less, jobs or whether it would make Canadian companies more, or less, able to compete in international markets. These are very difficult questions. I repeat that we would not be setting up a royal commission if we had some definite views on this proposed takeover or on the general theory of the concentration of economic power.
The examples the hon. gentleman refers to were areas where the government was able to state policy and back up that statement by proposed legislation, but we are not in this position with regard to the takeover to which the hon. gentleman refers.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to his understanding of the words in the terms of reference which indicate that the commission will investigate economic and social implications. With regard to the social implications, I would ask if he understands that to mean that the commission will investigate, in the context of looking at corporate power, such ideals as equality of opportunity in Canada, for example. Is it the government's intention that this kind of social implication will be looked at? If the conclusion is reached, after
Concentrations of Power
assessment of the concentrations of corporate power in Canada, that the ideal of equality of opportunity is a contradiction in terms in such a society, will this commission have the right, as the Prime Minister understands it, to recommend certain steps to make a fundamental change in the corporate power that might be required to achieve equality of opportunity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the commission will have the right to recommend what it sees as the best means of pursuing greater economic and social justice in Canada. I doubt very much that this commission would want to take ideological positions such as those for which the NDP is perhaps searching. I do not think it would want to take such ideological positions. I imagine that, quite to the contrary, it would try to make the market economy more efficient and just in Canada. This is the general framework within which we are operating. However, the word "social" has been put in there with the positive desire to make sure we are not looking only at the economic consequences of such concentration of power.


John Edward Broadbent: Just to be perfectly clear on the Prime Minister's answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is he saying it is his understanding that the terms of reference of the commission, however broad they might be, should not go beyond the operations of the current kind of market economy we now have in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the expression "market economy" is a very general expression that covers market economies as they will exist in time, and market economies as they now exist. The hon. member should know that there have been a great many variations in market economies both geographically and in time.


John Edward Broadbent: I have one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby will observe that I am in some difficulty in attempting to limit this kind of question period. Another member of his party also seeks the floor. I will not be able to see everyone who wants to ask a question, because in attempting to apportion the time I have to limit the individual time in some way.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
According to his statement about that royal commission of inquiry, private enterprise will of course be well monitored so as to determine whether or not there is too much concentration. Giving the Prime Minister an example, I wonder whether the royal commission will go further than he suggested in his statement. For example, if at a certain moment corporations are brought under public ownership, as was the case with insurance companies in Manitoba, and if after one, two or three years that public ownership results in lost profits for private enterprise, and I am thinking about the $25 million auto pact deficit in Manitoba, this is certainly not profit! Will the commission be empowered to tell the Parliament of Canada whether nationalization by provinces will also be monitored and examined by the commission so as to determine whether

April 22, 1975
Concentrations of Power
or not private enterprise works for the individual or whether nationalization does?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think the royal commission is moving into that direction. It will deal mainly with the concentration of economic power but if governments or socialist parties want to destroy or disperse their economic power in the manner suggested by the hon. member, that is their problem rather than ours.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, while acknowledging the qualities of Mr. Robert Bryce, I should like to ask the Prime Minister why the government, again in this appointment as in the recent appointment of a senior executive officer of the CBC, has resorted to a man whose experience, while distinguished, has been predominantly in the public sector; and will some of the other commissioners have a private sector background, in light of the general mandate of this commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the whole intention of the royal commission is to take steps to increase the extent of the public interest in the economic system. It should not be unnatural, when it comes to public interest, that we have recourse to a very distinguished public servant. To answer the other part of the hon. gentleman's question, he may not have to wait too long before seeing who the other two commissioners are; but I understand he is making suggestions to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I propose to see three other hon. members before concluding this matter, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, the hon. member for St. John's East, and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he feels that the terms of reference of this royal commission will be sufficiently broad to enable a complete review and investigation of the Canadian banking situation, including the Canadian chartered banks whose aggregate assets have grown from about $20 billion to $100 billion since the last royal commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems obvious to me, from the hon. gentleman's question, that he is indicating an area where there is a great concentration of corporate economic power indeed, and the answer undoubtedly will be yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate, if he can, that the terms of reference of this royal commission will be sufficiently broad to cover Crown corporations and, in turn, is he contemplating setting up a further royal commission that perhaps would look into big government, such as the Glassco commission which looked into government expenditures in general?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the opposition party should get itself together. When I announced this royal commission, some members of the party said "Another royal commission," and another member is already suggesting another one.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the appointment of this royal commission would indicate that the present Combines Investigation Act is inadequate- and there is nothing in the amendment now before the committee that would cover these inadequacies-I ask the Prime Minister if he would consider allowing the House to see phase two of the Competition Act, which would assist us in expediting passage of phase one which is now before the committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really do not see why the hon. member has to know what the government intends to do one or two years down the road in order to make up his mind about what we are putting before the House now. If he wants to know the general direction of government thought, he can go back to the bill that was put before the House by the now Minister of National Revenue a couple of years ago which had two phases, one and two, in the same phase.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the establishment of a royal commission came as quite a surprise. One would have assumed that over the years the government would have made some decisions on this question of concentration. It seems to have made some decisions; it has been encouraging various forms of concentration in consortiums. On the occasions when ministers have been asked about the dangers of large corporations, they invariably have replied that the government has the power, can sort it out, and that we do not have to worry about it.
My question to the Prime Minister is a somewhat philosophical one; however, I believe it is a terribly important question. It deals with the terms of reference being given this royal commission. Does the Prime Minister intend to ask the royal commission to examine the question of power itself and who has it? Do the corporations have the power, as some people think, or does the government have the power and is simply failing to use it on the corporations? I think this is a pretty fundamental and important question, and unless this matter is given to the royal commission for examination it may simply concentrate on the assumption that it has not been done this way.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the preamble to the question, Mr. Speaker, I confess that the government did not have a final position on this subject of concentration of economic power and whether it was or was not, in certain sets of circumstances, beneficial to Canadians generally. I confess the government's inadequacy in that regard. I think the hon. member would understand this, because I do not see coming from his party any great statements on concentrations of workers' power in trade unions, a subject to which the Leader of the Opposition referred. I think for the serious members of that party-I include, of course, the present House leader of the party-this is a very serious question, the question of concentration of economic power in trade unions. I repeat that our policy is not final on either one of these matters. We are tackling one aspect of it at this time. I hope the New Democratic Party can give us some inkling of its philosophy in respect of the other aspect of concentration of economic power.
The final part of the question has to do with power itself and whether or not the government has it. If this is what
April 22, 1975

the hon. gentleman is leading to, I would certainly agree that in a constitutional sense the government has the power to act. I do not agree that in a legal sense we have made laws which permit us to interfere with the rules of the game as they are now played legally by the corporate players. This is why, in the terms of reference, it is indicated that we want recommendations on what laws might be adopted by parliament, should that be necessary, in order to make sure that that power can be exercised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   John. M. Reid@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,039, 2,163, and 2,164.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand. [Text]


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	For what reason did a memorandum from the office of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, dated January 30, 1973 addressed to Mr. D.C. Trehearne, then Director of Programmes for the Local Initiatives Programme, among other things, in effect, order approval of LIP projects in a number of named constituencies, including the constituency represented by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council?
2.	Were the projects to be approved in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council numbered K1457, K2595, K1660, K2575 and K1384?
3.	What are the full details of the above numbered projects including, in each case (a) the names of those signing the application (b) the nature of the project (c) the amount of funds granted (d) the names and addresses of all persons recommending acceptance of the project (e) the name of the designated Regional Minister for the area?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Not applicable. This memorandum did not "in effect, order approval of LIP projects in a number of named constituencies ..."
2.	The addresses of the sponsors of these projects were located in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River.
3.	(a) See appendix A (following); (b) See appendix A (following); (c) See appendix A (following); (d) The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the Minister or the Department; (e) See Sessional Paper 291-2-2319.


[Stage Direction]
K 1457: (a) H. A. Solomonian; (b) A municipal improvement project in the town of Rainy River including painting and repairing of municipal buildings, cemetery maintenance, sidewalk renewal, waterline renovations, and operation of winter recreational facilities, (c) $37,689.
Order Paper Questions
K 2595: (a) J. C. Callan; (b) Construction of a municipal building to be used as community hall, a museum, and a municipal operated camp trailer park; (c) $57,703.
K 1660: (a) D. Fournier; (b) Organization and supervision of a children's winter sports program and a senior citizens recreational program; (c) $43,758.
K 2575: (a) A. L. Beebe; (b) Installation of an 8 inch feeder line from the water storage tank to a booster pumping station; (c) $17,550.
K 1384: (a) Mr. G. Reid; (b) Construction of a community hall and the cutting and improving of snowmobile trails; (c) $32,295.
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all persons or groups of any kind who have recommended to the government that the Regional Headquarters of Parks Canada be moved from Cornwall to the Toronto area and, what reasons did they give for recommending such move in
each case?
2.	What is the total number of jobs that will be lost to Cornwall and Eastern Ontario as a result of this move and, what is the total annual payroll at the present time of all such employees in the Cornwall area?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Management decision based on the operational requirements of the Program, to maximize operational and administrative effectiveness in program achievement.
2. The current level of federal employment in Cornwall will be maintained and there will be no net loss as a result of the relocation. Parks Canada payroll for employees at the Cornwall Regional Office was $1,336,000 last year.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,266 which stated in part that the Parks Canada Regional Headquarters will be moved from Cornwall, Ontario, to "be somewhere within reasonable commuting distance to the other federal government services..." and "within one hour commuting time of Toronto", what is a complete list along with the exact locations of the government services referred to that are within one hour commuting time of Toronto?


Iona Campagnolo: The Federal Government services referred to are supplied by the following departments in Toronto: Department of Labour; Department of Public Works; Department of Justice; Department of the Environment; Department of Indian and Northern Affairs; Department of Supply and Services; Public Service Commission; Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I have a few questions on the order paper with regard to CIDA. I was hoping that the parliamentary secretary would answer at least one or two of them each week. It seems that the government have
5072

April 22, 1975
Members' Salaries
something to hide, and if so I wonder whether they would tell me what they are hiding.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Consideration of report stage of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.-The President of the Privy Council.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have had an indication of two points of order. I suspect the one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has to do with proceeding with the report stage consideration of this bill, and that the other by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) has to do with the manner in which we should proceed if we do proceed. If I am incorrect in my assumption, I stand to be corrected. If I am correct, it would seem proper to take first the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Your Honour is quite correct. The point of order I wish to raise at this time deals with the question of whether we should be proceeding at all today with the report stage of Bill C-44. The basic reason for my questioning the right of the House to proceed today with the report stage of Bill C-44 lies in the fact that in my submission the committee on miscellaneous estimates which dealt with Bill C-44 and reported it to the House included in the bill amendments which the committee did not have the authority to make. Therefore, sir, I contend that the bill as reported to us is defective in form, that Your Honour should so rule and that Your Honour should instruct that the bill be referred back to the committee so that the committee may make any amendments it wishes in accordance with the rules. This would not prevent the committee making recommendations to the House concerning matters that it could not write into the bill itself.
Prior to my seeing the order paper this morning, which contains the report stage amendment in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), I had faced the fact that I might have to argue at length concerning the rules that were broken by the standing committee. Any such lengthy argument, I suggest, is now not necessary because the motion put down in the name of the President of the Privy Council is an admission that certain amendments that were made in the committee should not have been made at that stage. Even so, I think that two or three of the citations that bear on the point should be put on the record in this procedural debate. I draw your

attention, sir, in particular to citation 246(3) of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition which reads as follows:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objectives, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown, not only if it increases the amount, but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge. And this standard is binding not only on private members but also on ministers whose only advantage is that, as advisers of the Crown, they can present new or supplementary estimates or secure the royal recommendation to new or supplementary resolutions.
The same point was spelled out in citation 249(1). I should like to read just the first two sentences, which are as follows:
"No cases can be found of any private member in the Canadian Commons receiving the authority of the Crown, through a minister, to propose a motion involving the expenditure of public money. No principle is better understood than the constitutional obligation that rest upon the executive government, of alone initiating measures imposing charges upon the public exchequer-
Likewise, citation 250(4) says it again. It reads:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a Committee of the Whole is set up cannot be amended.
I interpolate to suggest that the same applies to a standing committee. It continues to read:
Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the Committee of Supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
The recommendation in the name of the Governor General that was attached to Bill C-44 when it was first brought in last December provided for certain indemnities, salaries and allowances for members of parliament, members of the Senate, cabinet ministers, and so on. The committee studying the bill brought in amendments reducing those figures in some cases. There is certainly no quarrel with that, speaking procedurally or in any other way, so far as that goes. There is no question from the precedents that an amendment can be moved calling for a lesser expenditure than was set out in the Governor General's recommendation. But the Governor General's recommendation provided for a fixed indemnity, allowance or salary which in all cases, was to remain at a set amount for the duration of the thirtieth parliament. There was no authority in the Governor General's recommendation for any scheme of indexing or escalating any salaries, allowances or indemnities in the thirtieth parliament. The committee studying this bill recommended an indexing or escalating formula that would apply in this parliament to all the indemnities, salaries and allowances referred to in this bill.
I make the point that if that indexing is applied- compounding it as called for-the result at the end of this parliament would be higher salaries and allowances than would have been the case under the old bill. But even if that were not true, it is an alternative scheme; it is some-
April 22, 1975

thing totally different from what was recommended in the Governor General's message to the House and I submit that therefore any such amendment without the Governor General's approval is out of order.
The other point I wish to make is that the Governor General's recommendation did propose an escalation or indexing formula to apply in the thirty-first and subsequent parliaments. But the committee studying the bill discarded that precise formula in its entirety and instead brought in a proposal that after each election, the next one and all the rest of them, a commission should be established to review the rate of indexing or the rate of escalation, and if that commission recommended to the government that the rate of indexing be increased, the government would have the authority to put that into effect by order in council.
At some stage in the proceedings we shall be dealing with that in terms of substance and I will have some strong things to say about it, but at the moment I am trying to confine myself to procedure. I submit-and there is no doubt in my mind about the correctness of what I am saying-that there was nothing in the Governor General's recommendation attached to the original bill that would permit the House to delegate that kind of authority to be exercised by the cabinet by order in council. I think, also, that there is some question about the setting up of a commission. Every time anyone else proposes a commission, the question of what it would cost comes up. I think it is pretty generally established that to appoint a commission requires the approval of the Governor General.
In my view, the committee thus erred on three counts. In the first place, it provided for an escalation formula in the thirtieth parliament, which is not covered by the Governor General's recommendation; in the second place, it provided for the appointment of commissions in future parliaments, which is not covered in the Governor General's recommendation; and in the third place, it provided for an indexing formula in the thirty-first and succeeding parliaments, which was not forecast in any form in the Governor General's recommendation. Therefore, I contend that the committee gravely and seriously exceeded its authority by bringing in these three amendments to the bill. The other amendments that have been put in the bill, whether or not I agree with them, cannot be attacked procedurally, but I submit that these three are grossly out of order and if they were allowed the whole financial procedure of the House of Commons would be thrown into a tailspin.
I said earlier that when I looked at the order paper this morning I realized that I did not have to speak at length on that phase of the matter. Perhaps I did not need to speak as long as I have, because the motion that has been put down by the President of the Privy Council seeks to cover these three points, and the motion has attached to it a new recommendation from the Governor General. That, among other things, is an admission that the three amendments of the committee to which I referred were not correctly made since the committee did not have the power to make them.
But that leads us to the question as to whether it is now appropriate, the committee having broken the rules, for the government simply to correct all of that by putting
Members' Salaries
down a motion which asks that the House, at the report stage, delete the whole clause 2 of the bill, the one where all the mistakes are, and then put it back in again almost in the same words but with the Governor General's recommendation attached thereto. It may seem a bit clever to do it that way; it may seem to cover the point by now producing the Governor General's recommendation-


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you put in amendments yourself?


John Edward Broadbent: We did.


An hon. Member:: If the bill is no good, then why did you put in amendments to it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member across the way is asking why we have put in amendments. One does not yet know what the ruling of the Chair will be, and if the amendments brought in by the committee are allowed then we will claim the right to try to amend them. If those amendments are ruled out, then of course our amendments are not necessary.


John Edward Broadbent: Even a Liberal can understand that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But the point which must trouble Your Honour-and I suspect that Your Honour has given it much thought, especially in the last 24 hours; it is a new point compared with one which was obvious a week ago-is whether it is now appropriate to correct that mistake simply by allowing the President of the Privy Council to move the motion which is on the order paper today in his name.
I submit that if what the committee did was wrong, the Chair will have to tell the committee that it will have to do the job over again and do it correctly. In other words, in my view the bill should be sent back to committee and the committee should be told that the amendments it made to clause 2 are inappropriate; that it can send the bill back again with the amendments to the other clauses and with the recommendation, if it wishes, that the bill be amended at the report stage along the lines of what is in clause 2. But I submit that it would make a mockery of our procedure if it were possible for a committee to make all those mistakes and then for them simply to be corrected on the floor of the House by the introduction of a motion which says: Take out all that is wrong and put it back in again in the same words, but attach to it a royal recommendation.
I hope some of my friends, like the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who have been pretty good watchdogs in terms of Governor General's recommendations, and so on, will for the moment realize that we are not debating the substance of the bill; we are debating the procedure. I hope they will agree with me that if this practice is allowed, from here on when money bills go to committees, any private member in such a committee can move an amendment which involves the expenditure of money and no chairman will be able to stop him.


An hon. Member:: Provided the Governor General agrees.
29557 - 46/4

April 22, 1975
Members' Salaries


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is nothing in the report of the committee to this House which says that the committee submits these amendments provided the Governor General agrees. The report of the committee is simply the report of a bill, and the chairman of that committee raised no procedural objection to these amendments; therefore I say that chairmen of committees in the future will not be able to register procedural objections to money amendments to money bills.
There is going to be a bill amending the Old Age Security Act soon to be brought in by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I have in mind the one which will provide pensions to spouses between 60 and 65 where the other spouse is over 65. In that committee I will be able to move that the pension be increased and that it be paid to all persons 60 years of age or over, and if the chairman tries to say that that is exceeding the Governor General's recommendation, I will be able to cite this bill, C-44, as an example. I will say that surely I have the right to make my motion and have the bill reported, in the hope that the President of the Privy Council or someone, when we get back to the report stage, will bring down a recommendation of the Governor General.
I am an opposition member, I have been most of my life, and I may be in the opposition for quite a while yet-


An hon. Member:: For the rest of your life also.


An hon. Member:: Certainly in the opposition.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and we on
the opposition side frequently feel frustrated by the requirement of the recommendation of the Governor General. I am sure that if anyone has done any procedural research in the last day or so, he has probably found occasions when I have tried to move amendments which involved the expenditure of money, only to be told that I could not do so because I could not obtain the recommendation of the Governor General.
One which comes to my mind in particular was in 1966 when we were debating the Medical Care Act. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) at that time was the minister of national health and welfare. We pleaded with the minister to amend that act to make it possible for medicare to extend to optometrists and other paramedical groups. At first the minister said no. I moved an amendment for that extension but was told it could not be done because I could not produce the recommendation of the Governor General. So we pleaded with the minister to do it. The minister finally agreed, but I draw the attention of the Chair to the way with which it was dealt. Once the minister had agreed in committee of the whole that the act should be amended to provide for these paramedical services, under certain restrictions, the committee rose, reported progress, a new recommendation of the Governor General was presented to the Chair, the resolution attached to it was passed and we went back into committee and made the appropriate amendment.
But-and I say this to my hon. friend opposite-the order should be noted: we obtained the approval of the Governor General first, not afterwards. Once we establish a precedent that the recommendation of the Governor General can be obtained afterwards, we private members

in this House are in for a field day: we can do it every time a money bill goes to a committee.
I also remind the Chair of the experience of this House when another important piece of legislation, the Canada Pension Plan Act, was dealt with in 1964 and 1965. I ask that it be studied in particular because I think it is a classic example of the right way to do things. In the special joint committee on that bill we found that there were a number of changes we wanted to make. Some of them were procedural and administrative. It was within our power to make them, we made them in committee and so reported the bill. But there were other changes we wanted to make which we and our joint chairmen knew we could not do because they involved the expenditure of money, so attached to the bill we sent back a report recommending that certain additional changes be made and the government brought in the appropriate recommendation of the Governor General and the appropriate legislation to make those changes.
I submit that that is the correct way, and that is what this committee should have done. I am not now saying whether I think it should have done it because I want the substance of the committee's proposal, for I do not, but I suggest that procedurally the committee should have confined itself, so far as the bill was concerned, to making those amendments it had the right to make, but that with respect to amendments it had no authority to make it should, instead, have made a recommendation to the House and to the government that those recommendations be made.
I submit that what is now called for is a ruling of this House that the steps should be retraced and that it should be done the right way. I am sure there will be hon. members who will ask what difference there is, and who will say that the end of that process will be just the same as if we today accept the motion of the President of the Privy Council; that we will send the bill back, we will get the same thing back and we will be right back where we were. But the point at issue is the financial procedures of this House, the question of the authority of the executive and the question of whether private members can make these changes.
Incidentally, just to make the record clear, most of the amendments made to this bill in committee were made in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid), who is a private member, but one very important one was made by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), a private member who sits on this side of the House and who has no authority to obtain a recommendation of the Governor General. He moved the amendment which calls for the government in future parliaments to have the authority to set up a commission and on the basis of that commission's report to increase the salaries of members of parliament by order in council without coming back to the House of Commons at all.
These things could have been the subject of a recommendation by the committee to the House, whereupon the government could do what the President of the Privy Council is now doing, but I submit very seriously that this procedure is one which does great havoc and great harm to our financial procedures.
April 22, 1975

Mr. Speaker, I realize that every member of this House knows, and a lot of people outside this House know, my feelings about the substance of this bill. I know my views are not popular with most members of the House, but that is not the issue. I hope some, like the hon. member for Edmonton West and the hon. member for Peace River who disagree with me thoroughly on the substance, will support me on the procedure, that if we let this go this way we will have done great damage to the whole arrangement.
I have one other point to make. I ask you to consider the unfairness of the position in which we are put by the motion of the President of the Privy Council. I ask you to consider what happens when that motion is voted on. I make the point that the result would be the same either way. If the vote for the motion carries, then the wording in the name of the President of the Privy Council becomes part of the bill. But if that motion is defeated, we are back to the wording that was put in there by the committee, which is really the same wording. The numbering is different and one little clause having to do with a minor matter is left out, but whichever way the vote goes, the result is the same. We have no opportunity on the motion of the President of the Privy Council to say that we do not want this arrangement either way.
Let me put that again, Mr. Speaker: if the House votes for the motion of the President of the Privy Council, then his motion becomes part of the bill. If the House votes against it, the result is that the words introduced by the President of the Privy Council do not go into the bill and, instead, the words that are already there, put in by the committee, stand. It is the same either way. I submit that for the House to be put in the position where, whether it votes yea or nay, the situation is the same is hardly giving the House an opportunity for decision.
I may have things to say on other points of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly have something to say on substance, but the basic point I am making now is, as you surmised when you gave me the floor, that the House should not be proceeding with this bill today. Let me say this: if Your Honour decides there is nothing wrong with the bill, that the committee was in order, then we can proceed-but even the President of the Privy Council admits there is something wrong, by his motion-but if it is found that the bill is defective, then it should not be before us; it should be sent back. To proceed with this bill at this time and to try to correct it, instead of going back and redoing what was wrong, would put the procedures of this House of Commons in serious jeopardy.
I hope you will find, therefore, that the bill that is before us is defective and cannot be considered at this report stage. If someone tries to argue that we are not amending the wording that was put in by the committee, we are really amending the wording that was put there in the first place, then we are in trouble-lines that are referred to in the amendment, and all that sort of thing: we are in real difficulty. I submit, despite the anxiety of many members of the House to get on with the legislation, despite the sensitive nature of the whole thing, that it ought to be done in the right way. This is the last piece of
Members' Salaries
legislation about which parliament should cut any corners. I therefore hope it will be sent back to committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I submit that you should authorize the House to consider the bill that is before us, and particularly the amendments that have been put down. It is my submission that the question of whether the bill is in order cannot be decided at this juncture because there are, in fact, six notices of amendments. This indicates that the House will eventually be asked to concur in and pass the bill, maybe in a different form.
I followed with great interest the arguments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party and reviewed them in my mind. It is a difficult point, but I think the simple question that we have to consider now is whether we should proceed with consideration of the motions to amend the bill. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) makes the point that if we proceed with this bill it will be possible for members to amend bills, and somehow in this way to increase their opportunities of having the amendments approved even though they exceed the recommendation of the Governor General. It seems to me that if at any stage a committee were to exceed, inadvertently-and I think that may be the case in the instance before us-the royal recommendation, of course when the bill came before the House in its amended form it would be for Mr. Speaker to decide whether the bill did exceed the authority that had been granted for expenditure under the royal recommendation.
In this connection, on the point of whether the bill should be resubmitted I would draw Your Honour's attention to a ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux, to be found at pages 499 and 500 of the House of Commons Journals for July 20, 1973, where he said:
There is no recent precedent that I know of even with the assistance of the advisers to the Chair at the Table, to indicate that the Chair could take this rather bold step of refusing, on behalf of the House, to accept a bill as amended in committee. I think that committees, to some extent, have to accept some responsibility, and return to the House bills which contain amendments which are procedurally correct.
If the Chair were to take the initiative and suggest that some of the amendments, particularly an amendment or amendments which in effect amend the Parole Act, cannot be accepted, I would be placing the Chair, and the committees, and the House, in the position that in every instance where a bill returns from a committee there might be an appeal from rulings of committee chairmen, to the effect that the ruling of a chairman on a procedural point, accepting or refusing an amendment, should be reviewed. I wonder whether this is the position in which hon. members would want to place the Chair. It would be a very difficult position. Maybe we should give the matter some thought.
If this bill were not a bill which, as I understand it, is not a government bill-a bill on which there is a cross-section of views on both sides of the House-there might be a tendency on the part of the Chair to take bolder action, refuse to accept the bill, and suggest that some of the amendments proposed should not be received. But in view of the character of the bill, in view of the nature of the discussion which has taken place, both in committee and in the House on second reading, I would very much hesitate to rule at this point that this bill should not be accepted, and that the many hours, days, and perhaps weeks of work spent by the committee in studying this matter, preparing amendments, and referring the bill to the House for third reading should be discounted. This is why at this point I would be prepared, on behalf of hon. members, to say that what we have before us is a bill with these amendments, and I will try to make my rulings on the motions now before us on the basis of the bill that we now have before us from the committee.

April 22, 1975
Members' Salaries
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed to motion No. 4 that is on the order paper in my name, and he argues that I have validated his case that the committee has in fact exceeded the royal recommendation. I do not know in fact whether the committee did exceed the royal recommendation. It is rather like the amendments that the hon. member and his colleagues have put down to amend this bill. He is not quite sure how Your Honour will rule, so he has put down amendments which would be operative if in fact Your Honour rules that we can proceed. That was the point of motion No. 4 that I put down, that one ought to proceed with an abundance of caution. It was on that basis I put forward my amendments and the accompanying royal recommendation.
I would point out that this amendment does more than change the order of the clauses. It introduces an amendment of very substantial importance, namely, the indexing of salaries and allowances of officials of this House, ministers, and so on. It would be quite in order, I submit, for Your Honour to permit the House to proceed with the amendments that are now before you. Accepting the case put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, if the bill as it emerges after these amendments is found to exceed the royal recommendation, then Your Honour would be in a position to say that we cannot proceed with the bill. That is not now the position, Mr. Speaker. In my submission we should proceed with the amendments and then Your Honour can consider whether the bill is in order. That cannot be decided at this juncture but only after we have dealt with the amendments.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the brilliant and eloquent argument that he has put before this House. I am sure Your Honour has given it great credence. I am deeply sorry I am unable to accept the validity of his argument. He and I have fought many valiant battles together and we will probably fight some on the same side in the future. In this case, however, I am unable to follow him.
I am reinforced in my attitude toward the hon. member's position because of the way he conducted his case. The hon. member started off by telling the House he did not think he had to argue at any great length the question as to the fact the committee had exceeded its authority because the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), by bringing in the amendments in his name which appear on the order paper, has virtually admitted that. Having made that statement, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre proceeded to devote a large part of his case to demolishing the validity of what the committee had done. After saying he did not need to do that, he spent a great deal of time on the issue. There is an old legal phrase which Your Honour may remember: when you are weak on the law, you raise hell about the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did. Realizing that he did not have a very good case on the law, he really rode into the facts about what the committee had done. Maybe it was a

Freudian slip, but in asking that things be done to rectify the situation he appealed for a ruling of the House. I hope Your Honour will accept the position we will take, and that it will be left to the House to come to a decision on these matters later.
Let me get to the facts. First, there is a rule-if there isn't one, there should be-that those who live by the rule book should perish by it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sorry if I am a little slow: I am unaccustomed to getting applause from both sides of the House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should have taken the position he has today last Friday when the report was received. It would be my submission, if I were going to rely purely on the technical aspects of this important issue, that once the report of the committee has been received, the House is seized of jurisdiction. What is now left to decide in due course is whether the House should divide on the motion to concur in the report-which, of course, is something we come to after we dispose of the amendments.
I also bring to Your Honour's attention and the attention of the House that there is another very interesting legal phrase, namely, that you could turn to on the question of the jurisdiction. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-he made a special plea in this regard by putting down his amendments and in then referring to wording in the reprinted bill which is before the House- obviously attorned turned to the jurisdiction and accepted the fact that this report is properly before the House. However, I have other, more valid arguments to rely on than this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hope so.


Gerald William Baldwin: We, in this party, prefer to do more than play around with technicalities: we like to go to the substance. I suggest there is a very stringent rule, unless the Chair is satisfied there are clear and major defects, that there is a presumption that the Chair should come down on the side of regularity. I have argued the same thing before on the question of amendments; this is not the first time I have put it forward.
The Chair has to have a discretion; that discretion should, as far as possible without doing violence to the rules of this House, come down on the side of allowing amendments to be put, debates to take place and members of this House to divide on issues in respect of which questions need to be put and decisions made. I suggest that is a valid point Your Honour should bear in mind should you approach this very difficult and novel-almost completely new-issue with some doubt in your mind. I ask Your Honour to exercise that principle, to come down on the side of regularity and permit the House to come to a decision. This is a salutary rule which should be observed more and more now that appeals from rulings of the Speaker have been abolished. I never objected to that. However, that being the case, there is an onus upon the Chair, where there is doubt, to come down on the side of regularity.
April 22, 1975

I was going to refer to the citation referred to by the President of the Privy Council-the ruling of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on July 20, 1973, on the Criminal Code capital punishment bill. I would only add to the passage quoted by the President of the Privy Council these words of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux:
If this bill were not a bill which, as I understand it, is not a government bill-a bill on which there is a cross-section of views on both sides of the House-
I believe that was, in fact, a government bill but Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had in mind what is known as a free vote, with greater freedom than normally permitted.
Your Honour can take judicial note of the fact that when this bill was up for debate and the question was put on second reading, there was a division of opinion on both sides of the House. That requirement of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux has been met by the actual facts of this particular case.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member's arguments are getting weaker as he goes along.


Gerald William Baldwin: My arguments would be stronger if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had given me something to aim at.
I wish to point out, also, that we are in a different position from some of the situations referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Before we adopted the report procedure, if there were amendments brought about in committee of the whole which exceeded the royal recommendation, and if by some chance they slipped past the vigilance of the Chair or of the officers at the table-something which does not happen very often but it happens occasionally-then the proper course to take during third reading was to refer the bill back to committee. I suggest, though, that a different situation prevails today because when the rules were changed and the report stage was introduced, a particular Standing Order was established, Standing Order 75, which states in paragraph (6):
When the recommendation of the Governor General is required in relation to any amendment to be proposed at the report stage of a bill, at least 24 hours written notice shall be given of the said recommendation and proposed amendment.
I suggest that when the House adopted the rule changes which put Standing Order 75 into effect, we had in mind a situation of this kind where at the report stage it might be essential for amendments to be discussed, either because of what had gone on in committee or because the government had concluded that because of what was said in the committee it was essential to bring about suitable changes at the report stage. Only the government can do this, of course, because only the government can bring down a recommendation from the Governor General.
It was this situation, or variations of it, which must have been contemplated at the time Standing Order 75 was brought into existence. Let us assume, for the purpose of argument-and I might find it difficult to argue to the contrary-that the committee exceeded its instructions. Let us assume that it did, and there was a failure to appeal to the Chairman as to the validity of any amendments
Members' Salaries
which were offered. A report was presented to the House and was to be considered. In those conditions, I would suggest there is no better way in which to make use of Standing Order 75(6) than to bring back into the House, through a person authorized to do so, the amendment or amendments with suitable royal recommendations which would give effect to the conclusions of the committee.
It is possible, as was suggested, that the committee could have contented itself by passing the bill in its existing form and merely making recommendations as to changes. In light of a number of decisions by the Chair in the past, I think it is doubtful how far a committee could go along these lines. But surely there is no better evidence of the intentions of a committee than the amendments it proposes and embodies in a report to the House, even though its procedure might not have been proper. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you should rely strongly upon the authority given in Standing Order 75(6).
Finally, I would say this: in our parliamentary system, a committee is a subordinate and junior section of the House. It has functions to perform as laid down in our Standing Orders. With respect to the consideration of legislation, a committee acts as a forum in which bills are considered clause by clause and before which witnesses are called when considered necessary; amendments are discussed and there is full opportunity to evaluate all the situations and conditions surrounding a particular piece of legislation. However, a committee remains perpetually subordinate to the House, and if a committee exceeds its authority the House always has the right to purge any defects or improprieties.
With all due respect to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it would be monstrous if we could not make use of Standing Order 75(6) in order to reform a bill, with the proper royal recommendation, so as to correspond with the views of a committee but, rather, were obliged to send the bill back to the committee for the appropriate recommendation to be brought in by the government if it saw fit to do so. It would be the height of folly for the House to adopt the circuitous and unnecessary procedure which has been suggested.
If Standing Order 75 were not applicable, if we were faced with dealing with this matter in committee of the whole, it might well be that the proper motion would be one referring the bill back to committee with instructions to reform it in accordance with the royal recommendation. However, we have now permitted the intervention of a report stage at which there is an opportunity to change or correct what was done incorrectly in a committee-assuming anything had been done incorrectly.
I make this argument without in any way indicating the position to be taken by my party with regard to the various amendments which have been placed on the order paper by private members or on behalf of the government. We reserve the right to debate these matters and, possibly, to divide on them from time to time supposing the House finds itself in the position where it can engage in debate and divide on the issues. I strongly urge the Chair not to permit the House to be placed in the ridiculous position of having to take a circuitous route in order to do something

Members' Salaries
which it has the power to do now under our Standing Orders.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have two points to make. The first has to do with the quotation which was read by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) from the ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux as reported in the Journals for July 20, 1973, at pages 499 and 500. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux made it clear that he was giving a ruling in an exceptional case. He said:
If this bill were not a bill... on which there is a cross-section of views on both sides of the House, there might be a tendency on the part of the Chair to take bolder action, refuse to accept the bill and suggest that some of the amendments proposed should not be received.
I do not want to go over the history of Bill C-44, but it was clear when the bill was first debated that it would be substantially amended in committee. This was understood by everybody in the House of Commons, although that understanding did not extend to the press gallery or to the editors of newspapers throughout the country. However, we understood it and I think most hon. members understood it. In other words, everybody knew at the beginning of the procedure that the bill would be substantially amended.
When we concluded second reading debate it was also understood that a great many details of the bill would be left for the committee to decide. There had not been complete agreement between the leadership on the government side and that on the opposition side, so it was known that it was an exceptional set of circumstances.
The first meeting of the standing committee took place on the evening of April 14. At that meeting the President of the Privy Council indicated the terms of the agreement that had been made between himself and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), but left it to the members of the committee to decide the course the bill should take. This was done in discussion and following that amendments were moved and the bill was revised as it was.
I want to point out that in keeping with the judgment that Your Honour's predecessor made on July 20, 1973, this bill has clearly been an exception to the normal processes by which we handle legislation. It has been more of a parliamentary bill than a government bill and the committee has been acting almost unanimously, with one exception, in order to accomplish the ends that are set out. That is my first point regarding the exceptional nature of this particular set of circumstances.
My second point concerns whether this discussion is in order at this time. What is before the House at this time is not the bill itself but the amendments to the bill. The only time that we can discuss the bill during report stage proceedings is after we have disposed of any amendments. It seems to me that the logical time for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to raise his point of order is after the House has considered the amendments that are now before it at this report stage. As I say, it is only at the conclusion of the report stage that you, Mr. Speaker, can say what kind of bill we have.

I think we must admit that it is possible for committees to overstep occasionally in regard to what they can do under our procedure; the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed this out. However, having overstepped, there is a remedy in the House in terms of amendments at report stage. It seems to me that the only time the hon. member can discuss whether or not the bill is in order is at the point in time when the amendments are disposed of and Mr. Speaker asks the question: Shall the bill as reported carry? Or: Shall the bill as amended carry? That is the point when Your Honour must decide whether or not the bill is defective. Now is not the time to argue that point, since what is before the House is amendment No. 1, standing in the name of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am, of course, fascinated by the number of interesting procedural arguments that have been raised, not the least of which are those by two opponents of the proponent of this point of order, who put forward the suggestion that the hon. member is out of order by raising his objection now. One has said that he ought to have done it when the report first came in, and the other has said that he ought not to do it until we get to the motion for concurrence. So there are certainly a number of interesting arguments which have to be sorted out in my mind.
Indeed, those who have said that we have been giving this matter very careful consideration are absolutely right. It would not be possible for me to do justice to this important point by giving a decision now, because it is fundamental not only to the nature of the recommendation and to the nature of the power of hon. members to move amendments in committee, but also to the very basic nature of the report stage which interposes itself in between and in fact has a very serious effect on a number, indeed almost all, of the precedents which have been cited, since those precedents were referable to a time when the report stage did not exist in the form it does now. In any event, I do not want to delay or hold up unduly the progress of this bill, but I hope hon. members will think it reasonable that I try to return at eight o'clock this evening and deliver my ruling.
Is there a disposition to proceed with private members' hour? Would that embarrass the proponents of the motion, or could the time be used in some other way?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Public Service-Inquiry whether prosecution of illegal strikers will extend to union officials; the hon.
April 22, 1975

member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt)-Administration of Justice-Possibility of amending section 613 of Criminal Code in view of decision in Morgentaler case- Possibility of pardon for Dr. Morgentaler; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Abortion-Request for clarification of government policy.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


Mr. McKinley:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the notice sent around concerning private members' hour today indicated that we would proceed with Bill C-217, standing in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am told the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is on his way to the House. Is it agreed that the bills preceding this one on the order paper shall stand and retain their place?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members may wish to relax in the meantime, unless the parliamentary secretary has a point of interest to raise.


John Mercer Reid: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have. I might take the opportunity to indicate to hon. members who receive this list which emanates from my office that it is not an official list. It is the result of work done in my office. We take each member with a bill or motion that is ready to come up, we go through the list, and we ask each one if he or she will take the next spot available. We take them all in strict rotation in the order they stand on the order paper. We take no responsibility for this list, Mr. Speaker; it is merely circulated for the use of members. I want to emphasize that it is not an official list but is totally unofficial, and we have been producing it at the request of hon. members.
I might say that I have written to Mr. Speaker to suggest that the list be printed perhaps each week as an addendum to the Monday order paper, as an easy means of informing members what business is to come during private members' hour. I hope that suggestion will be seriously considered by the Chair.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) for that explanation. I would also bring to the attention of the Chair and hon. member that private members' hour generally starts at five o'clock, and it is not yet five o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) has said, namely, that we do these things by way of arrangement for general convenience, but that does not rule out the possibility of following the list as it is on the order paper.
Heritage Day
When I got to my feet I was going to express the hope that we might at least do the report stage of Bill C-208, since there is no debate on it in any case, and that would bring it up to third reading. I see that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) has come in in the meantime. Even so, I wonder if there would not be agreement to deal with Bill C-208 at the report stage. There are no amendments to it, so there is no debate. I would accept my hon. friend's suggestion that third reading stand over to another time. I think Your Honour will find that there is consent to do that. Perhaps the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) will move the motion, and I would second it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As far as the Chair is concerned, there is no objection; but if I heard correctly, the House had already agreed to proceed with Bill C-217 in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis). That hon. member has arrived. There has been no indication, other than the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the nod by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), to indicate that there has been general agreement to proceed will Bill C-208. Is there agreement in respect of the suggestion by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that we immediately proceed with the consideration of report stage of Bill C-208 and then proceed to the consideration of Bill C-217?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I put the motion on the report stage of Bill C-208 I give notice that private members' hour will end at a quarter to six, which will give a full hour for debate.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour) moved: that Bill C-208, respecting Heritage Day (title amended to read an Act respecting National Heritage Day), as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be concurred in.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Next sitting of the House.

Gasoline Labelling



NATIONAL TRADE MARK AND TRUE LABELLING ACT

[Stage Direction]
April 22, 1975

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved: that Bill C-217, to amend the National Trade Mark and True Labelling Act (octane rating of gasoline), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill that stands in my name today was presented at a previous parliament, debated at some length and suffered the usual fate, in some respects, of private members' bills. On that occasion, however, the hon. members who spoke at length until six o'clock were in the opposition benches, and I should simply like to bring to their attention that it was not members on this side of the House who prolonged the debate.
The purpose of my bill is very straightforward: it would provide that the consumer, the purchaser of gasoline would have the right to know what he or she was buying when purchasing gasoline to put into a private automobile or for any other purpose. At the present time a number of companies simply display the indication of high test or low test without giving an indication to the purchaser as to the octane rating. My bill would provide that a technical scale be developed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and according to this scale there would be the requirement on every vendor to exhibit conspicuously, in a public place, the octane rating.
I have observed on a number of occasions that there is a great variation in the quality of gas that is rated as high test. Since the time of introducing my bill there have been two developments which may have influenced the enthusiasm in certain quarters for this principle. The first is the recognition by a number of vendors that it is only fair and proper that the consumer be given a choice, and in many cases when the purchaser goes into the gas station to purchase a tank of gas he will see exactly what the octane rating is and a number of blends are offered. I think this is highly commendable.
The second development, and a more recent one since the energy crisis, is the emphasis on more and more lower octane ratings; many of the new engines in cars that are sold today do not require premium gas. It may well be that fuels sold in the near future will require a very minimum octane rating, particularly if it is possible to use unleaded gasoline. This may indeed mean that at some point in the future the purpose of my bill will no longer be required. As long as there are cars on the road that require higher octane gasoline, and as long as there are vendors who have two grades or more which they simply describe in general terms, without giving any technical description of the rating of the product they are selling, I think there is the simple and basic requirement that my bill is designed to meet. The consumer has the right to know what he or she is buying, and the right to know the kind of gasoline they are getting when they spend their money.
I hope this bill will commend itself to hon. members of the House. I see fewer members opposite today than on the day in 1970 when I first presented this bill, and I am hopeful that it will pass.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I understand and sympathize a great deal with the intent put forward by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) in Bill C-217. However, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I must say I have some reservations in connection with it.
One thing I think we always have to be concerned about is whether the action we would take in our department in fact would be productive in terms of benefit to the consumer, or whether we would in fact be placing a burden on the manufacturers and producers and, indeed, the government itself that would not be worth the cost involved and perhaps could even impose burdens on those in the industry which would have to be passed on to the consumer in terms of higher prices.
We all know that the principle of disclosure to the consumer is a very important principle, and all the information we can give the consumer is very valuable provided, of course, we do not-as I pointed out a moment ago-impose burdens through disclosure that really is tokenism and does not serve the consumer's interests in the long run.
In connection, specifically, with additional information on the quality of gasoline purchased, particularly with the increased interest in petroleum products over the last year in terms of cost, we have to be extremely careful. Recent legislation by some of the provinces is aimed at making mandatory the disclosure of information to help the consumer make rational decisions in the marketplace. We intend to continue in that direction.
The proposal of the hon. member for Ottawa West that octane ratings be disclosed in accordance with standards to be prescribed by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is a very complex one, requiring very careful analysis to confirm that the information would be meaningful, that the costs of setting standards and monitoring observances would be reasonable and that the legislative jurisdiction lies with the federal level of government. Some provinces have related gasoline tax legislation, although the only two which have experimented with requiring the disclosure of octane ratings, New Brunswick and Quebec, have now dropped that particular requirement. Only Nova Scotia has a disclosure requirement at the moment. Rather than using octane rating as proposed in this bill, that province calls for the display of the grade of the gasoline on the pump, in three categories-premium, regular, and unleaded.
Federal-provincial responsibility concerning gasoline regulations remains unclear. A positive determination of these responsibilities should first be made before proceeding with this kind of bill as a federal statute. To permit consumers to utilize octane rating as a basis of comparison between brands, and so on, automobile manufacturers would need to specify the precise rating or range of octane ratings suitable for the optimum operation of each motor vehicle. Currently, most manufacturers indicate the brand categories of premium, regular, and non-leaded. While precise octane numbers could be useful to some degree,
April 22, 1975

such specifications would necessarily apply to only new engines.
Unfortunately, such factors as accumulated mileage, altitude, general operating conditions, and so on, can modify octane requirements in a given engine substantially, thus rendering original specifications of little use. Should octane declarations be required, a laboratory analysis program of gasoline samples would be necessary to determine compliance levels and provide the basis of enforcement action. We are advised that there are presently two government agencies in Canada involved in routine octane testing of gasoline, the quality engineering test establishment of the Department of National Defence and the Research Council of Alberta. Those are the only two which have this capacity.
Consequently, unless sampling programs are very restricted or private, or petroleum industry laboratory facilities are enlisted, government-sponsored analytical capabilities appear to be very seriously limited. This argument is meaningful, but it would not be if the cost benefit to the consumer were not worth while. I think the fundamental point is whether, in fact, the benefits would be worth the effort involved and would be beneficial to the individual consumer. Our investigations suggest that the approximate cost of laboratory octane analysis on a per sample basis would be in the range of $70 and requires, apart from preliminary time required for preparation of test equipment involving special internal combustion engines, about one man-hour per sample. It is apparent that the cost of an extensive compliance testing program involving some 19,000 retail gasoline outlets in Canada would be very high. Even the testing of only 10,000 samples on an annual basis would run in excess of $700,000.
In Canada, the Research Council of Alberta co-ordinates the operation of what is known as the Canadian Co-operative Fuel Exchange. This 35-member exchange is comprised of oil refining companies and provincial and federal research agencies. Each month, a different oil company circulates two samples of its production, normally a motor fuel and some other fuel product, to each of the other 34-member agencies for analysis. In the case of gasoline, octane rating and a number of other, qualitative tests are carried out. Results are reported and circulated to all members to serve as a means of industry-operated quality control.
Due to lack of knowledge on the part of the average consumer concerning the basic meaning of octane number, declaration of these numbers at retail outlets would appear to be of limited benefit to consumers without an extensive educational or explanatory program. The cost to all oil companies of providing octane rating declarations at all retail outlets may well be passed on to consumers in the form of increased gasoline prices.
We have not received any real indication of consumer desire for more information concerning gasoline quality, nor have we received any complaints which would serve to suggest that there may be a need for consumer protection in this area. In view of the current debate and continuing investigations respecting environmental pollution problems, and the ongoing modifications by automotive manufacturers to the automobile engine, it is questioned whether federal regulations should be imposed at this time to
Gasoline Labelling
require a declaration which may be subject to considerable change in the near future.
In the United States, the American Society for the Testing of Materials has recently established a system which employs the numbers one through six declared on gasoline pumps to denote the different grades of gasoline offered for retail sale. The grades are based on the minimum octane rating specifications which have been established in the six categories as lowest grade, unleaded grade, standard grade-which is regular grade-intermediate grade, premium grade and super premium grade.
In accordance with this system now used by several states, the owner's manual for some United States models of 1975 cars now specifies the correct grade number or numbers to be used in each vehicle. The co-ordinating research council in the United States, sponsored jointly by the American Petroleum Institute and the Society of Automotive Engineers, conducts a comprehensive series of tests and user surveys on each year's new car models under a wide range of operating conditions across the United States to determine actual gasoline octane requirements. Information gathered indicates which rating levels are preferred by users for the various types of vehicle and operating conditions and the relative volumes sold.
The data is then made available to oil companies to permit them to produce the ratings and volumes necessary to effectively meet market demands. On balance, because of the degree of self-regulation existing within the industry, and because of the likely costs of monitoring any mandatory disclosure requirements, it would be preferable not to proceed with Bill C-217 without a very thorough examination of the need for such legislation in light of other priorities in the consumer protection field.
I wish to say, Madam Speaker, that in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs we do not look lightly at this bill and its proposal. We believe that anything that can be done to provide more information to consumers at a cost which they can afford and which will not increase the basic cost of the commodity itself is very worth while. At the same time, however, we must recognize a very simple principle. I think it could be best enunciated by quoting G. K. Chesterton, who one time said that every vice is a virtue gone mad. What he meant by that was that it is quite all right to have a good, valid program or plan; but if you apply it without discrimination and draw it through to its appropriate conclusion, you will end up with something that is counter-productive. In this case, that is very apropos to our particular department.
For example, you see concern expressed by consumers, and even by members of the House about some regulations, for instance, in connection with car seats, saying that we should provide more protection for babies in cars. However, we must watch that we do not end up with such high standards for that kind of thing that the cost of a child's car seat will be $100, or even more, in order to provide the kind of protection that we would all like our children to have. We would then find out that we had a perfectly safe car seat but that no one, or very few people, could afford to buy it.

Gasoline Labelling
We must always have a trade-off; we must look at the consumer interest in the light of reality. In this particular case we feel that there are other areas of activity that are of greater priority to consumers than the one with which we are dealing tonight. So I suggest that although the bill is founded on a perfectly valid observation and a real genuine concern for adequate disclosure to consumers, there is insufficient information available to our department to indicate that it is of such a great priority that it should be put ahead of other things. It must be pointed out that there is a considerable dearth of real information and research on the subject, and there is also a considerable question as to the constitutional jurisdiction in respect of this type of regulation.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Madam Speaker, I rise on Bill C-217 presented by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), recognizing, as did the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), that the bill is inspired by the highest possible motive to protect motorists from exploitation by gasoline companies which are misleading their customers, or by automobile gasoline dealers who are not living up to the standards laid down by the gasoline companies.
Unlike the hon. member for Ontario I am not an expert on the subject of octane content and I was struck, as was everyone, by the hon. member's remarkable grasp of the problems, and the way he illustrated to us in such fulsome detail the number of dealers and the cost for analysing each and every sample of gasoline. It was a remarkable performance. His ability to link the question of the octane of fuel with quotations from G. K. Chesterton was indeed to be admired. It was a high octane performance.
However, we must be struck by the fact that, desirable as certain protective devices may be, the price we pay exceeds the protection afforded. I notice that the hon. member for Ottawa West derived great comfort and assurance as he motored through New Brunswick in 1970, savouring each opportunity when he filled his car with gasoline from seeing the information as to the octane content of the gas legibly displayed. Nonetheless, I am advised, partly by the hon. member for Ontario who supplied me with some information from his enormous sources, that in 1966 the requirement in New Brunswick for declaring the octane rating was deleted. The only assumption then is that the gasoline dealers in New Brunswick who ignored the fact that the requirement of the law was no longer in effect continued to provide visitors, such as the hon. member for Ottawa West, with the information which he so greatly desired.
The important thing in considering this measure is not simply the cost ultimately to be borne by the consumer but the value of such information. Recently we have had a tremendous variety of government regulations and requirements for industry and business to provide the consumer with better information. This in itself is a desirable thing, but I would like to cite an example which is perhaps analogous to the suggestion made today by the hon. member, namely, that the Textile Labelling Act, which is an act of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, required that every garment made in Canada should carry a description of its fibre content- what percentage of cotton, polyester, or other fibre it

contains, in both official languages. On the face of it this is a very necessary piece of information, but the fact remains that for the average Canadian purchaser this sort of information is almost worthless without information being provided on how the garment should be cleaned or laundered in order for the best use to be made of the particular fabric, particularly for reasons of durability.
The departmental officials decided, in their great wisdom, to lift almost the whole requirement from U.S. regulations, except that they made a single amendment. They pointed out that rather than simply having the vendor of textile fabrics provide a description of the fibres contained in a particular garment, the requirement would be that the garment survive ten washings, which meant that a permanent label had to be attached to it with what, to the average consumer, was almost irrelevant information, whereas the department failed to provide consumers with care labelling, which is what they really need.
I hope, Madam Speaker, you will not think I wandered too far from the subject but I will return to the matter before us when I suggest that the same problem exists in requiring an octane rating to be displayed on the gasoline pump. The average motorist does not know the first thing about octane and he has no desire to know what it means. I think that almost certainly he would prefer the kind of standard set out in the United States, that is, octane rating specifications which simply describe a list of grades which he can select and which are recommended in the manual appropriate to his particular car. This is a far better method because of the technical problems that occur in making a simple declaration as to the octane rating, particularly when you consider that a certain car may be eight years old and have 150,000 miles on it, and it serves no purpose whatever for the owner of the car to expect the same performance from that car when he fills it with a certain high octane gasoline as he would from another car.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) permit a question?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Yes, Madam Speaker.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member just said that this is of no value to the consumer. Is it not conceivable that the owner of a car might not be able to observe the performance of that car with variations in altitude or in temperature, and purchase an appropriate octane rating of gasoline? Is this not quite a reasonable thing for owners of cars to do?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Madam Speaker, I think that what the hon. member is asking is that the information be displayed by a gasoline company, whether it be in numbers, which are incomprehensible, or in words with which the motorist can identify. I suggest that this information in numbers is obscure and that it should be stated in words that this is premium gasoline, gasoline of second grade, or whatever, so that the motorist knows what he is buying. If a No. 3 gas is provided to him when he thought he was buying a No. 1 premium grade, he can then utilize the misleading advertising provisions in the present Combines Investigation Act.
April 22, 1975

An hon. member handed me a note asking if I could relate the problems disclosed by this bill and the points I have raised about textile labelling to his concern about the purity of peanut butter. I see that the hon. member has left the chamber for some important business, so I will not comment on what may have been a frivolous suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He has probably gone for a sandwich.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Perhaps he has gone for a sandwich. It would certainly be unfair and inappropriate for me to cast away lightly the serious measure being recommended. I am not endeavouring simply to talk this matter out. Like many well-intended measures which have already become law, in some cases I suggest that as consumers we pay a very high price for very little protection, and I think this is an outstanding example of that kind of inappropriate legislation.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Madam Speaker, in joining this debate I notice that almost the same bill was debated in the twenty-eighth parliament, some four and a half years ago. From reviewing the debates at that time it seems to me that there was a good deal of sympathy for the concept advanced by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), that of ensuring that consumers will not be misled at any time by marketing devices.
I would be most anxious to support this bill and see it through the House if I felt for one moment that the consuming public, by the absence of this kind of legislation, would be subject to misleading information which could in fact cost more money by virtue of damaging automobiles, but I do not really think that is the case. I do not think people are being misled because a certain octane number does not appear on gasoline pumps. I am more concerned when I go to a service station wishing to have repair work done on my car, and there is no indication as to the quality of the mechanical work which one can expect from that particular place. I think that this reality is even more serious.
There has been a good deal of literature in the newspapers in recent months and years in connection with so-called rip-offs which take place in various garages and service enterprises dealing with repairs to automobiles. It concerns me that there is no protection for the consumer- such as that which the hon. member is seeking in the area of gasoline, which I do not think is warranted-who drives into one of these repair locations and has no reasonable assurance, in either his own personal experience or by word of mouth, that the kind of repair work he can anticipate for his dollar will be fair and reasonable.
In the case of gasoline it seems to me that the average consumer looks upon the matter very much as one who goes into a new municipality and has his first glass of water. I think it is assumed that the standard of the water in that municipality is a standard satisfactory to the consuming public, and that the standard set by that particular municipality, area or county is up to the standard one might anticipate in other parts of the country. One would not expect to see something written on the tap. One would not expect in a restaurant to have something Writ-
Gasoline Labelling
ten on his glass to the effect that the quality of the water was indeed one up to normal, acceptable standards. I think that this is what we have been led to believe in terms of obtaining gas from the average retail outlet.
I sympathize with the hon. member for Ottawa West, and I would be concerned if this could be proven to be the case. If there were a risk of having gasoline put into our cars which would be injurious to motors, then we would have a problem requiring legislation. However, I do not think that this case has been made, and I do not think the hon. member for Ottawa West attempts to make this case.
There is an interesting aspect, however, to which I would like to refer. For many years as an automobile driver I had a real fear of going to retail outlets which were not outlets of the major oil companies. My fear was that the gasoline from one of these outlets would be inferior to gasoline from major oil company outlets. I carried on with this assumption until a neighbour of mine, who happened to be a proprietor of one of these outlets, when I put these concerns to him, said that my fears were shared by a great many automobile drivers, but that they were completely invalid. He proceeded to explain the reason for this. The reason was that he was obtaining his gasoline from exactly the same warehouses as other retail outlets were obtaining their supplies.
Simply because he owned his own trucks and did his own hauling, he was able to obtain his gasoline at a cheaper price and could offer it to the public at a cut rate, which in some cases was as much as ten cents less than the rate charged by the major retail outlets. I have driven some 150,000 miles since that time, and I use those cheaper stations whenever I can in order to save myself that amount of money.
The question is whether the the consuming public has this fear. I think it is an interesting case of protection in reverse. It is a case where, either intentionally or unintentionally, the public has been forewarned through advertising that, in effect, they are not safe unless they go to one of the outlets operated by one of the major oil companies. This is an invalid concern which I do not like the public to have, because the price is cheaper elsewhere. In the case at hand I feel that unless we notice or are advised that gasoline is being sold at retail outlets which is of inferior quality, and when it is marked regular, premium or no lead, does not meet the standard indicated, it seems to me that bringing in special legislation to enforce costly measurements of octane ratings, stampings on pumps and inspections by provincial and federal governments, would be an unwarranted cost which at this time would do no particular service to the consuming public.
There are probably other aspects of this bill to be discussed. If the hon. member for Ottawa West were convinced that there was no possibility of receiving an inferior product which could damage an automobile, I wonder whether he might not be content to let things stand as they are now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the weight of the attack being levelled against my hon. friend by his friends, the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), the hon. member for Mississauga

Gasoline Labelling
(Mr. Abbott) and the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), makes me think that he may have something.
The argument that the bill does not go far enough, that there are other ways in which consumers must also be protected, is surely not an argument against taking this step. It seems to me that the least this House should do is to let this bill go to committee where all the points that have been raised today could be examined very carefully. I urge that the Liberal side not talk out this bill sponsored by a Liberal member.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to make my contribution to the debate which raises a problem that concerns all members of this House even if since the beginning of the debate, government members have been much more eloquent than members opposite.
The first point which I want to make, Madam Speaker, is that the interventions of this government in the publicity field and in the disclosure of information for the benefit of consumers have altered during the past few years. Indeed, if I am not mistaken, the measures more widely discussed among the public have been those meant to include labels and pertinent information in both official languages. It will be remembered that lengthy and acrimonious debates were then held to determine the importance which should be given to the second language when products were sold in a region rather than another.
In spite of everything, the government was convinced that such information was necessary, and the act and regulations which were passed to force producers into labelling their goods in both official languages have proved beneficial for Canada as a whole.
Madam Speaker, there are several kinds of publicity, just as there are several ways of giving the consumer information that is both useful and necessary in his decision to purchase a product. There is obviously what is known as misleading advertising. Such advertising, Madam Speaker, is intended essentially to warp the judgment the consumer must make on an article before he purchases it. There is no need to give any example of those practices. I believe the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission takes legal action every day, that every day it calls producers before it to state clearly what their objectives are with regard to the advertising for this or that product. Madam Speaker, no party in this House, I am sure, would prevent the government from regulating and forbidding that kind of publicity. That is not the purpose of the bill introduced today by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
But there is another kind of publicity, Madam Speaker, which is called dangerous, in that it incites the consumer to buy a product whose use can be dangerous if it is not subject to rules or strict standards. One example that comes to everyone's mind and is most recent in that field is the publicity surrounding tobacco products and specially cigarettes. It has led producers and tobacco producers and distributors to include in their publicity a notice urging consumers to consider the fact that its dangers

increase with usage. That publicity is therefore said to be dangerous.
There is another kind of publicity, Madam Speaker, the effects of which have been and continue to be of concern to this House, and that is excessive publicity. That publicity is in itself dangerous. However the message or the information repeated eventually conditions the consumer and makes him believe that if he does not purchase the particular item or does not use it in sufficient quantities, his comfort or well-being will be reduced.
I already mentioned during a meeting of the parliamentary Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which is now considering Bill C-2, that such advertising should be restricted by that bill. I have in mind particularly the commercials for a provincial lottery which eventually lead the consumer or buyer of a ticket to believe that some day he will win. Of course, if you repeat the message all day long, the consumer will believe that after all if he does not buy a ticket he will never become a millionnaire or become wealthy in a jiffy. I believe in that respect Bill C-2 as it now stands should regulate that form of advertising which in my opinion has an unfortunate impact on a more and more frantic society which aims at consuming more and more new products everyday.
That is not the type of excessive advertising the hon. member from Ottawa West wants to draw our attention to. The kind of advertising he would like the House to legislate upon aims at providing consumers with necessary information so that he can make the best decisions when he buys gasoline. I believe, Madam Speaker, that the bill he wants us to pass adds a new dimension to the government's responsibilities with respect to advertising. In fact, it aims at having the government wonder if they should provide consumers with the information required for a wise decision, whatever the cost of displaying that information, or whatever the cost of providing consumers with that kind of information.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that we shall more and more have to wonder about the social role of advertising. Personally, when I am watching TV or listening to the radio, and I hear commercials for certain types of products, I can never be totally satisfied with the fact that, for instance, a banana retailer or any canned product retailer is allowed to advertise his products and that nobody at the same time wonders whether part of the money spent to promote sales of the particular item should not be used to inform consumers on the way he can dispose of waste resulting from the consumption of that product.
For example, if we allow canned food distributors to advertise, I do not see why, on the 60 or 30 or single minute of broadcasting this distributor is going to take, we would not require him to take 15 or 30 seconds to tell the consumer: Here is how you can dispose of the waste produced after consumption. This, Madam Speaker, is one of the aspects of advertising which will probably be the next stage we will have to reach if we really want to protect the consumer.
The information requested in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa West clearly involves outlandish costs to meet the objective. According to preliminary esti-

mates, laboratory testing of the various samplings would involve an expenditure of more than $700,000. I believe this amount would be better invested in social advertising which I submit is now lacking in the information available to consumers.
I believe this debate gives us an opportunity to move one step further in discharging the government's responsibility to legislate on consumer information. Clearly, by preventing merchandizers to give necessary information, one would in the final analysis be guilty by omission. The preventing or non-requiring of certain merchandizers to give information allows them to profit by the consumers' ignorance, by selling products that are not those really needed to drive and properly use motor vehicles.
Our obligation to force merchandizers to completely inform must not in my view affect the social impact of advertising, which we will have to consider during the coming month, if our overall policy on or comprehensive approach to consumer protection is to reach its goals.
It must be emphasized that during the last few years, the government also acted to restrict media advertising time. This had to be done, because it was realized that merchandizers could literally submerge the consumers under a flow of information that was not necessarily useful to properly choose a product.
We have also witnessed the discussion centering on children advertising. This is another aspect of the social impact of advertising I was mentioning. I feel it is of paramount importance at this stage. It is actually towards the consumers who are the less protected and the less able to defend themselves that we must direct our attention, especially when we discover that, were we to agree to what the hon. member for Ottawa West is proposing, we would have a piece of legislation which would involve spending considerable sums of money that might not have the immediate results expected.
Some other hon. members who spoke before me have stressed the complexity of implementation of such a measure. They mentioned, among other things, that it was not obvious that it was constitutional, or within the authority of the federal government. They also emphasized the fact that it would be difficult to administer this legislation.
I think, Madam Speaker, that the opportunity afforded to us by the hon. member for Ottawa West to consider the publicity, the information which must be made available to the consumers is a responsibility which has been amply debated in recent years. The government has taken positive action that has really urged the distributors to act bearing in mind that great objective involving consumer protection and I am sure there is not one member present here who does not partake of that objective which the hon. member for Ottawa West is striving for.
For that reason, Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member for Ottawa West to participate in the discussions of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on Bill C-2 and particularly to read the briefs which have been presented and the evidence which has been brought by the 20 witnesses who appeared before the commission and who all discussed clause 36 of this bill, which contains, I think, the elements necessary to the solution of the problem he raised in his bill.
Gasoline Labelling


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Madam Speaker, the proposal which is now before us in connection with bill C-217, introduced by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) springs of course from a good thought and a good intention, which is to better protect and inform the Canadian consumer, particularly as regards the gas he buys regularly.
However, I would like to make a comment. I have known my colleague from Ottawa West for many years, and having had the pleasure to sit with him in this House, I acknowledge him as an expert in parliamentary debate, especially during private members' hour.
During the many years we sat in this House we were witness to his many interventions and his participation during private members' hour.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Ottawa West.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I did not take part in private members' hours during this Parliament, in spite of everything I did during previous Parliaments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.


Marcel Lessard: Madam Speaker, does my hon. colleague mean to say that somewhow he changed or became wiser? I am not sure at all that this is the case. It is probably true that he was not as present in those debates during this Parliament but, as he suggests himself, during previous Parliaments we were witness to his many interventions- and this is not a reproach, far from it, since it gave an opportunity to communicate to his colleagues and myself his wide knowledge in certain areas, as indeed he did again today. He is concerned about the consumer and he would like the protection that was previously given by gasoline retailers by indicating the octane rating-a current practice a few years ago that was abandoned in most, not to say all, provinces-to be reinstated so the consumer who parks his car near a gas station can get the quality of fuel he wants for his vehicle.
His idea may be good. It remains to be seen whether from a practical point of view that situation which existed previously really protected the consumer. Personally I would rather be inclined to ask myself if the question should not be examined from another angle. Instead of asking gas companies, dealers and distributors to indicate at their pump stations the octane rating of the gas sold and the various varieties offered to consuming customers in general, I wonder if we should not standardize gas. It seems that private enterprise in its constant search for new products or rather new clients tends to diversify the variety of its products in the hopes of meeting a nonrequirement in several cases and create an appetite, a need, through advertising, through the sale of new products which advertising says are always the best offered on the market.
I am not at all convinced that all that variety of products, and in this case the various kinds of gas offered,

April 22, 1975
Gasoline Labelling
really have all the properties they want to sell us on. I have been driving a car for over 30 years and I used the various brands, varieties and components offered, and I must admit, Madam Speaker, that I did not see much difference. Of course, there is a difference between regular, yellow as it is commonly called, and red, or extra, but is there really the difference that is indicated? Does the difference that is indicated really exist in terms of the price differential?
Like most car drivers I made certain checks on my gas mileage when I filled up with extra at 6 cents, 8 cents, 9 cents and sometimes even 12 cents a gallon more than regular, yellow. Of course, I noticed I was getting better gas mileage with extra, but not in proportion to what I was paying. So, particularly with respect to engines used in automobiles, I say we should rather standardize the manufacturing of those engines, bearing in mind the fuel they must use.
All automobile and engine manufacturers should be required to provide engines which run for all practical purposes on the same type of gas. The result would be twofold. First of all, does it really matter whether it costs more to producers to build various types of engines or carburators, since it is much more the carburator than the engine which is involved in the choice of the proper grade of gas? Then, would it not be a saving or protection of some sort for the consumer if we forced manufacturers to build only one type of engine which would run on only one type of gas or fuel? Should we not compel gas producers to supply for automobile consumption only one sort of gas which would be the same?
The question I am asking therefore is this: Would not this gas be more economical if gas producers supplied only one type of gas with the same octane rating, whether super or regular, which would have only one name or grade? I believe that in this way, gas would be less expensive. The installations that refineries have to provide for these various grades would not be necessary and perhaps this could result in savings. I am not sure about this because I wonder if there really is a lot of difference between all these types of gasoline. I do not believe there is; the difference is much more significant in the publicity than in the real product.
On that point-and hon. members could recommend this to the government-we would have much more to gain in my opinion if products were standardized and varieties, names and attributes of products were restricted. We should aim at eliminating these things which only confuse the general consumer public. The poor consumer does not know what he buys and very few people know and distinguish among the various grades of gasoline. I do not want to suggest that we men are more knowledgeable than women in this field, but it is true that today more and more women are driving cars. They must fill their tanks.
Can the ladies really appreciate the differences among the various fuels that they are offered? They follow the advice of salesmen, of distributors, and buy what is recommended without seeing the difference. Nearly 30 per cent of the people who drive cars today are women. Is there not complete abuse of these people who are not familiar with

the technology since there is already some abuse as concerns the 90 per cent of men who are not more familiar with this technology than women? On this point, I would be personally opposed to a concentration of our efforts in the fields suggested by the hon. member, and I would much prefer that the gasoline and motor manufacturers be required to standardize these things so that they all use the same fuel and that we no longer have to pay for these various fuels and the publicity required to extol the virtues of these products to the consumer. Very often, these virtues do not exist.
It is in that direction, I think, that we should make our efforts, Madam Speaker, and I would advise my colleague from Ottawa West to introduce some other legislation at the first opportunity so that he may work and devote his energy along that line. I thank him in anticipation.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, I know that the bill before us is intended to ensure that consumers are getting their money's worth when they buy gasoline. I am sure this is in the mind of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
In this day and age everything is inspected. All food is inspected. In all areas there are provincial inspectors as well as federal inspectors. When we were discussing a similar matter in 1970 a former member of parliament from Calgary South said it was possible that the oil companies would be pleased to take up a suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), by appearing before a committee of the House and answering any questions put to them by hon. members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES On the order:
Consideration of report stage of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.-The President of the Privy
Council.
April 22, 1975
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated earlier this afternoon that because of some of the very serious procedural problems and deeply fundamental procedural questions which were raised in the very important argument that was put forward this afternoon I would try to give judgment at eight o'clock. I have given the matter the most careful consideration, study and review in the interval, and in fairness, because of the rather important and fundamental points involved, I cannot bring myself to decide the question at this time. I therefore ask whether the House might involve itself in the consideration of other matters this evening to give me an opportunity to examine the matter further during this evening and tomorrow morning, and I will give my judgment at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon.


OCEAN DUMPING CONTROL ACT
Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-37, to provide for the control of dumping of waste and other substances in the ocean, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege this evening, on behalf of the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), to brief the House on Bill C-37. It is a measure to provide for the control of dumping of wastes and other substances in the ocean. This bill is not only important-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I make a suggestion regarding what we should dump in the ocean?


Len Marchand: I thought the hon. member wanted to make a deal and pass the bill without debate. Certainly I would be willing.
This bill is not only important in Canadian terms but as part of a wider international effort to preserve our environment. Traditionally Canada has been committed to the principle that in some of its most critical aspects the work of protecting the physical environment is world work- work that nations cannot do successfully unless they do it together.
This is not a matter of abstract idealism but an operating principle based on a recognition of things as they are. The biosphere is one. The oceans, regardless of the names we give them, or the lines drawn on maps are, physically speaking, one. So Canada has consistently taken the lead or participated energetically in promoting international co-operation to protect the environment.
Late in 1972 our representatives met with those of 90 other nations under UN auspices to sign an agreement to control ocean dumping. The convention which came out of that meeting-it is known as the London convention-is based on the following principles. First, that the sea and
Dumping at Sea
the life it supports are vitally important to all the world's people. This being so, all of the world's people have a direct interest in making sure that the sea is managed and used in ways that will damage neither its quality nor its resources. Second, that the capacity of the sea to absorb punishment, to assimilate wastes without damage and to sustain life, is not unlimited. The sea is vital yet fragile. Third, the nations signing the convention also recognized, in keeping with the United Nations charter and the principles of international law, that nations have the sovereign right to exploit their own resources. At the same time they have the responsibility to ensure that things done within the areas that lie within their jurisdiction do not damage the environment of other nations.
The 91 nations involved agreed to take measures, individually and collectively, to prevent marine pollution caused by dumping. In signing the London convention, Canada signalled her commitment to the principles of the convention, and our intention to ratify it. The bill now before the House is the instrument needed to fulfil our obligations under the London convention.
Before going into more detail let me first outline the salient features of the London convention itself. The convention will, when ratified, prohibit the dumping of wastes in the oceans without specific permission granted by the national authority designated by the state concerned. As far as the convention is concerned, dumping means any deliberate disposal at sea of wastes or other matter from vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures at sea. The ocean is no longer to be a garbage dump; neither is it to be a junkyard. Dumping also means the disposal at sea of the vessels themselves, or aircraft, or platforms, and so on.
In the context of the convention and of this bill, dumping does not mean the kind of waste disposal at sea which comes about in the course of the normal operation of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other installations. Nor does it mean the disposal of wastes or other matter generated in the exploration, exploitation and offshore processing of seabed mineral resources.
I should remind the House that separate instruments have been developed and are available to deal with pollution of the oceans by oil and other polluting substances, such as garbage and sewage, from vessels. Nationally speaking, the Canada Shipping Act addresses this problem. So does an international convention signed in London in November, 1973. The more recent London convention will operate separately.
Finally, in summarizing the history of the London convention let me add that it was preceded by a regional agreement for the prevention of dumping signed by 12 northwest European nations. This document is known as the Oslo Convention and its focus is on protection of northeast Atlantic fisheries and contiguous waters.
The bill now before the House will give the government of Canada legislative authority to control and manage dumping by all vessels in Canadian waters. This latter term includes Arctic waters within the meaning of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It also embraces Canada's fishing zones. The bill will apply to dumping by Canadian ships wherever they may be located. It will also apply to foreign ships that come to Canadian ports and

April 22, 1975
Dumping at Sea
load wastes with the intention of disposing of them at sea. Please note, Mr. Speaker, that the bill will make all types of dumping subject to permit. Anyone applying for a permit to dump will pay a prescribed fee.
In general the wastes we are dealing with, both in the bill now being considered and in the London Convention, fall into two classes. One class comprises wastes which are highly dangerous to the marine environment, wastes which we know will cause serious damage. Dumping of this kind of waste is prohibited. No permits will be granted except in very special circumstances. In this class, to name a few examples, you will find organohalogen compounds such as DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, and others. Mercury and cadmium and, their compounds are in this class. So are persistent plastics and other synthetics; for example, netting and ropes which may float indefinitely in the sea, causing obstruction. Oil of all kinds, crude, fuel, heavy diesel and lubricating are in this class and covered by the bill when taken on board for the purpose of dumping. So are high-level radioactive wastes or materials produced for biological and chemical warfare.
The second class is made up of substances which could be damaging under certain conditions; in certain areas, in certain concentrations and at specific times of the year- substances, in short, which, with the right precautions, may safely and legitimately be deposited in the sea. In these cases the permit issued will specify certain requirements such as the rate of dumping, the time it takes place, the location, and so on.
The bill lists both of these classes. The prohibited substances are in Schedule I. The restricted substances are in Schedule II. I should emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that even substances which are not included in these schedules will be covered. They may not be dumped without permit.
It is reasonable to expect that there will be extraordinary situations in which it may be necessary for substances to be dumped without prior permit, in crisis situations, for instance, to avert danger to human life at sea. The bill will require that when such emergency action is taken, a full report of all the circumstances must be made. Similarly the minister may grant an emergency permit to authorize dumping action necessary to avert danger to human health on land. In this case the dumping action will be reported to other states affected.
Schedule III of the bill spells out criteria, the factors which the people who grant permits must calculate in making their decisions. In this respect, as in others, the bill follows the pattern of the London Convention. The factors to be considered include; (1) The characteristics and composition of the substance to be dumped; (2) characteristics of the dumping site and the method of deposit; and (3) possible effects on the environment in all its aspects-effects on amenities, on marine life, on other uses of the sea. "Do we have to dump?" is a question that must be asked. The availability of other options must be considered such as alternative onshore methods of treatment, disposal or elimination.
The bill provides for penalties for the dumping of materials into the ocean without a permit. Offences will be assessed in accordance with the severity of the violation.

Offenders who contravene clauses 4, 5 or 6 of the bill are liable on summary conviction to the following fines; for offences involving substances not listed in Schedules I or II, up to $50,000; for offences involving substances in Schedule II, up to $75,000; for offences involving substances in Schedule I, up to $100,000.
Clause 7 of the bill deals with the disposal, or the junking of ships or aircraft in the sea. Anyone who contravenes this clause is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $75,000. Failure to report dumping is punishable, on summary conviction, by a fine not to exceed $25,000.
The bill also gives the government authority to detain, seize or force forfeiture of ships and aircraft, and to demand redress of environmental damage by pollutors.
Environment Canada will administer this bill. This, Mr. Speaker, is a logical arrangement since this department's current activities already include such environmental protection functions as surveillance, monitoring, marine scientific research and vessel inspection. The Ministry of Transport will also be involved. So will the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Department of National Defence, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and other federal and provincial organizations.
The governor in council is empowered to make regulations needed to carry out the provisions of the convention and of the bill. The bill is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province.
Before I close, Mr. Speaker, I should point out to hon. members that the London Convention will come into force automatically once it has been ratified by 15 nations. As of now, a number of countries have already done so. The 12 nations which signed the Oslo Convention mentioned earlier are in a position to ratify at short notice whenever they desire. What this means is that the 15 necessary ratifications may be imminent. At that point, with the convention in effect, the immediate next step will be to call an organizational meeting of all nations involved. This will be a conference which will significantly shape the future development of the convention and it is important that Canada be there. It is a matter of urgent business that we have the implementing legislation in place and that we be in a position to ratify the London Convention as soon as possible. When we have done this we can be sure of participation in these arrangements and, sure also that Canada's special coastal state interests are represented.
I urge the House, Mr. Speaker, to give swift consideration to this bill. Although ocean dumping is not a major Canadian problem, not a major feature of Canadian maritime activity, our waters are as vulnerable as anyone else's. We must act to shield the great Canadian fisheries and our coastal recreational areas. Beyond that we must move to protect the ocean at large, the sea which belongs to us all, the common heritage of mankind.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary who has just made a very interesting speech on a subject in which we are deeply interested would answer a question in order to help us in connection with the future conduct of this debate.
I am concerned about Clause 2(2), the definition of the sea. The parliamentary secretary will have noticed that
April 22, 1975

the sea is defined as the territorial sea of Canada; the internal waters of Canada other than inland waters; any fishing zones prescribed pursuant to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act; the Arctic waters within the meaning of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, all of which are perfectly clear, and then any area of the sea adjacent to the areas referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) as may be prescribed. I am particularly concerned about that when it is read in conjunction with Clause 19 which provides in part:
Where an offence against this act is committed by a person, whether or not he is a Canadian citizen, in any area of the sea referred to in paragraphs 2(2) (a) to (e)-
Could the parliamentary secretary, who I am sure has given a great deal of thought to this bill, indicate to the House what the government has in mind when it says in paragraph 2(2)(e) "any area of the sea adjacent to the areas referred to" in those paragraphs? How far away from the territorial sea of Canada would that area adjacent extend-would it be up to 10 miles, 15 miles or 20 miles?
I am worried about the question of jurisdiction when charges are laid, particularly in light of some of the decisions of the World Court, with which the hon. member and I are particularly acquainted. I am wondering about this area of Canadian jurisdiction when charges are to be laid against persons who are alleged to have committed offences in these areas adjacent to the sea. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could elaborate on that for a few minutes.


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would repeat that question?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, any member, other than a member from the inland province of Saskatchewan, would know very well what I mean.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain I can answer all the questions the hon. member has raised. Many of them are highly technical and are the kinds of questions that should be answered in committee. If I thought the hon. member were serious in making this speech in the form of a question I would take him seriously, but I do not think I should take him seriously now. I would be happy to assure the hon. member that the minister will appear at some stage before the committee, along with the appropriate officials who will be able to answer any of these technical questions the hon. member might like to raise. I should like the hon. member to attend the committee hearings.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am sure the committee proceedings will be in order.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pose a question to the parliamentary secretary, if I can get his attention. I should like to ask him how he possibly could have made a speech on ocean dumping tonight without one single word or reference to the Law of the Sea Conference that is now going on in Geneva, which is considering ocean dumping as well as many other subjects related to the common
Dumping at Sea
heritage of the sea. Is this not an indication of the government's-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is taking advantage of a question to make his own speech. This is not according to the rules. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to answer I shall allow him to do so, but personally I feel this is not a proper procedure at this stage.


Douglas Roche: I will repeat my question for him in a shorter form. I simply want to know why, in the speech he made tonight, he made no reference to the Law of the Sea Conference in Geneva, which is very important to Canada.


Len Marchand: I suppose the hon. member could mention many things that could have been contained in the speech. The hon. member might refer to the statements which have been made about the Law of the Sea Conference by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) and others.
I do not believe it is a valid point at this stage to suggest I should discuss everything that is being dealt with by the Law of the Sea Conference. It is dealing with many important questions, one of which is the 200-mile zone. We are all concerned about this. I think we all hope we will achieve the 200-mile economic zone at the Law of the Sea Conference. Really, however, I think this is a question which has been very adequately debated. The position of the Government of Canada is very clear relating to what it hopes to achieve at the Law of the Sea Conference.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary would permit one futher short question.


Len Marchand: Yes.


Walter David Baker: Thank you very much. My question relates to the matter referred to by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that is, the definition of the sea as it appears on page 3 of the bill. There is a reference to the territorial sea and various other seas. There is also mention of areas under foreign jurisdiction, and other areas. Would the parliamentary secretary assure us that when the matter goes to the committee there will be someone present from the department to tell us what part of the sea the bill does not refer to, in view of the broad definition that has been placed in the clause? Would he undertake to do that?


Len Marchand: Yes, I would be happy to give the undertaking that at the hearings of the committee on this bill we will answer all technical questions any hon. member would like to raise.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised to be debating this matter tonight, but I am pleased that the government has at last found the time to devote to this matter in the House of Commons.
This is a matter which all parties in the House have agreed is of some substantial importance to Canada, to the longer range development of programs and agreements of the type being discussed at the current conference in

April 22, 1975
Dumping at Sea
Geneva on the Law of the Sea, and to general questions relating to the establishment of some kind of international authority on issues which have too long existed without agreement. The failure to achieve agreement concerning some kind of rules has caused substantial problems for this and other coastal countries.
I missed part of the speech by the parliamentary secretary. I regret that I was not able to give attention to all the remarks he so carefully prepared. I certainly can share with him-and I say this on behalf of the official opposition-his concern that Canada should participate as much as possible in the conclusion of this accord and that it should participate as one of the original signatories to the ratification of the convention.
I want to enter the caveat, which is not ^erious but which I feel should be mentioned, that if during the detailed discussion at the committee stage it should become apparent to us that there are some serious deficiencies in the bill as it stands we will not allow an international time table to cause us to rush through this parliament a piece of legislation dealing with a subject matter which is too important to be dealt with in haste. However, in the event that this problem does not arise-and I respect the good will of the parliamentary secretary and his minister in this regard-I think we are certainly inclined to give the matter expeditious consideration in the committee.
Naturally there are a number of members of my party who have a long standing interest not simply in coastal matters but also have very important questions relating to the Law of the Sea, and who will want the opportunity to speak on this matter and raise questions in the standing committee concerning the implications of Bill C-37. There are some anomalies which I believe it is important to consider even at this early stage. One is that the bill on its face seems to refer to all substances, and yet in a later portion of the bill there is reference to the establishment of certain schedules. This would seem to indicate that there will be in the schedules some kind of limitation concerning the categories of substances which this bill or the convention will treat. This will certainly be one of the things we in this party will insist upon having information on at the committee stage.
We will want to have a detailed delineation of the contents of any schedule such as referred to in the bill. We will particularly want to have answered the question concerning whether this legislation will in fact deal with all substances or whether there will be in the schedules some kind of limitation in respect of the substances which will be dealt with, because this could seriously detract from the effectiveness of the convention internationally or the effectiveness of the legislation with which we are dealing this evening. Therefore I want to advise the parliamentary secretary and the government that we in this party will be interested in having quite a detailed elaboration on the relationship between the part of the bill which appears to refer to all substances and the implication in the latter part of the bill that there is a possibility we will be dealing with a limited range of substances.
As the bill stands it contains certain inherent limitations; perhaps as well as being inherent they are inevitable in dealing with matters of international law. The bill quite
	-
clearly deals with dumping where Canadian ships are involved or where a cargo which was loaded in Canada is involved. The extent of the prohibition with which we are dealing-I will await the contributions of some of my colleagues here who are more expert in the intricacies of the international law of the sea-has to do with a fairly limited number of ships which might be involved in dumping, a number limited either by the ships in question being Canadian ships or the cargoes in question being Canadian cargoes.
Apart from that, our shore lines which might be affected by loopholes in any international dumping agreement, and indeed the general safety and cleanliness of the seas, are not protected against the possibility of dumping by ships that either are not of Canadian registry or are not carrying Canadian cargoes. That, taken in tandem with the matter that I raised earlier-the question that is on our minds because there is a reference on the one hand to all substances being covered, and on the other hand a reference to certain schedules-raises some very serious questions as to how complete a protection will be given by the legislation to Canada as an interested coastal state, and indeed by the convention in the ratification of which it is intended that Canada participate.
If I may enumerate them again, there appear to be three categories of substance that could seep through a leak-hole-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I seem to be coining a new word.


Douglas Roche: That is the way the government operates.


Mr. Woolliams:: Did you say seep through a leaphole?


Charles Joseph Clark: -seep through a loophole. First, any substances which we think are prohibited but which do not appear to be in the schedule are in the first category. In the second category are substances which are dumped by non-Canadian ships, and in the third category are the commodities which are dumped which were not loaded in Canada.
I think it would be difficult for us at this stage in the debate to gather exact information on the range and importance of the substances that might be affected by the weaknesses in the bill. However, it is clearly a highly important matter for us to consider and on which to have some detailed information from the lawyers who have been involved in the discussions at the Law of the Sea Conference and who can tell us the extent to which Canada may be protected by the convention, and the offshore areas which our own law will protect. We would also want to have more information from people who are expert in marine practices and marine traditions as they relate to registry and to cargo loaded here in Canada or loaded in other places.
Given the weaknesses in the bill and given the fact that there are certain substances which can leak through, those of us who are interested in the protection of the Canadian coastline will be in the situation of having to rely upon the
April 22, 1975

powers of the international accord and, more particularly, upon the comprehensive nature of the international accord and its capacity to include countries which have operated in the past in the business of ship registration and perhaps have not been as careful as Canada would like to be in adhering to international regulations which would lead to a safer environment.
That, of course, is in the nature of the problem under any international law. Those who obey the law are always at the mercy of those who do not. I simply underline the point that we will be in that difficult situation here, and one of the matters on which we will seek some clarification and specific information in the committee has to do with what kind of substances might leak through the loopholes in this law, and also the incidence of problems arising either from ships of foreign registry or from cargoes loaded elsewhere than within the jurisdiction of the signatories to this particular accord.
Another limitation in the bill is that the strictures here apply to cases of deliberate disposals. Again it will be necessary to refer to the accumulated bodies of laws for a definition of deliberate. I think most of us would agree, and it is well established in our own legal system, that there is not much protection that we can provide, particularly in a rudimentary system, against accidental occurrences.
One would hope that the Department of the Environment is acting under other headings to try to protect our coastline against accidents, but the fact remains that there is no way in which we can prevent, by law, the occurrence of accidents. Perhaps we can respond, but we cannot prevent. So there is some sense in including the adjective deliberate, but it raises a serious problem of definition as to just when a disposal is deliberate and when it is accidental.
There will be a grey area that will cause some difficulties of interpretation. I imagine that there is some learning or case history in international law on this matter now, and that will be something to which we will want to give our attention in the standing committee. It is a matter of some concern to us that we may be creating, by the language of this legislation a capacity for certain countries, or certain ship owners who might not want to adhere to the convention, to find a way out because of the adjective deliberate. That is a matter to which, I am sure, the parliamentary secretary has given extensive attention, and I am looking forward to hearing from him, his advisers and the minister on this matter in committee, and on the extent of the loophole that it might create for people who normally come within the confines of this legislation.
There are some other problems that occur to me as I look at the legislation. Of course I will not violate the rules of the House by referring at this stage to specific clauses or subclauses, but a problem seems to arise in the case of emergencies. I am speaking now not from the perspective of the country that might be affected but from the perspective of the ship owner or captain who might be in the situation where he or his crew are faced with an emergency and, for the safety of his ship and of his crew, he might engage in some kind of dumping. Clearly that kind of thing happens at sea and it is clearly a matter which we must contemplate.
Dumping at Sea
As I read the bill-again this might be a matter on which the parliamentary secretary or advisers to the department can ease our concern-there is a requirement that before a cargo can be dumped there must be notification to a particular agency in order to claim exemption from the law. In other words, we may have some poor guy at sea in an emergency who might be faced with the problem of having to dump his cargo. If, for one reason for another, he is operating in waters or under agreements that make him subject to the accord of which we are speaking tonight, as I read this legislation he must notify someone to obtain permission to dump in the event of an emergency before he can be exempted from the strictures of the legislation.
It may well be that that is necessary, and it may well be that other countries which have engaged in the development of law relating to off-shore dumping have come to the conclusion that, if someone is going to suffer in an emergency situation, it is better that it be the ship experiencing the emergency than the country which tried to pass a law to protect its shoreline. It may well be that this will be a considered provision in this legislation, but that again is a matter we want to take advice upon later.
The bill establishes a board of review. I speak now of the effectiveness of this legislation in fact and of its capacity to serve in a genuinely protective way the Canadian coastal environment and, indeed, the coastal environment of other countries sufficiently concerned about this problem that they intend to be signatories to the international convention. But in the Canadian law there is a board of review established with discretionary powers, at least as I read the legislation. There is no automatic provision for the board of review to begin to act. It is up to the minister to decide whether a matter is to be referred to the board of review. That is my understanding of the legislation, and we might consider that in detail in committee.
The problem here is the problem of ministerial discretion. Whenever there is in a statute a provision for discretion by a minister, I think it behooves parliament to ask why that particular discretion is there. What is anticipated by the minister or by the department which causes them to introduce this discretionary provision? The question is not simply why that discretion is there, but who might benefit from it. I think that will be another matter we will want elaboration upon when we get to the stage of detailed discussion in committee. We should try to determine why there is this discretionary provision and who it might benefit, who might evade the provisions of the accord, because the board of review does not come into effect directly but comes into effect only with the agreement of the minister.
There is throughout this legislation and, indeed, throughout much of the legislation which is brought forward to deal with environmental matters in this country, a very real question as to the capacity of the general public to raise matters of concern to them, to raise matters which are not simply of specialized concern to people who happen to deal in the arcane regions of the law of the sea or inhabit the environment department. As I read this legislation there does not seem to be very much opportu-

April 22, 1975
Dumping at Sea
nity for individual members of the public, who might have reason to apprehend an emergency at sea, to anticipate such an emergency or to be effective in bringing into action the sections of this legislation.
I think that one of the matters of concern in this legislation, and in much of what has come forward from the Department of the Environment, is that there is relatively little attention given to a process which would encourage public participation, either in the sense of expressing anticipated dangers or in the sense of creating a mechanism which would allow for the effective registration of complaints.
We will want to consider that and particularly the failure, as I read the bill, of any mandatory provision for the public to initiate the calling of the board of review. That is done only with the permission of the minister, and there are a variety of reasons one could anticipate, without attributing ahy meanness of motive to the present minister, why the minister might not want to make that reference to exercise that discretion, but there is no mandatory right of the public or of a member of parliament to call the board of review into being, and that is a matter we will want to have explained to us with specificity at the committee stage.
One of the related weaknesses in this aspect of the bill is that even where public complaints might arise there is no provision in the bill, as I read it, for a reliable reference or a mandatory reference to the committee or to the board of review for consideration. Concerns which might have occupied question period in the House of Commons for five days in a row need not be referred, simply because they are in issue here, to the responsible agency. I admit that this is a long shot, but if the minister decides that he or she does not want that reference to be made, the minister has the discretion and the power to stop consideration of a question which may be of such public importance that it has occupied the attention of this House for some time. I do not mean to suggest that all matters which occupy the attention of this House for some time are necessarily of paramount importance, but that is often the case. One of the matters we want to have explained to us is why there is not a greater reference in this bill to the encouragement of a response to public concern.
One of the other matters which may make sense to people who might have had the chance to study in detail the whole history of issues relating to dumping, or perhaps to people who have specialized in law of the sea questions, is why there is a provision in the bill that there will be a two-year delay in any proceeding, in respect of the legislation, after its passage. I think we will want to have from the parliamentary secretary, or the minister or her officials in committee, some justification or some indication of the reasons for this two-year delay, and some justification for a delay which may extend over a period which could cause serious problems for the coastline of Canada and, indeed, for the waters off-shore.
As a layman in the various fields of international law it seems to me that this is a holiday which is given to people, companies, or ships which might violate the spirit of the accord, and we will want to know in some detail why there is this two-year delay in the application of the

possibility to charge an offender with an offence under the legislation we now have before us.
There is another matter which may have less to do with the problems of international law and the prohibition of dumping than it has to do with the status of the Department of the Environment among the portfolios of the government. As I read the definition section of this legislation there is reference to enforcement by a minister, but there is no specification as to who that minister will be. It may be that the minister concerned will be the Minister of the Environment, but we cannot take that for granted. The mere fact that the Minister of the Environment sponsors the bill does not mean that that minister will be the one referred to in the clauses of the legislation.
Just the other day we had legislation which appeared in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) and which would involve actions taken by other ministers. There is no guarantee of that, without the specific indication that the minister concerned here is the Minister of the Environment. That may seem a relatively small point to some members but it is not when seen in the context of the general concern of Canadian environmentalists for a commitment by the government to high environmental standards.
There has been all too much evidence on all too many fronts that the Department of the Environment in Canada is very much a junior partner, second in status and lacking in clout compared with other departments of the environment in other jurisdictions.


Mr. Corbin:: Name them.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am challenged by the hon. member opposite. I can name the United States of America for one. I know that my colleague from Madawas-ka-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is speaking with his usual expertise on this matter, which is to say not much, but it is clearly the case-


Eymard G. Corbin: The stupid things you are saying!


Charles Joseph Clark: -that in comparison with the United States the provisions for the empowering of environmental authorities in this country are much weaker. We could go through a list of examples starting with their determination to consider problems of asbestos discharges and going on to a number of other categories. If the hon. member opposite wants to engage in debate about the matter we can do that on another occasion.
The problem now is that we have a bill before us which might be enforced effectively by a strong minister of the environment but which probably would not be enforced effectively by a weak minister of the environment, and which certainly would not be enforced effectively if, by statute, the minister who had the power was not the minister of the environment.
If the government had the commitment to environmental questions that the hon. member opposite suggests it has, it would have specified in this legislation that the minister concerned here is the Minister of the Environ-
April 22, 1975

ment. What are we going to do if it turns out to be the minister of transport-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I make no personal reference to the present minister here, Mr. Speaker, but it might be that such minister, for reasons of his or her jurisdiction, would have an inclination to go easy on ships which might be likely to pollute.
I repeat the point I made earlier, Madam Speaker, that in this legislation there is a capacity for whichever minister is concerned to block the effectiveness of it. The apparatus we are establishing here can come into play only at the discretion of the minister. If the minister chooses not to exercise that discretion we are wasting our time in signing the accord or in passing this legislation. My colleagues seem prepared to celebrate the waste of time; we are not.
This is an important matter not simply as it applies to this particular piece of environmental legislation but as it applies to the whole question of the status of the Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, as we have seen in regard to environmental impact legislation and the attitude toward class actions and a number of other occasions, the Department of the Environment here does not have the standing relative to other departments that its counterpart has in our neighbour to the south, or that it should have in a country where environmental questions are as important as they are here.
We have so much to preserve in Canada in the way of offshore and coastal considerations, but the problem here is that we have established a minister whose discretion can cancel the effectiveness of this bill, and we have not specified which minister. We on this side of the House are concerned in any event with vesting in a minister that wide kind of discretion which can cancel the application of the bill. That is alarming enough in itself. What makes it even more alarming is the fact that it might not be the Minister of the Environment who can exercise that discretion, but some other minister with other priorities who has to heed other demands and jurisdictional questions.
If the Minister of the Environment is to have any credibility surely that minister must speak up, whatever the issue, on behalf of environmental quality. That is the justification for having a minister of the environment. That minister is supposed to be the spokesman in the cabinet for environmental quality. That assumes there are going to be, in a complex country like this with various interests, other ministers with other portfolios and other interests. The danger that exists in this legislation as it stands is that we can have a discretion to cancel exercised by a minister whose primary interest is not an environmental interest. I suggest that is an aspect that we will want to repair in the committee.
If some of my vociferous friends on the other side want to come to the committee I hope they will, and I hope to hear a rational explanation of the extraordinary step taken in this bill of not specifying which minister will be the effective minister, and of vesting in the minister a substantial discretion which would allow him or her, which would allow a minister of transport or a minister of
Dumping at Sea
the environment, to cancel the effectiveness of the legislation.


Albert Béchard: We have a strong Minister of the Environment.


Charles Joseph Clark: The chairman of the committee tells me we have a strong minister. The problem of the Minister of the Environment is not one of personal qualities but one of not having the legislative clout to do what must be done for the environment in this country. Even if the minister did have the legislative clout that she should have, there is no guarantee in this legislation that she will be the minister who can exercise the discretion which would be critical in putting the bill into effect.
Then there is the whole question of enforcement of the provisions of the bill. Will it be enforcement by reference to courts, international courts, or some body of international jurisprudence? Will some active attempt be made to police those parts of the Canadian sea which are within our jurisdiction? Does the government intend that the Department of National Defence, for example, will engage in enforcement activities? If so, what would that mean for the already limited budget of that department? Is it the government's intention to create some new kind of policing authority under the Department of the Environment perhaps, or some other department? The question is not how it will be done but whether it will be done. In the address of the parliamentary secretary I heard not one reference to that question, but it is one that should be elaborated on in committee.
There is one other matter which is more important to us than the other signatories to the convention or countries affected by it. That is the question of Canadian offshore areas in the Arctic. We have there a situation where the dangers of dumping can be much more severe than in southern climes. We share northern waters with only a few other countries of the world and probably only a few of the signatories to this convention. One of the matters on which we will need elaboration when this comes to committee is the special way in which this convention and this bill, which would allow Canada to give force to this convention, is going to be effective in the ecologically delicate areas of the Canadian Arctic. That is a matter on which both the parliamentary secretary and the bill have been silent. I advise the parliamentary secretary that it is a matter on which we are going to request considerable elaboration when it comes to committee.
Another factor that relates to the question of the potential use of National Defence ships and potential detection is whether, in carrying out the spirit of this convention, there is going to be any new emphasis upon detection of dangers arising from dumping, or any new development in the technology of cleaning up pollution problems caused by ocean dumping. There is no point to Canada simply signing a law and agreeing to a convention if that is all we are going to do.
If we are serious about preserving the quality of sea waters offshore to Canada, we have to do much more than simply pass this law or sign a convention. We will have to

Dumping at Sea
change substantially our approach to the whole question of the priority of the environment. We will have to assign that concern a priority which so far has not been assigned it by the government.
It is not enough just to have a bill or a convention. If we are serious about this we will have to engage in the development of new methods. We must be prepared to sponsor new research. We must take steps which will make it possible for Canada to act effectively on a day-today basis in dealing with problems which might arise because of the loopholes in this agreement or because of accidents that might occur.
Earlier in the discussion tonight one of my colleagues raised the very germane question of the progress of discussions now under way concerning the international Law of the Sea. It is abundantly clear from what I have been able to see in a brief discussion of this bill that this bill, as it stands, provides no protection unless it is backed up by a strengthening of the state of the international Law of the Sea.
The bill allows loopholes concerning cargoes loaded outside Canada, ships of foreign registry, leakages that might be construed not to have been deliberate, and actions about which the minister may have decided, for whatever reason, not to exercise a discretion.
There are all sorts of possibilities for pollution to occur despite this piece of paper we are discussing here this evening. One of the most important safeguards we can develop, and of which this bill can be a part, is to continue, and give greater importance to, the process now under way in Geneva to strengthen the international Law of the Sea.
In this matter, and in many others which involve Canada's relations with other countries, what we do in this parliament is only a very small part of the job. It is only a very small part of our protection. It will turn out to have been in vain unless we can establish some international mechanism to ensure adherence to the standards which we might set out in statute, or the standards which might flow from an international convention respecting ocean dumping.
I have raised some of the concerns that I, and my colleagues in the official opposition, have about this bill. I reiterate that we share the concern of the government that Canada have the opportunity to be one of the signatory nations in the bringing into force of this convention. However, I repeat the caveat I uttered earlier. Unless we are given adequate answers to some of the questions we raised, unless there is some assurance the loopholes we are dealing with are going to be closed or narrowed, and unless there is some assurance that we are engaged in something more than a gesture, we will hold up the bill in committee until we get a good bill. We are not going to pass a bad bill simply so Canada can be a party to the signing of an international convention.
We share the concern of the government, the minister and the parliamentary secretary regarding the importance of this legislation. We regret that it was not brought in earlier. We on this side of the House were told for some time that this was a matter of priority to the government, yet it is only now under extraordinary circumstances that

the government has introduced it. We are prepared to overlook the gap between the priority it claims and the priority it displays. However, we are not prepared to overlook the gaps which exist in this legislation and which could cause problems and thereby render our work here and in committee useless.
In closing I simply repeat that we agree with the motives of the bill. We have some concern about the particulars of it. It is a bill which we feel unhappily reflects the generally junior status of the Department of the Environment in the government. This bill will only be effective in the final analysis when Canada and Canadians can play an important role in causing other nations of the world to develop a stronger body of international law.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) will realize that the facetious comment I interjected in the first two or three minutes of his speech, which was made in the spirit of the proceedings of the House at that moment, did not represent either my view or the view of this party with respect to Bill C-37.
The fact is that we regard this as a serious and very important piece of legislation. We would like to see it get second reading within a reasonable period of time so that it can be sent to the standing committee for the thorough study it will have to be given there. After all, it takes only a cursory glance at the 25 pages of the bill to realize that it is a highly technical piece of legislation. It is the sort of bill that can best be examined in a committee where, in addition to the members themselves being present, there can be the officials who can advise on the terms of this legislation.
I would like to say that in my view and in the view of this party every step we take, even if is not the giant step we would like to see taken, in the direction of doing something about pollution anywhere, is important and should be supported.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I like the words, poetic though they were, with which the hon. member completed his speech. He said the sea was the heritage of all of us. That is true, and steps should be taken to make sure it is protected. This goes for the sea, for our own inland waters, and for the air above and around us. We are really just getting started on the whole business of controlling pollution. Future generations are looking to us to take all the steps we can to protect our environment, and there is no time to lose.
I gather from statements made by members of the official opposition that they will probably complain that the bill does not go far enough. And then, within minutes, they are likely to complain that it goes too far.


An hon. Member:: That always happens!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hon. members opposite appear to be in good spirits tonight. That pleases me very much. I agree that further steps will have to be

taken; I see loopholes in the legislation already. The point is that together with other nations we are getting started in an attempt to protect the oceans against undue pollution.
The hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) made the point that emergencies might arise at sea in circumstances in which a person in charge of a vessel might have to carry out dumping in the absence of a permit, or without making the required report. I would remind the hon. member that such a situation is covered in clause 8 of the bill. The descriptive word used in the marginal note is "Emergencies". It says that notwithstanding what is contained in subclause (4) (1) dumping may be carried out without a permit if it is necessary to avert danger to human life at sea or to any ship or aircraft. So the emergencies are covered. The clause goes on to circumscribe the permission which is given, but it strikes me from a quick reading of the bill that an attempt has been made to put forward legislation which will at least constitute a start in this important field.
It is also said we should not be expected, as a country with a great deal of interest in the ocean, to take all the responsibility; that others will have to work with us. That is true. But what is involved is the carrying through of a purpose. We signed the Oslo Convention on December 29, 1972, and I would say that if even 15 nations of the world are prepared to take steps to protect the oceans against undue pollution we should be part of that effort. The leadership we can give in this field is important, and it is the kind of thing Canadians want to do.
I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain about the question of which minister is to be in charge of the legislation we are considering. I agree with him that it ought to be the Minister of the Environment. I agree that the clout of the Department of the Environment should be strengthened, and I hope this will be the decision eventually reached. I have to say, though, that I am not scandalized by the fact the bill does not name a particular minister as minister in charge of the act, but leaves it to be decided later. I say this because I have seen similar provisions in a number of bills; in other words, some latitude is given to the government to make a decision.
I agree with the hon. member for Rocky Mountain that it should not be a minister who might be involved in a conflict of interest and who might therefore play down concern over the environment because of some commercial consideration. Perhaps the minister chosen could be someone like the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I can see the holder of that office as a possible minister in charge rather than, say, the Minister of Transport within whose department a conflict of interest might easily arise. In any case, the matter has not been resolved against the Minister of the Environment-the wording is set out in subclause (2) (1).
I do not agree with everything the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said, but I join with him in expressing the hope that added strength will be given to the Department of the Environment. There is no use this department becoming just a hanger-on, one which gets into the picture now and then. Preservation of our environment is one of the most important issues facing us in the latter part of
Dumping at Sea
the 20th century. It is terribly important to the 21st century, and the sooner we build up this department and give it the strength and authority to enable it to make effective decisions concerning our environment regardless of commercial considerations, the better it will be for all concerned.
I am the last to suggest the bill is perfect or that it does not need to be carefully considered in committee with the officials present, but participating with other countries in the world in an attempt to protect the seas around us is a good and an important endeavour and I should like to see second reading given to the bill fairly soon so that it may be sent to the appropriate standing committee.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the first two speakers representing the official opposition come from the province of Alberta which is a land-locked province. This is a fact which I believe underscores the importance of the bill before us, one which goes far beyond the superficial idea that it is of concern only to the provinces which border our seas.
We shall be hearing tonight from a representative of our party from British Columbia, and undoubtedly he will speak out of his concern for the protection of the coastline of that province. But it is particularly important for us to understand the final sentence spoken by the parliamentary secretary in introducing this bill when reluctantly, it seemed to me, he came round to a recognition that antidumping legislation affecting the high seas and the seas adjacent to Canada is connected with the whole issue of the pollution of a common heritage of mankind. This places the bill in a far larger context than that of unilateral action taken by Canada, or even of Canada becoming a signatory to a convention. This bill has far wider ramifications than anti-dumping, and that is why I pleaded with him at the conclusion of his remarks and criticized him for stopping short in his speech.
What the world is concerned about today in regard to our seas is not simply anti-dumping legislation, however important that be for the protection of this part of our environment that covers four-fifths of the surface of the globe. What is of concern to the world today is the total management of the seas.
As we examine this bill we read that the measure will provide for the control of dumping waste and other substances in the ocean; for the establishment of a board of review consisting of not more than three persons; that it will provide that the federal Crown is bound by the measure; for fines in contravention thereof in the amounts prescribed; and for costs of the federal Crown to repair or remedy any condition or to mitigate any damage, and for their recovery.
In implementing this recommendation contained in the bill, I ask how we can expect other nations of the world that have access to the high seas, and whose vessels pass within 200 miles of our shores, to observe our rights if we do not indicate today that we are concerned with the common rights of mankind which are currently under examination at the Law of the Sea conference? I am
5096

April 22, 1975
Dumping at Sea
saying very plainly to you, Madam Speaker, that it is futile for us to have a narrow concern regarding antidumping, however important that be, if we do not join with that concern a much more active role of leadership in regard to protecting the high seas and the 200 mile zone, of which I will speak in a moment. We must show a determination to use the seas and their fabulous wealth for the good of mankind.
I will enter evidence in a moment indicating that Canada is not doing that. Hence my argument is that it is rather pointless for us to be introducing this bill in the expectation that it is going to be sufficient to protect our seas from dumping, whether by Canadian vessels or foreign vessels that come close to our territorial waters. We must, as I say, play a much more active role in leading the way.
I want to suggest that the threat to the oceanic ecosystem, including the threat to the food chain and the very air that we breathe, is the question that is before us tonight. This threat comes not only from oil installations in the sea but, even more, from land based pollution, from conscious ocean dumping, from rivers polluted with lethal substances, and from pollution of the atmosphere by the burning of petroleum and other fuels. The world's oceans are one, and pollution respects no national boundaries.
Therefore it is not for Canada alone to take any kind of unilateral action in regard to protection of the seas or the seas adjacent to us; we must win the respect and co-operation of other nations. This is partly what the Law of the Sea conference is all about. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that this bill should not be discussed, and that when it gets to committee the committee should not discuss it without reference to Canada's role today in the Law of the Sea conference which is now being held in Geneva.
The Law of the Sea conference resumed in Geneva three or four weeks ago, the first session having been held in Caracas last year. There was a clear trend toward the acceptance of what the government itself has called a three tiered concept of the Law of the Sea. The first is that there be established an economic zone out to 200 miles from the coasts of nations, over which those nations would have control of the fishing and mineral rights within those 200 miles; secondly, that there be established an international area beyond the economic zone reserved for the common heritage of mankind; thirdly, that there be the application throughout the oceanic space of sound management principles for the use and preservation of the sea.
When the conference resumed in Geneva, attended by the majority of the nations of the world, an attempt was made to produce what has been called a package agreement by which there would be brought into one general agreement all those factors concerning pollution, navigational rights, fishing rights and, most important, mineral rights. This package agreement is to open the door or lead the way to a common heritage fund that is to be administered under international authority. This international authority will take the first significant step that has been taken since the United Nations came into being in sharing the wealth of the world in a planetary sense.
No one has been concerned until now about the kind of wealth that can be produced from the high seas, other than

fishing wealth. This is because it has not been technologically possible to produce from the high seas mineral wealth in great quantity and of great value. We know there is immense wealth in the seas. To show how important this subject is-I am not talking here of the international zone beyond 200 miles but only of the economic zone within 200 miles of the shores of coastal states-within that relatively small area of 200 miles there is $20 trillion worth of exploitable oil and gas.
There are many nations that went to the Law of the Sea conference wanting an international authority established that would share revenue derived from the exploitation of the mineral resources of the sea within a 200 mile zone. Most of the developed countries vetoed this proposal, Canada included. If I had to, I could establish an argument that the developed countries of the world should agree to the establishment of an international authority to share such revenue on a global basis in order to close the gap between the rich nations and the poor nations of the world, which is the cause of the social dilemma that we are facing today. However, I am not going to establish that argument because at the moment I want to concentrate upon that part of the high seas beyond the 200 mile zone- the high seas.
I know that mineral exploitation is not yet technically advanced sufficient to realize this fantastic amount of wealth that is rather immediately recoverable from within this zone of 200 miles. What I am concerned about is that part of the high seas beyond the 200 miles which is most open to the argument of international authority since it gets away from the first 200 miles.
Now we come back to Canada and this bill. Sometimes I wonder, as I look around the House, whatever happens to speeches made here. I only hope somebody reads them. I know there are losts of meetings and things going on which the ministers have to attend, but hon. members of the opposition try to present positive suggestions, some in support of government measures that come before this House, in an effort to move Canada ahead and in recognition of our international responsibility. One only hopes that some of the ideas that spill out on this floor gradually find their way at least into consideration by the government.
The Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), his deputy and his assistant, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are all away. No one is ever here to hear these things. One wonders about the usefulness of this exercise, and one is not surprised that so many members of the public are disillusioned about the political process today. I will not deviate too long on that.
The important thing is that today Canada is taking part in this Law of the Sea conference at Geneva. We are not debating it here in the House. No one is standing up in the House each day asking what we are doing at this most important United Nations conference. We are not doing that. We are dealing with a rather narrowly focused bill which is a nice piece of motherhood. My friend, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), had some legitimate criticisms, but even he had some difficulty in finding
April 22, 1975

some really substantial points to criticize in respect of this bill, mainly because it does not really say that much. This is stange when there is so much that ought to be said by Canada in the explosive world of today.
I now come back to our position at the Law of the Sea conference and what actually is happening there. That conference today is breaking down in that it cannot come to a package agreement because it cannot agree on the concept of revenue sharing beyond 200 miles. It cannot agree to sharing in that international zone, and one wonders why. One reason, among others, is that Canada is opposing it.
Canada is today, and I want to make this point very clear, killing the idea of a common heritage of the sea by its conduct in Geneva right now. Canada is killing that concept. I would only indicate one remark made at the Law of the Sea conference by a representative of Kenya, who said just over the weekend:
If the Canadians would only offer revenue-sharing as a trade for their claim to the margin then there might still be a chance for agreement.
What does he mean by margin? He means our continental margin extending out in some cases 640 miles. He is talking about that area over which we want total economic control beyond the 200 miles. If we had total control of our continental shelf in both oceans we would expand the acreage of Canada by 40 per cent. I would ask hon. members to remember that Canada is the second largest country in the world, having 7.6 per cent of the land mass of the world today, even though we have only one-half of 1 per cent of the population of the entire world. To this we are now asking in Geneva that we add the right to total control over that amount of land beneath the oceans which would add 40 per cent. I would ask if that is a reasonable position for Canada to take. I would certainly listen to anybody who stands up and says that is a reasonable position, but I do not think it is, and I do not think there are many members of parliament who will get up and say it is reasonable.
The conference at Geneva today is breaking down because we are adhering to that idea, and because there is a lack of acceptance by developed nations of the whole idea of the common heritage of mankind. I only suggest that Canada should develop much more cognizance of its international responsibilities.
I support the Prime Minister in his speeches in this regard, as I support the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his two most recent speeches on Canada's role internationally, made in the months of March and April of this year when introducing his estimates to the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. When the Prime Minister was in London he made a speech that has been noted around the world. I have seen it quoted in the international press in several countries. I want to align myself with the thoughts of his speech as reflected in the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Prime Minister said:
The human community is a complex organism linked again and again within itself and as well with the biosphere upon which it is totally dependent for life. This interdependency demands of us two functions: first the maintenance of an equilibrium among all our activities, whatever their nature; second, an equitable distribution, worldwide, of resources and opportunities.
Dumping at Sea
He referred to an equitable distribution, worldwide, of resources and opportunities, but you simply cannot square these comments, laudable as they are, with our conduct at the law of the sea conference, or with our posture here tonight in talking about anti-dumping legislation to protect Canadian shores. This will simply not wash in a world today torn between the growing disparity of rich and poor nations.
This concept will not wash either in a world that is having a series of United Nations conferences on population, on food, on resources and on the Law of the Sea, culminating with a special session on development at the United Nations this fall. When all these problems come into sharp focus this position will not wash. We cannot have it both ways. We cannot make fine speeches on what we feel is our international role and then go into this Law of the Sea conference with the position I know that Canadian technocrats are taking there, mainly with the object of protecting our own interests first and foremost. I have not been at the Law of the Sea conference but I have been at others, and I know this will not wash in the kind of world we are living in today which is lacking leadership from countries like Canada.
I feel very badly that when we get into conferences the position of Canada seems to be confined to technical positions. Our position in this House is confined to pieces of legislation that are of marginal significance when there remain outside this House, and away from parliament, tremendous questions regarding Canada's relationship to the world population explosion.
I only plead with the government to reconsider its position at the Law of the Sea conference before its delegates come to the final conclusion that Canada is among those countries that killed the common heritage idea of the seas, and before we lose one of the greatest opportunities we have had in the 20th century of establishing an international authority with some teeth in it, based on the concept of revenue sharing in respect of mineral exploitation in that part of the world which has not yet been claimed by any national authority.
We must be able to think beyond our own self national interest for every moment of every day. I am not selling out Canada or saying it does not have the right to protect its development. Certainly we have that right, but we do 'not have the right to be overly concerned with the total economic control of an area equal to 40 per cent of our land mass, when that very attitude will be responsible for killing the concept of common heritage of the seas.
Finally I would conclude with the thought offered by my colleague, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. I too do not think the Minister of the Environment is the one to handle this matter, and I say this in context with my arguments so far. I think it is far too big and involves far more than environmental questions. If we are to take that into account and think of who is to control this and how Canada fits in, surely we must feel that this ought to be a matter for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He is a minister to whom I give full credit as I think he is increasingly conscious of all these problems. I think he is aware that we, as Canadians, must have a greater participation in these matters, and therefore, if we are to talk
5098

April 22, 1975
Dumping at Sea
about anti-dumping legislation, it should be that minister who is put in charge.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be in charge. But that is a lesser concern to me than the general interest of this parliament and the government. I can only repeat the content of my opening question to the parliamentary secretary. He gave us a very deficient and narrow presentation. I plead with him and his minister to say something better at the committee hearings on behalf of Canada and the national authority.


Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I regret that I was not present to hear the introductory comments of the parliamentary secretary. However, I wish him to know and to convey to the minister that we believe this is the sort of bill that this country has been waiting for. It is high time we had a bill of this nature. There are many housekeeping matters which must be dealt with in this bill, but I believe it is important that it be considered.
This party, through two speakers, is on record as believing that this is the sort of bill Canada needs for the control of pollution off its shores. As I see it this is in accord with the implementary portion of the bill with regard to the ratification process of a convention so to speak, in respect of the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of waste and other matter at sea, signed by Canada in December, 1972. I believe it is unfortunate in many respects that we should have to wait for an international convention before coming up with legislation to deal with a matter which is so urgent for a country with such a long coast line.
The convention, I believe, was negotiated in the IMCO context, the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization, and is part of a series of negotiations undertaken by that organization of the trading nations, those nations which ship and receive their goods by sea, so as to improve the rules of the sea over the conditions which existed in earlier years, and looking forward to the 80's. I am delighted there is before us now legislation that would permit us to implement the provisions of that convention, a portion of which is being dealt with in another context. As my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona said this is part of the Law of the Sea.
Generally when one thinks of the Law of the Sea, unless one is dealing with it in some detail, one thinks of it as defining the limits of the territorial boundaries out to sea beyond the land mass of the state, and then perhaps beyond that into a zone over which the coastal state has some control. My colleague mentioned the vast area beyond that which was once known as the high seas and asked what is to be done about that. Pollution exists out there.
The conference on the Law of the Sea which is meeting at Geneva at the moment is dealing with pollution as well as the definition of territorial and management limits. It is also of course dealing with fisheries within and beyond those limits. Then there is also the matter of mining in the seabed and research into many of the facets that make up the maritime environment, such as research into fisheries, research into current, and research into upper air move-

ments which affect the weather out beyond those areas of national control. This evening I believe it was unfortunate that the sponsor of this particular bill, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) was not present to introduce it.


Len Marchand: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. My question of privilege is that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) mentioned that the Minister of the Environment should be here tonight. I merely wish to point out that she is with Prince Charles, and is unable to be present.


Donald W. Munro: I merely regretted her absence. I was not commenting on it. I just said it is unfortunate she is not here. I am sure she would like to be here to introduce this bill. I know she has left it in the very competent hands of the parliamentary secretary.
There is one element in the bill which fascinates me every time I run into it. I run into it more and more in respect of legislation. It is what I call the overriding clause. We found it the other night in Bill C-25. We found it in Bill C-32. We find this overriding clause, so to speak, in clause 3 of this particular bill. I mentioned that it is contained in four or five other measures passed by previous Liberal governments. It is becoming a habit. I should like to read this article so that it will be clearly understood by the House what the intent of the government is in respect of federal-provincial relations. It states:
This act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province and any agent thereof.
There is no mention of consultation between the federal government and the provinces. It is an overriding mandate which, in effect, says that it is this government which decides, and that the provinces must do what it says. If my memory serves me correctly I believe this is about the seventh instance in which we have had this overriding terminology in legislation. I find this supersedes disallowance which is no longer used. Instead of provincial legislation being disallowed we now have an overriding clause in legislation to deal with the provinces as this government sees fit. I think it is worth dealing with this matter in the committee.
The bill will be going to committee shortly; there is no question about that. When I was asked if I would be interested in intervening in respect of this particular bill I was delighted to agree to do so, but I did not know that it would come up this evening. I took a brief glance at the recommendation which gives a brief summary of what this legislation is intended to do.
It has three or four purposes. The first is to provide for the control of dumping waste and other substances in the ocean. The second is to provide for the establishment of a board of review and to provide that the federal Crown is bound by the measure, and for fines in contravention thereof in the amounts prescribed. That is interesting. Just as this legislation binds the Crown, in right of Canada, it binds the province. Therefore, if a fisheries vessel or a patrol vessel of the RCMP should contravene this legislation, they will find themselves in real trouble. This is a progressive and very good form of legislation.
April 22, 1975

Finally, the purpose of this legislation is to provide for costs of the federal Crown to repair or remedy any condition or to mitigate any damage, and for their recovery. This is why I think the Minister of the Environment could very well find herself involved in this particular operation. It is under the Department of the Environment in association with the Department of Transport that the clean up operations, particularly respecting oil spills, must be undertaken.
So I do not think it is a matter of surprise that the Minister of the Environment should have introduced this legislation. It could have been the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) or, as my hon. friend suggested, perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen). Basically the object of the bill is to ensure that there is no pollution, but if something is to be done about it, that is an environmental problem.
Now I should like to comment on dumping in general terms. There is one piece of information which I think is well worth putting on the record for those who are busy talking tonight, and who will perhaps read the record tomorrow. There is a rather interesting bit of information which I discovered in my reading over the weekend. I have managed to get hold of a copy of Noel Mostert's "Supership", and account of the construction of super tankers, the problems of living on them, of loading and unloading them, the problems of their navigation, and so on.
I was struck by one particular paragraph in chapter seven of this book which deals with what is left behind in a supertanker, clinging to the walls or the floor of the tanks as they are being discharged. It is rather a frightening thought when one considers what happens to this particular material that is not pumped out of the vessel when it is being unloaded. A vessel carrying 200,000 tons of crude oil will leave behind clinging to the walls of the tanks, one per cent of its cargo, or 2,000 tons. What happens to that crude? If it is left in the tanks, it will generate gases and create a danger for that ship. Ships have been known to disappear following an explosion of this source.
What is happening is that these tanks are sluiced down with water at high temperatures, and when the ship gets far enough out from shore, the tanks are sluiced out and what is left is dumped out into the sea. This is what Noel Mostert is complaining about, and this is what we should be complaining about. It is also worth recording that this same Noel Mostert once sat in the press gallery here. So I commend this book, not only because it was written by a former member of the press gallery but also because it contains a great deal of information that is valuable. The book is well written, and it is readable. It is written on a subject which we should all know about in present circumstances.
Let me come back to the sluicing of the tanks of the supertankers and what happens to the remains. They are thrown out to sea. We are talking about shortages of crude these days. I think measures should be taken to recover what is left of the crude and to have the tanks pumped while the ship is still in port, or preserved and unloaded into a barge that could accompany the ship as it sits out to sea. Some means must be found to recover this discharge,
Adjournment Debate
which is noxious, toxic, and causes the pollution that brought about this particular convention.
I will not get very far into this bill tonight, I can see, Madam Speaker. Under the definitions, for example, I find on page three the following:
For the purposes of this act, "the sea" means
(a)	the territorial sea of Canada;
(b)	the internal waters of Canada other than inland waters;
(c)	any fishing zones ...
(d)	the arctic waters ...
The arctic waters are well defined in the act. The bill goes on to read:
(e)	any area of the sea adjacent to the areas referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) as may be prescribed;
In passing I might mention that paragraph (d) which reads "as may be prescribed" is obviously a typographical error and the subsequent paragraphs (f) and (g) should be relettered. There was another definition which occurred in answer to a question of mine not long ago when I was tracing the saga of that magnificent ship Answer, which would answer to no call. Not even the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) could bring it back. But it looks as though I shall have to call it ten o'clock, Madam Speaker, and there is no answer.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Madam Speaker, I should like to float an idea here this evening and I will smuggle it onto the floor of this chamber by the use of my dissatisfaction with the answer given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to a question of mine the other day. Actually I did not expect anything different from what the minister had replied to me and, given my comic nature, I did not pursue the question with three or four others which would really have shown what I had in mind. But I would like to take the opportunity for a few minutes this evening to leave the hon. gentleman with at least something to think about. I do not expect an immediate reply from him.
My question arose from the recent strike of the blue collar employees and was prompted by two facts. One was that the Public Service Alliance of Canada in its battle with the federal government used as shock troops the employees who did maintenance work. Many of us on our week end forays into our ridings-if we managed to get there at all-were treated to the spectacle of airports jammed with people who were simply not able to travel, as they had normally expected, over one of the busier seasons

April 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate
of the year. That was part of the story, and I think the bitterness from that is still reverberating in many a Canadian household.
The other part of the story came from another matter I raised in the House recently, and that was that some of the blue collar workers who were a part of the larger alliance-but not the part which was on strike-were prevented from going to work at Willow Park, the army service base in the city of Halifax, and rather than challenge members of the same union and thereby risk some considerable conflict, on the advice of their superiors they did not go to work. They stayed away. For a while the Treasury Board was inclined to dock their pay. Then better sense set in, and those people have been paid.
I think those two different episodes point out that it is psychologically impossible for people who belong to a large union and who are forbidden the right to strike- that is, they are in what are called designated groups-to refuse picket lines. If picket lines are thrust up, or if they are asked to go on strike, it does not matter that the law says they are forbidden to strike. They feel they have to be one with their fellows in the labour union and stay away from work, and yet this clearly flouts the law of Canada.
So I asked whether the government intended not only to prosecute the designated employees for disobeying the law-and I call these people the "Joe Lunch-pail" types- but whether it would go further and prosecute those higher ups, Claude Edwards and other people at the very top of the Public Service Alliance who, from day one in their disputes with the government, have put these people on strike from time to time across Canada. There is no question but that this has happened. We all knew that even before the first strikes occurred, people at the airports would be used on a strike basis and on a selective basis, but on a calculated basis, so that to me the higher ups of the union by putting these people on the strike lines in some way flouted the law.
My suggestion is simply that there should not be people belonging to the same union, some of whom are forbidden to strike, and others who are permitted to strike. If we have to have designated groups who cannot strike, we have to give them a special privilege. We have to give them an opportunity to be represented-but only by themselves-in labour associations. They should not belong to labour associations of which part of the membership is permitted to strike. I know this is a great denial of liberties for such people, but I think it is the only practical solution one can find to prevent the kind of strikes which bedevilled transportation a few weeks ago.
In conclusion, every effort should be made to see that those designated employees denied a rather basic labour right should be given almost continuous attention by the government to see that their pay is never out of line and that their grievances are never left too long before solution. I do not quite know how this could be done, but perhaps it could be done by some special board of labour experts. Unless we do that, the suggested approach of the government to drive up the penalties against designated employees who go on strike when they are not permitted to do so, is a solution that will not work.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this is not an easy subject, as you understand. When the hon. member put his question in the House a few days ago he asked me if we had prosecuted some union officials. I can report that those who have violated the law have been prosecuted.
Some stewards, local presidents and vice-presidents, a vice-president of a national component and a regional vice-president of a component union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada are included in our application for prosecution for unlawful activities that occurred in December, 1974. At this moment we are processing cases of all others who have acted illegally during the strike of a few weeks ago. It is not for pleasure that we took that course, but the policy of the government is to respect the right to strike for those who have it, and those who do not have it must be prosecuted.
In the past when there was a settlement there was always a kind of compromise by which we withdrew all charges. This time I did not withdraw the charges. I wanted to clarify that situation. Of course, there were some people who were caught in the process in good faith, and as they are members of the union, but designated, it caused some confusion when their friends were on the picket lines. But they knew they were designated. The designation was agreed between the union and the government and every one knew who was designated and who was not. They gambled and thought they were right to gamble, but sometimes we have to draw the line and this time we did it.
I think the hon. member's suggestion makes sense and I will advise him, because I do not have much time to debate tonight, that a good place to make this argument is in front of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate which is to consider the Finkelman report. That will come up very quickly; members of this House and the other place can put their propositions forward and I hope this particular idea will be considered. It is difficult to make a pronouncement on it at this time because the government has not taken a stand on the Finkelman report. We wanted to be fair to members because we were asking them to give us their advice. I did not want to tell them beforehand what I will do, but rather I want to get their ideas.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING SECTION 613 OF CRIMINAL CODE IN VIEW OF DECISION IN MORGENTALER CASE-POSSIBILITY OF PARDON FOR DR. MORGENTALER
[Stage Direction]
Mb. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster): Madam Speaker, I am rising in regard to a question I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House recently dealing with section 613 of the Criminal Code and the ramifications of that section as a result of the recent Morgentaler case in the Supreme Court of Canada.
The jury system has been honoured in our legal traditions since almost the beginning of legal history. We have relied on it to prevent the elite or the state from imposing its view on the community. We have always argued that, in terms of the facts and what occurred in the community, the jury system was the bulwark for the ordinary person
April 22, 1975
[Stage Direction]
to have protection from tyranny-from the elite. In legal jurisprudence, they have always been the final judge of the facts.
The uniqueness of the Morgentaler case is that, under the provisions of the Criminal Code, the Supreme Court of Canada found that a court of appeal can superimpose not only its verdict on the law but also its verdict on the facts. That becomes an extremely dangerous legal precedent for those of us who cherish the jury system in this country.
In the jury system you perhaps deal with 12 prejudices. With a judge, you may deal with one. I am convinced that, in any fair judgment of the facts when we want to find out what the community standards really are, and in terms of the ordinary experience and ordinary human beings, when we depart from the principle of relying on 12 men good and true, we depart from one of the fundamental cornerstones of democracy in this country. Therefore I urge the government to give serious consideration to that section of the Criminal Code which has been under such severe attack in the Morgentaler case.
There is another aspect to that case. That is not the only thing that is unique about the Morgentaler case. In that case the Crown proceeded with preferred indictment and not in the normal way by preliminary hearing. The defence therefore lost one of the usual opportunities one has in these kinds of cases.
There is something else unique about that case. The court of appeal ordered the lower court judge to impose a sentence upon Dr. Morgentaler before the Supreme Court of Canada had heard his subsequent appeal.
We are looking at a unique situation, one that admittedly rarely occurs. In spite of that, no consideration is being given to a free pardon. I have to ask some questions.
The evidence in the Morgentaler case was that between
5,000	and 6,000 abortions had been done by that doctor. The reason he did so many was because of the confidence the medical profession in the Montreal area had in him. Why were charges not laid in Montreal against any other member of the medical profession for counselling an offence? I think that is a very serious question. I realize the federal minister does not have direct responsibility for this. However, I would ask that his ministry make proper and appropriate inquiries of the Quebec minister of justice as to why other Criminal Code offences have not been proceeded with, investigated, or pursued.
The suspicion remains that this doctor has been made a martyr. I recognize the position of Dr. Morgentaler. Perhaps he wants to be a martyr for a cause in which he sincerely believes. Nevertheless it is wrong for the state to attempt to create this kind of legal precedent and create a martyr in these circumstances.
Again I ask the very serious question, why only Dr. Morgentaler? I am sure there is overwhelming evidence of many others who have done exactly the same. I ask that proper inquiries be made. I ask why more charges have not been laid in the Morgentaler case. Last but not least, why is Dr. Morgentaler not being given an opportunity to receive the American humanist award? There is ample precedent for this.
Adjournment Debate
There is no need for vindictiveness. Admittedly, it is a controversial case. People have very deep feelings on either side of the issue. The unnecessary harshness of the Quebec minister of justice the other day, suggesting that he got what he deserved, is incredible. Surely it is not for him to pass comment on sentences imposed by the courts. That is an incredible statement.
Dr. Morgentaler has requested leave from prison in order that he may receive the American humanist award. On receipt of this reward he will be in such company as Dr. Margaret Mead and the previous Canadian recipient of the award, Mrs. Grace Maclnnis. I realize that that is not the direct responsibility of this ministry, but not to allow this man to go from prison to receive that award is a disgrace.
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, the Morgentaler case has become a leading case that will go down into history. Its implications are not only personal but collective. This decision involves human aspects and challenges fundamental principles liable to affect the future of all Canadians. Therefore the legislator must act with care and restraint to avoid taking sides in a case where ethics and the law overlap and we legislators often have to make this important distinction.
Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Justice said earlier in the House, regarding the pardon for Dr. Morgentaler, hon. members will understand that any action by the executive about pardon or the commuting of a sentence must be limited to the rare cases where it is a matter of maintaining the integrity and power of justice. The executive's general power of clemency should not be confused with the power to grant a reprieve in the case of capital punishment where the Criminal Code stipulates an examination of the sentence by the cabinet. The general power of clemency is very rarely used; if it were not, the cabinet would become a court of appeal from the decisions of the Supreme Court.
Naturally, the government studied the consequences of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, which has the power of a court of appeal to reverse a jury's verdict of acquittal and substitute a verdict of culpability, with a view to deciding whether the law should be changed in this regard. According to the government, the decision of the Supreme Court in this case obviously proves that this power of appeal is very rarely resorted to and, consequently, that there is no reason to fear the ruling of the Supreme Court will harm the jury system. The Supreme Court pointed out that this was the first time the power of appeal had been invoked in Canada and that it can be resorted to only in very exceptional cases.
As to the investigation asked by my hon. friend, I think he raised a very interesting point, and without wanting to give an opinion on the decision of the attorney-general who prosecuted Dr. Morgentaler, I am very sympathetic towards someone who is thrown in prison, but I am perhaps a little less so when this person boasts about having violated the law and claims he is proud of it.

April 22, 1975
Adjournment Debate
This is perhaps a partial answer, but I shall extend the invitation of my colleague with his interesting comments to the Minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allocated to him is now over.


ABORTION-REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, some time ago I addressed a question to the government with respect to the definition of health as it relates to the Criminal Code, and specifically to the provision covering abortion.
The definition which had been generally accepted, or which was widespread at the time amendments to the Code were being established, was that the health of the mother meant her physical health and also her mental health. Much discussion and debate have taken place since that time as to the legal and medical definitions which should be operative in defining the health of a mother.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who at the time the Code was amended was Minister of Justice, has, along with others, gone further in his interpretation of the law as it applies, or as it should apply, to abortion, and in agreement with the United Nations view he adds that economic and social considerations should be taken into account when reaching decisions as to whether or not legal abortions should be granted.
It is my contention that if we go to this extreme we have in essence arrived at abortion on demand. I do not believe this was the intention of the government, or of those members who voted for the amendment to the Criminal Code. It would constitute, to my mind, the removal of any restriction, and abortion as a crime might as well be removed from the Criminal Code.
In the Ottawa Journal for March 6 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is quoted as follows:
Mr. Turner said because opinion is so sharply divided on the issue-
That is the abortion issue.
-criminal law should not be used to force one moral view over another.
"When there is no consensus, criminal law should withdraw and it should be a personal matter," Mr. Turner continued.
I believe that is an abrogation of the guarantees given by the then Minister of Justice to those who strongly opposed the legalization of abortion. In the few minutes I have this evening I am pressing the government to define in very clear terms, or to undertake amendments to define in very clear terms, what its interpretation of the Criminal Code respecting the health, both physical and mental, of the mother should be or is.
Personally I am very strongly opposed to abortion on demand. I feel that in many of the hospitals at the present time that have established therapeutic abortion committees, abortion on demand is virtually taking place. When I look at the 43,000 plus legal abortions occurring across Canada and at the rapid increase in abortion, specifically

at the Vancouver General Hospital where over 10,000 abortions alone were performed, I say that in some hospitals at the present time abortion on demand is already virtually a fact.
Yesterday's Ottawa Journal came out with headline "171 abortions after 5 months." Apparently, 171 abortions were performed in Canada after five months of gestation. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is quoted as being "deeply disturbed" at this evidence. I do not think he should be deeply disturbed. Surely it was well known to many people that this was happening. Pro life groups have been pointing out for some time that abortions are taking place after a gestation period of 20 weeks plus. They have shown very clearly that some of these aborted fetuses actually live after the abortion, and possibly could have lived had proper medical help been given.
I say it is high time that the government clearly defined its position on the meaning of health. Again quoting the article in the Ottawa Journal for April 21:
At this stage-
That is, at 21 weeks of gestation.
-say specialists in the field, the baby is completely developed and could most likely survive outside the mother.
I think the government had become part and parcel of what I would simply refer to as wanton murder. I for one believe that life is sacred and I am very strongly opposed to abortion on demand, something which I maintain is already taking place in some of our hospitals. While this is a thorny issue, I feel it goes beyond political confines to the point where we should ask: how does society look upon itself and its responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?
I was reading that in Manitoba this past week tremendous efforts were made to save twins at The Pas born prematurely. One passed away; the other is still being kept alive. So on the one hand we are doing everything that medical science can do to preserve life, yet fetuses of the same gestation period are being aborted or allowed to die in hospitals. I should like a response from the government as to what is its definition of the law.
One last fact remains. Despite the laws that we might pass in this parliament, indeed that pass the parliaments of other lands, there is a certain law that supersedes the law of man, and that is the law of God. I am asking the government: where does it stand on that issue?


Gilles Marceau: Madam Speaker, in 1969 Parliament amended the provisions of the Criminal Code concerning abortion. The amendments to the act were a compromise between those who are opposed to abortion and those who do not want any legal obstacle.
In 1972, in reply to a question he was asked, the Prime Minister said: "... your slogan. .. free abortion on demand ... is not mine, and you will have to convince me ... if you want me to support the idea ... that a person who asks for an abortion has no responsibility. From a certain moment, when you destroy the foetus, you suppress a life ... I shall never accept that a person who kills
April 22, 1975

is not responsible for his or her action and is not required to justify it..
However, the amendment made in the act in 1969 admits that medical reasons may justify abortion. These amending provisions stipulate that an abortion will not be a legal offense when a committee of three qualified physicians of a certified hospital attests that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the woman would or might endanger her life or her health. It is important to emphasize that the danger for the pregnant woman's life or health is the only criterion in this matter.
If it is proven medically that financial, social or other circumstances endangered or would probably endanger the mother's life or health, a certificate may be given; but the decision must be based on reasons of real danger to life or health, and not on social or financial factors as such.
What is involved is a medical decision, a conscientious medical assessment of whether there is in fact reason to fear that continued pregnancy would or probably would endanger a pregnant woman's life or health.
Adjournment Debate
Enforcement of these provisions is the responsibility of the attorney general in each province. In other words, he is responsible for investigating any alleged violation, and to initiate proceedings under the law.
As far as we are concerned, it is clear that the justification to practice abortion inserted by Parliament in the act is grounded on life and health, and I believe we should rely on expert judgment in this area. If medical committees accept the responsibility and seriously endeavour to determine whether the criteria established by Parliament are met in a particular case, the objective will achieved. The government shall continue to monitor the carrying out of the act, in the context of questions raised by the abortion problem, in order to decide whether improvements are in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Wednesday, April 23, 1975