1976-03-05

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice? Without accepting the position of the government that the chief justice of the province of Quebec should be asked to act as conscience of the government in place of the Prime Minister, may I ask if the chief justice will be completely free to interview ministers and obtain ministerial papers, documents or other permanent records?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, without accepting the premise of the hon. member's question, may I say this: the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec has been asked, as I think is proper and in line with my view of the independence of the judiciary and separation of powers, to indicate to me any information that he feels it is appropriate to give me relating to unwarranted attempts to interfere with the proper administration of justice in his courts.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I was asking about the position of the government. For example, the Minister of Public Works raised the matter of privilege with respect to conversations he had with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I ask the minister if the chief justice will be given the opportunity to interview the Minister of Public Works and other ministers with respect to any intervention, alleged or otherwise, with the judiciary.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the chief justice of the Superior Court wants to do that, the ministers and members of the government will co-operate fully.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REFERENCE TO INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my final supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works? On Wednesday the minister is reported to have said, on page 11457 of Hansard:
I had a conversation, also with the associate chief justice of Quebec, along, as I discovered, with a great many other public spirited citizens
who had taken part in trying to effect a solution to a rather difficult and, to some degree, unprecedented problem.
My question is this: does the minister admit that, along with others, as a minister of the Crown he attempted to effect a solution by acting on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be particularly helpful if one were to try to anticipate what may be the views formulated by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- RECOMMENDATIONS OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE CONCERNING INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice, the chief legal officer of Canada, with regard to the confession of the Minister of Public Works. That minister, when answering me on Wednesday last said, in part, as reported on page 11457 of Hansard:
Indeed, the only intervention that would be contemplated by me would be one to see that he was in full knowledge of the facts-
Meaning the judge, the minister having been in touch with the associate chief justice. I continue-
-and did his duty.
My question to the chief law officer of Canada, Attorney General and Minister of Justice, is this: has the minister, in view of the confession made by the Minister of Public Works that he intervened, and tried to tell the judge how to do his duty, made recommendations to the Prime Minister? Has he made any recommendations relating to the impropriety of the executive engaging in that kind of intervention with the judiciary?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works went on to say, again as reported at page 11457 of Hansard:
I did not attempt to influence the decision.
As I indicated on Wednesday, although Mr. Justice Mackay's letter asked me to take no action I felt it incumbent on me to ask my colleagues for an explanation, which I received. The information indicates no attempt on their part to interfere with the course of justice.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That's a whitewash.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Therefore, as I indicated previously, I do not intend to make a further recommendation to the Prime Minister or government until I have followed what I regard as the proper course of allowing the "chief" justice of the Superior Court to give me any information and

March 5, 1976
Oral Questions
details which the chief justice deems proper to give me in the circumstances.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING LEGAL OPINION ON INTERVENTION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yesterday the Minister of Justice answered a question put by the hon. member for St. John's East. He pointed out two matters that would be crimes under the Code, one of which would be and I quote from page 11489 of Hansard:
-to have a private communication for the purpose of influencing a judicial decision.
It is easy for a fellow to say he did not influence the jury. It is similar to defending someone for murder. I have never heard anyone tell his counsel he was guilty. The facts determine whether he is guilty. In light of the two points of law raised in the minister's answer to the hon. member for St. John's East, has he referred those two matters to his legal officers in view of the self confession of interference by the Minister of Public Works?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the words I was using yesterday are from Halsbury's definition of the nature of private communications, which amounts to criminal contempt. As the hon. member knows, that is a proceeding to be taken by a judge. In all three instances, no such proceedings have been taken.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Justice will want to answer this question. Is he prepared to refer the matter to his legal officers? I respect Halsbury's Laws of England. However, as the chief legal officer of Canada, is the minister prepared to refer the matter to his legal officers to get an opinion rather than just refer to certain precedents and come to his own decisions without an opinion from his legal officers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: As an eminent lawyer in Calgary, I think the hon. member knows that contempt proceedings are not taken at the instance of the Attorney General of Canada, but at the instance of the judge himself. No such proceedings have been taken. In answer to the hon. member, I may indicate that in the course of my duties, I have many communications with chief justices throughout Canada on a whole range of matters relating to salaries, retirement, workloads and work with the judicial council. In no instance has any chief justice ever brought to my attention an attempt to interfere with the course of justice by members of the ministry.


SUMMER GAMES AT ST. JOHN'S-FAILURE TO CALL TENDERS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MAIN SPORTS COMPLEX-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the summer games that are to be held

in St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1977. As the Acting Prime Minister is aware, the federal government will be spending several million dollars as their share in the financing of these games. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the contract involving the principal expenditure of some $4.5 million for a main sports complex has been granted to a company without going through public tender?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that fact.


John Edward Broadbent: Both local councillors and a local newspaper have raised this issue with particular reference to the fact that the company which got the contract without tender is in fact owned by Mr. Andrew Crosbie who is chairman of the summer games association. Is it the Prime Minister's view that this procedure is appropriate, bearing in mind the fact that in the past public tendering for the summer games has been a condition insisted on by the federal government, as I understand it?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will inquire into the circumstances. I understand it is not suggested that the federal government is awarding this contract. Do I understand correctly that it is some other authority which was awarded the contract?


John Edward Broadbent: The minister is correct in that assumption, according to my information; the contract has been awarded by the local committee. Nevertheless, a substantial portion of the money is coming from the federal government, approximately one-third, hence the reason for concern on the part of the federal government. Would the Acting Prime Minister undertake to make an inquiry and ascertain why calling for tenders was not insisted upon by the federal government, though this was the case in the past, and, more specifically, will he investigate the possibility of a conflict of interest in view of the fact that a contract was awarded to a company owned by the chairman of the summer games committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will undertake to make those inquiries, Mr. Speaker.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice dealing with the Prime Minister's conclusion that a lawyer, who was also principal secretary to the Prime Minister, made a legitimate intervention.
The minister realizes that there is a cardinal rule that there should be no intervention by anyone, particularly by lawyers, during the course of a trial by a judge. Was the then minister of justice asked for an opinion as to this course of action by a lawyer and in particular was the hon. gentleman's opinion sought before the Prime Minister con-
March 5, 1976

eluded that this was a legitimate intervention, and, if so, what was the advice given?


Stanley Ronald Basford: With respect to the first part of the question, because all this was seven years ago, we are endeavouring to determine the answer to that question. With regard to the second part of the question, the explanation by the then principal secretary, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, was provided to myself and to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister explained yesterday, it was a request on behalf of a foreign government which was concerned about matters in its own country and wished to know the date when a judgment would be made, and that was the purpose for the communication with the judge.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- REQUEST THAT OPINION OF BAR BE OBTAINED ON RULES FOR INTERVENTION BY LAWYERS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In the
light of the dangerous precedent set by the Prime Minister in terms of his calling the intervention a legitimate one, would the hon. gentleman contact all bar associations and law societies throughout the country to get an opinion on interventions of this sort and to determine whether there is one rule for lawyers who are members of parliament or who work in the Prime Minister's office or for the government and another for lawyers not so engaged?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I think the Prime Minister made the position very clear yesterday, both inside and outside this chamber, that all ministers and members of the House are expected to obey the law just as any other citizen.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Would the minister kindly answer my question? This is an extremely important matter. Bar associations throughout the country will be extremely concerned. I ask him again whether he will take this matter up with the presidents of the bar associations and law societies so as to make sure there are not two rules affecting lawyers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would be happy to receive any views the bar or the law societies might wish to send me, but with all due respect to the hon. member's question I do not need the advice of the bar to know that members of this House and members of the government are expected, like other citizens, to obey the law.


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since it appears that the worst GNP growth performance since 1954 indicates a complete lack of confidence in the economic management of the federal government, may I ask the minister whether he can explain what steps the govern-
Oral Questions
ment is taking to improve the growth performance in the economic sector, or is the government committing the country to zero growth for the forseeable future, or certainly for the next few months?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would invite the hon. gentleman to read with some care the Statistics Canada analysis of March 4 of the figures for 1975. He will note, as I have stated many times in the House during the past several months, that the principal underperformance of the economy has been in the export sector, particularly because of the slow recovery of the major export markets such as the United States, Japan and western Europe from the much deeper recession that they went into than did Canada.
We notice that in terms of domestic products, for example in the durables sector, and indeed with the recent spectacular increase in the housing sector, the economy in Canada itself is very clearly responding to the measures that my predecessor put forward and that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs in charge of housing put forward to assist the domestic economy. However, we have to be concerned at the recovery of world markets upon whose success the economic success of Canada is so dependent.


Jack Burnett Murta: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The most significant news in that the pace of growth in the last quarter was only one-third the pace of the growth in the previous three months, so certainly I would question the minister's statement of a few moments ago. Since it seems to indicate that Canada is having a very difficult time coming out of its own recession, is the government contemplating the updating of its spring budget in order to deal with the serious matter of Canada's very sluggish economy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best I can do is to read to the hon. gentleman what Statistics Canada had to say about the fourth quarter:
The fourth quarter weakness was reflected by a very moderate 1.6 per cent increase in wages, salaries and supplementary labour income, which is by far the largest component of gross national product.
Then, reading on:
However, to some extent this weakness is misleading, since it follows the payment of large cost of living allowances in the third quarter; these payments had the effect of raising the third quarter growth rate at the expense of the fourth, and, if they were excluded, the fourth quarter growth would have been a much more normal 3.5 per cent.


Jack Burnett Murta: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister has not answered my question. The real gross national product rose by only 0.2 per cent in 1975, which Statistics Canada has indicated is the worst GNP growth performance since 1954. Is the government intending to continue on the same course it has followed over the past few months, or is it contemplating bringing in an earlier than anticipated budget to deal with the very sluggish performance of the Canadian economy at the present time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can only state to the hon. gentleman that he might study more carefully the Statistics Canada report. I think he would have a better understanding of the current state of the economy, and indeed of the circumstances under which

March 5, 1976
Oral Questions
fiscal and economic policy will have to be made in the coming year.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Since the RCMP may unconsciously break section 4 of the Official Secrets Act by providing Interpol with information on Canadian citizens, which are likely to be referred to the police in communist or fascist countries, would the minister order an inquiry into this matter to make sure the RCMP does not forward information to Interpol which might harm the reputation of Canadian citizens?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, as Acting Solicitor General I am not familiar with the possible effects that lie behind the question of the hon. member. I will draw it to the attention of the Solicitor General immediately and will see he receives an answer.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Is consideration being given by the government to amending the limitation period under which the Crown and Crown agencies can be sued to make it crystal clear that in cases of physical or medical injury to persons arising from radioactivity the limitation period only starts running when knowledge of the damage becomes known and not when knowledge of the radioactivity or cause of the injury occurs? Am I making myself clear? In other words, will it be made certain that a lawsuit need not be started until it is obvious that injury has occurred as distinct from having to sue when knowledge of the exposure occurs?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the question or the issue is clear to me. I indicated at a meeting of Attorneys General in Halifax last October that I was considering revisions to both the Federal Court Act and the Crown Liability Act. That consideration is still underway. I am not in a position to say at this point when I will be able to make recommendations to my colleagues or when legislation might be introduced. However, the issue the hon. member's question raised is under consideration.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to put this on a rather higher priority than it obviously is at the moment, because the issue is very topical in certain areas of the country.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, certainly I recognize the importance of the issue, and particularly its importance to the people the hon. member represents in this House. I regard it as a priority, but of course we seem to have an immense number of priorities in this country and in this House. It is a case of when the recommendation by me can be finalized and when it can be dealt with by Cabinet or by this House.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It concerns the Sir George Williams incident and the case of Roosevelt Douglas. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he could inform the House whether the Minister of Manpower and Immigration received any ministerial representations regarding the deportation of Roosevelt Douglas from Canada who was convicted in the Sir George Williams incident?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries, but I should have thought any communication between ministers was privileged.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Acting Prime Minister the following question: Would he inform the House whether the former principal secretary of the Prime Minister, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, made representations to immigration officials to either accelerate or delay deportation proceedings which were initiated against Roosevelt Douglas and which still have not been completed, especially in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said yesterday that intervention had taken place by his principal secretary at that time as a result of the request of a friendly government because if the deportation and the trial carried on difficulties could occur in that friendly country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries. I am not quite certain, however, what the purpose of the inquiries would be. The government did take action against Rosie Douglas with the intention of deporting him. That was done by the minister and supported generally by the Cabinet.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of the profound effect of the restrictions placed on the taking of red fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in view of the concern on the part of the fisheries
March 5, 1976

industry and the provincial governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland which have requested that the restriction be deferred until they can review its impact would the minister indicate whether he has agreed to that representation and what action he will take on it?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having been absent when the hon. member first rose. This matter of the red fish had been made known in 1973 at a meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland and it produced then fairly dramatic headlines. At the time it was indicated that by 1975 the stocks would be depleted. Better management, with the help of the industry, allowed us to stretch the stock into 1976. However, we are now looking at the spawning stocks and no one in the industry wants us to destroy that part of the fishery. The quota limitations that were announced were hinted at very clearly in December of last year.
At the request of the industry, a scientific report was produced on February 11. When it was brought in, it was very pessimistic and therefore action had to be taken. The industry knew that there would be serious limitations in the quota this year. The large trawlers which were fishing in the gulf went to the level of their percentage of the quota in comparison with the previous years. Had we not intervened to close the red fish fishery now, there would have been nothing left for those vessels which are based in the gulf. They do not have the capacity to go outside the gulf and therefore would have had nothing left at all when their time came to fish in May.


Jack Marshall: As the minister stated, the fact is that everybody knew that this fishery was being seriously depleted. As a matter of fact, in 1973 it amounted to 163,000 metric tons and in 1974 it went down to 63,000 metric tons. Would the minister explain why action was not taken at that time, action which would have been less severe, and would he also explain why Canada agreed at the ICNAF meetings to 90,000 metric tons quota, 60,000 metric tons of which went to the Russians? Is this reasonable with regard to Canadian fishermen and the future of our fishing industry?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will be patient with me because my explanation might take longer than I would like. The 1973 information was based on the class 1956-58 fish which were by then mature and which had to be caught, otherwise they would have died of old age.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is what the Liberal government is doing.


An hon. Member:: The geritol age.


Mr. Speaker:: Lest the explanation might die of old age as well-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -I wonder if we are not starting a series of questions that should properly be asked of the minister
Oral Questions
when the estimates are before the standing committee. I think an expanded explanation is in order and I do not wish to interfere, but if we are to pursue the matter vigorously, it might be done there, unless there is a brief explanation.


Roméo LeBlanc: These fish were competing for food supplies with other fish and everybody accepted they had to be taken until we had reached the level of the spawning stock. This level has now been reached, and that is why we had to apply conservation measures. This is a gulf of St. Lawrence quota and is a strictly Canadian managed fishery. Foreign fleets are not fishing directly for red fish in the gulf, and it has no immediate relation with the IGNAF quota.


Jack Marshall: Regardless of what the minister says, the fishing industry in Newfoundland is almost obliterated and it will mean the loss of hundreds of jobs to fishermen. Is the minister taking into consideration the depressing effect on the economy of Newfoundland, and has he consulted with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in order to provide some input or is he himself considering any compensation to the fishermen?


Roméo LeBlanc: It must be pointed out that although the red fish fishery is closed, the fishermen can fish other species in the gulf, such as cod. The industry has known about the coming reduction and it certainly can adjust to it, as fishermen in Nova Scotia have adjusted to the three months closure of the haddock fishery at spawning time. We have an assistance program for the fisheries, including some assistance which will be announced in the next few days. The industry at this point has caught its share of red fish and it simply must adapt itself to others having their share, too.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the report by Statistics Canada that last year the Canadian economy recorded its worst growth performance since 1954 with an increase in real GNP of only 0.2 per cent, and since the average rate of unemployment for 1975 was over 7 per cent during the entire year, would the minister indicate what steps if any the government proposes to take to deal with the undoubtedly higher rate of unemployment which we will face in 1976?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I
have said a number of times in the House, we intend a little later in the spring to make a budgetary statement. It seems to me that that kind of comprehensive statement is best made in the context of the budget.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that provincial and municipal governments are following the example of the federal government in instituting programs of restraint, as exemplified by lay-offs by municipal governments, hospitals and provincial governments in the hundreds of thou-
11534

March 5, 1976
Oral Questions
sands, even in the minister's own city of Toronto, will the minister tell the House what suggestions he has for those governments or for those hundreds of thousands of people who will be laid off as to what they might do in the year 1976 to take care of their problems?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think one might want to look a little more closely at the assertion of hundreds of thousands that the hon. member makes. I will only say that an integral part of the fight against inflation, in which all provincial governments and the federal government are engaged, has been to try to restrict the growth expenditures in the public sector. I think this is generally recognized, except by the hon. gentleman's colleagues, as an integral part of what has to be a national effort to take part in solving the problem.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister please inform the House whether he or his staff have had any discussions whatsoever with the provincial government, the municipal authorities, the chamber of commerce in Moncton and the labour organizations in Moncton with regard to the economic impact of the possible and rumoured closure or reduction of the Canadian Forces Base Moncton resulting in lay-offs and serious economic effects on the community generally and the whole area of southeastern New Brunswick, and will consideration be given to the fact that already hundreds of people have been laid off by CNR and several hundreds of people have received lay-off notices as a result of the closure of the Eaton's catalogue department?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to respond directly concerning any bases while the infrastructure study is underway. I have made that clear on a number of occasions. I am certain, however, that my personnel who are examining the whole infrastructure will be familiar with some of the problems affecting the economy of Moncton, particularly the closure of the Eaton's catalogue office and the other points mentioned by the hon. member.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again addressed to the Minister of National Defence. What I am concerned about is whether any discussions will be conducted with the authorities I have mentioned.


James Armstrong Richardson: If it is necessary to do so, of course there will be discussions.



ELECTIONS


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, Friday is my day to clear up anomalies so that they will not hang around over the weekend. I want to put a question to the President of the Privy Council. Does he not think it curious that the government's announcement about a by-election in St. John's West next October 18- which I think is the diamond jubilee of the Prime Minister, although I have not checked it-was made at the very time when the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada was before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections with recommendations to substantially shorten the time of national campaigns?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hope it is the hon. member's expectation, as it is mine, that the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer will be accepted so that when this happy event occurs, when the by-election is called on the Prime Minister's birthday, it will be run more efficiently and take less time.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the President of the Privy Council, whose responsibility it is to have the government participate in its so-called participatory democracy, realize that by waiting until the Prime Minister's birthday this will be the longest vacancy in the 109 year history of parliament and is he proud of this?


An hon. Member:: Shame!



REASON FOR DELAY IN CALLING BY-ELECTION IN ST. JOHN'S WEST

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Notwithstanding the importance of the Prime Minister's diamond jubilee, can the Acting Prime Minister explain to the House why it was necessary to put off this by-election until October 18 which will mean that the people of St. John's West have been without representation in this parliament for 13 months?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government made its decision to call the by-election with a full understanding of all the facts.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Because
March 5, 1976

of the manner in which India has violated agreements on nuclear detonations in the past, and because a member of the Prime Minister's staff is presently in India to discuss a resumption of Canadian nuclear assistance to that country, what kind of guarantee is being sought in order to ensure that a repetition of the Rajasthan explosion of May, 1974 does not occur?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it was because this Indian government did not accept our interpretation of the agreements that we cut off nuclear co-operation with India and also reduced the amount of our aid. Both of these subjects are still under consideration. Our objective is to try to avoid any more nuclear explosions by the state of India, but of course this is a decision over which we do not have control.



INDIA-POSSIBILITY SIGNING OF NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY CONDITION PRECEDENT TO RESUMPTION OF TRADE IN NUCLEAR MATERIALS

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary I should like to clear up two points. Is the government of Canada making India's ratification of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty a condition to the further export of Canadian nuclear supplies to that country and will members of this House of Commons be provided with an opportunity to examine in detail and debate the merits of any proposed resumption of nuclear shipments to India before any agreement is finalized?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if any decision is made to change the course upon which we are now engaged there will be many opportunities for discussion in this House. A motion could be put down on an opposition day; there could be discussion on the estimates and perhaps there are other ways. The government has every reason to want full disclosure of all the facts. Our purpose like the hon. member's, I hope, is to persuade India to change its course.



INDIA-REASON FOR SENDING REPRESENTATIVE FROM PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE TO DISCUSS TRADE IN NUCLEAR MATERIALS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Acting Prime Minister is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It being understood that there is of course a Canadian diplomatic mission in New Delhi headed by a high commissioner, I wonder why it should be necessary to send a non-specialist in this particular matter and not a member of the Department of External Affairs who is particularly charged with matters relating to nuclear energy? In other words, is there no trust in Canada's foreign service that someone is sent from the Prime Minister's office?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is every confidence in our diplomatic mission in India. I believe that a visit by a member of the Prime Minister's staff indicates that there is even more than usual concern about the matter.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sure.
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: There are occasions when it is desirable that there should be communication between the heads of the governments of two countries. It is done by every country in the world, and I do not see why Canada should be an exception.


An hon. Member:: We want Ivan's "head".


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Of course, contact between the heads of governments is necessary but a high commissioner is accredited to the government of India. For further and higher representation, would it not be more proper for a minister of the government to attend on this mission and not a public servant who does not rank with the high commissioner who is already in India?


An hon. Member:: Are you not going to answer that?



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is in charge of the national parks. In view of the abnormally high unemployment rate in the Island of Cape Breton, the highest since the 1930's, may I ask the minister if he and the government would consider implementing immediately a special winter works program on the Cape Breton Island National Park to help out the situation, not a make-work program, but a program under which projects would go ahead as soon as possible?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to consider the representations of the hon. member and look at the projected capital spending for the area to see if we can make some changes in it.



FISHERIES


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fisheries. In view of the potentially explosive situation on the east coast of Canada with the Greenpeace Foundation's stated purpose of disrupting the seal hunt and the very well known feeling of the seal hunters, can the minister advise the House what special precautions are being taken by his department or any other government department up to the Department of the Attorney General in order to avoid violence off the east coast?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, there are certain regulations within the seal protection regulations to prevent interference with the hunt. We are also making sure that our fisheries officers
21419-38'/2

March 5, 1976
Oral Questions
are well briefed and the legal implications of the situation are being looked into now. I should like to make two very brief comments, however. Ice conditions are extremely dangerous. The ice is very light and those inexperienced people on ice floes 40 miles at sea should understand the dangers of the situation. The other point that has to be made is that I hope the fishermen, in spite of some of the provocations they may have, will keep their cool.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I shall direct my question to the parliamentary secretary. The Canadian Airline Pilots Association has posted a statement on all pilot bulletin boards in Canadian airports. Briefly, the statement is as follows:
In view of the critical situation that has arisen in the Montreal air traffic control region, the situation that the federal government appears incapable of controlling, the Canadian Airline Pilots Association has directed its 3,000 members to exercise extreme caution when flying into or within the province of Quebec.
Would the parliamentary secretary ask the minister to investigate why such a notice has been posted, and if it is due to the government's implementation of bilingualism in air traffic control?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept some of the implications in the hon. member's question but I shall be glad to inquire why the association felt it necessary to post such a notice.



FISHERIES


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fisheries. So that our lobsters will not die of old age, would the minister inform the House whether the guidelines for the appeals board in connection with the licensing program this year have been completed? If they have not, and in light of the imminent season in districts 5 and 7(b), would he consider deferring implementation of the program for one year until appeals can be filed and dealt with?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the last detail. Certainly the guidelines are in the hands of the appeal board and some boards are already functioning. Some cases have already been processed and fishermen told their licence would not be withheld and would be returned or issued. As far as deferring, I would have to look at the implications of this in relation to other areas but I think the program is

working as well as can be expected under the circumstances.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. An answer given by the minister in committee on March 2 led members of the committee to believe that oil and gas regulations would be announced early this spring. As a report in the Globe and Mail, presumably based on an interview with the minister, indicates that the regulations will not be made known until fall at the earliest, will the minister now give a firm commitment as to when the regulations will be announced?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, both aspects of the question contain an element of correctness. We intend to make known the regulations in the spring, in a month or six weeks. However, we are going to have difficulty getting the legislation put together and brought before the House in the fall. Both aspects are correct.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The oil and gas regulations having been suspended about six or seven years ago, and, considering the importance of new regulations for the future of oil and gas development north of the sixtieth parallel, how can the minister justify the six or seven year delay in bringing forward new regulations?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed at length, and raised in committee. We are aware of the concern, have met with the industry and hope to act in the next month or six weeks.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and relates to the answer to my question on the order paper. In yesterday's answer the minister indicated that the government had leased a building in Penticton for $6,500 per year. In view of the fact that the Department of Manpower moved out of this building just prior to entering into this lease and in view of the fact that on May 1, 1971, another lease was entered into by the Department of Manpower for the building for $41,186.23, can the Minister of Public Works say why there is this discrepancy?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it was made clear in the answer to the question that the lease, which expired, was for a relatively small amount of space. Subsequently, the Department of
March 5, 1976

Manpower took over a substantially enlarged amount of space.


George H. Whittaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the amount of space taken is less than the entire amount the building contains, I ask the minister if the government condones this type of business and if that is the way the Department of Manpower conducts its business?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FINANCE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Public reports have said that bank profits in the present quarter are up by 37.3 per cent over profits in the same quarter one year ago. I ask, if monetary policy is the responsibility of the federal government, which acts through the Bank of Canada, is the minister prepared to allow the banks to continue on their high profit kick and not take action while others, particularly wage and salary earners, are being restricted to 12 per cent increases? Also, is he prepared to re-impose the surtax on profits which he recently took off as the removal of the tax has accounted for some increase in bank profits.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. gentleman that we recently published the criteria which will apply to the banks for restraining their profit levels. The preliminary results indicated in today's press appear to indicate that the chartered banks are ahead of the position in which they should be. They will have to take steps to reduce the levels of profits in the remaining quarters of this year, or they can expect the levy provisions of the anti-inflation program to apply to them.
To answer the hon. member's second comment, he referred to the removal of the surtax. Obviously, he was referring to removal of the export levy. That does not apply in this case. Over all, the restriction provisions of the Anti-Inflation Act will apply to the chartered banks. If they continue to run ahead of the basis which has been established for them, they can expect to have their profits reduced by that much.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Does he find it acceptable that in a large area of east central Alberta and west central Saskatchewan radio and television communications are restricted? The people of the area have protested to the CBC that they can only receive signals during the
Oral Questions
daytime. The CBC responded that the coverage was for daytime only. It is unfortunate that the people of the area do not receive signals at night.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, without commenting on the particular case, because I am not familiar with it, may I say this: I think the hon. member and his colleagues should consider that the accelerated coverage plan I announced two or three years ago is moving ahead. It is an expensive program, involving additional capital cost in the realm of $25 million over and above amounts needed for the coverage plans we had before. It will take time. I think hon. members should explain this to their constituents.


Arnold John Malone: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain to my constituents why television service promised more than one year ago is still unsatisfactory.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is not capable of explaining to his constituents, I will be pleased to explain.



THE MINISTRY


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs be in the House for question period on Monday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker I understand that the minister is returning today and will be in the House on Monday. I do not know about his personal engagements, but I understand he will be in the House.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. As the current T-5 forms, related to the summary of investment income paid, do not reflect the 1971 changes in the Income Tax Act and are in conflict with the law, the result being that certain taxpayers are required to pay a penalty for failure to comply with regulations which are not on the forms, will the minister take steps to prevent the continuation of this practice, so that taxpayers will not innocently fall victim to penalties?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we are a compassionate department.


Robert Muir: Where is your halo, Jack?

March 5, 1976
Oral Questions



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Public Works.
Considering that the construction of the Guy Favreau complex in Montreal, a very interesting project was announced four years ago, that the minister advised the press last week that the project which was originally supposed to cost $140 million would probably cost twice more now and that a profitability study was still in process to reassure all concerned, would the minister tell the House whether this project is still an important objective of the government or whether it will be abandoned? If not, will the work start shortly?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I can say that the government intends to proceed in due course with the construction of the Guy Favreau complex.



THE PERFORMING ARTS


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Some time ago the former secretary of state asked the President of the Treasury Board to set up an interdepartmental committee to examine the policy with regard to films being sponsored by government departments under the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the National Film Act. Has he received the report of this Treasury Board committee? If so, will that report be tabled in the House or will the Minister be making a statement on it?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the report, but I have been told I am about to receive it.


Benno Friesen: In view of the government's intention to cut expenditures, and in view of the minister's announced commitment to help the film industry in the private sector, can we expect a policy change that would delete Sections 9 and 11 of the National Film Act and thus bring about competitive enterprise among the government departments?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to explore this question further with the hon. member when we get before the committee. There is no question in my mind that one of the objectives of our film policy today should be to ensure that the public sector in film is complementary to and not necessarily in competition with the private sector. The reason this development has taken place is that the private

sector today is infinitely more strong than it was ten years ago. We can pursue that.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should merely like to answer a question put by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on Tuesday. The answer is yes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, based on my wish to be accurate, I rise on a question of privilege. I am informed by my historical adviser, the hon. member for Hillsborough, that October 18 is not, in fact, the sixtieth anniversary of the birth of the Prime Minister. He is just a generation closer to it than my leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in response to a request made by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for documentation on crime and statistics relating to crime, I wish to table, in both official languages, a bibliography of source materials relating to Bills C-83 and C-84. I will be tabling within a matter of days two further statistical analyses. This will be done as soon as they are available in both languages.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), has been filed with me pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, RSC 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission of the Northwest Territories.
March 5, 1976

If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the text of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,892, 3,962 and 3,985.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Did Canada provide Botswana with a $2 million loan to carry out an aero-magnetic survey in that country by Terra Surveys of Ottawa and, if so (a) is the loan to be repaid (b) what are its specific terms?
2.	If the survey results in the discovery and development of mining in Botswana, what are the relative advantages to Canada that would justify CIDA's participation?
3.	What are the names of the (a) companies (b) principals of the companies that tendered bids on the project and in each case, what was the amount of the bid?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Canada provided Botswana with a $2 million loan to undertake an aero-magnetic survey and interpretation of the survey, (a) Yes; (b) Zero per cent interest, 10 years grace, 50 years to repay.
2.	CIDA's participation in developing countries such as Botswana is not predicated on the advantage that might or might not directly accrue to Canada. Canada's support for projects in developing countries is based on a determination of whether or not such financial support will contribute to the social or economic development of the recipient country. However, insofar as Canadian companies are employed to carry out the survey and interpret the information, Canadian businesses will benefit.
3.	(a) and (b) Contractors; The flying and data processing portion of the project is being carried out by Terra Surveys under terms of a contract signed by Terra and Botswana on July 18, 1975. The contract limitation is $1,300,000. This contract was awarded by the Government of Botswana under CIDA loan financing in accordance with CIDA's normal criteria and supervision. In this case, the methodology and approach of the successful firm, Terra Surveys Limited, were judged to be superior to those of the other firms who submitted tenders. Below are the details of the tenders:
Order Paper Questions
Firm that Submitted Ten- Principals	Tender
ders
Aero Photo Inc.	M. Gaudreault, President $1,021,750
and Chairman of Board Y. Pigeon, Vice-President G. Lavoie, General Manager J. Hugghe, Assistant General Manager
J. M. Gagnon, Comptroller
Northway Survey Corp. Ltd. J. S. Farrel, Chairman of $1,426,470 Board
W. H. Godfrey, President W. A. Dymond, Executive Vice-President D. A. MacFadyen, VicePresident
P. L. Grant, Vice-President D. C. McMillan, Treasurer
Sander Geophysics Ltd.	G. W. Sander, President	$ 682,460
L.	Sander, Secretary Treasurer
P. Pavlik, Director
Terra Surveys Ltd.	Roy Depper, President	$1,202,730
T. M. O'Malley, Chairman of the Board
M.	S. Reford, Director G. M. Mervyn, Director R. C. Brooman, Treasurer


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton): 1.	Was the contract between the Department of the Environment and Square One Management for the "Cultural Paradigms" project cancelled and, if so, for what reason?
2.	How much money has been paid to Square One Management for their services towards the project and is this a result of completed negotiations?
3.	Did Mr. Nelson of Square One Management and Ms. Cathy Starrs (a free lance consultant) have offices in the Department of the Environment's Advance Concept Centre, while working on contract?
4.	Were they listed in the Spring (1975) Government phone book and, if so, for what reason?
5.	Did the "Cultural Paradigms" project disappear at the same time as the Square One Management contract was terminated and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: 1. The contract contained a clause permitting termination at any time by the Crown subject to the payment of specified claims. This contract was terminated under this clause for the convenience of the Crown. Negotiations on the contractor's termination claim are currently underway and are being handled by the Department of Supply and Services. In view of the pending negotiations it is felt that no further statement on the termination should be made.
2.	The total amount paid to Square One Management for their services towards this project was $61,894.34 under the terms of the contract.
3.	Mr. Nelson, Ms. Starrs, and Professor McCall were working on contract with the Advanced Concepts Centre, and occupied offices in Environment Canada.
4.	Mr. Nelson, Ms. Starrs and Professor McCall carried out studies that required contact with a number of individuals across Canada and in other departments and agencies of the Federal Government. They were listed in

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
the Spring (1975) Government Telephone Directory to assist communication in carrying out their contracts.
5.	The "Cultural Paradigm Project" was the title of the study being carried out by Square One Management, so it ended with the termination of the contract.


Mr. Brisco: Is polyurethane foam, used to seal air leaks and insulate electrical cables, or other combustible material being used in Canadian nuclear installations and, if so, what is the name and location of each plant?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: Polyurethane foam has limited use in all current CANDU designs. It is used in a limited number of applications where a high quality vapour barrier is required and in some cases this includes openings through which electrical cables pass. In no case is it used as a seal at the main containment boundary. It is not used as insulation for cables or equipment. The potential hazards of its use have always been recognized and precautions taken to minimize the risk of fire.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming consideration of an amendment by the Senate to amendments made by the House of Commons to Bill S-10, to amend the Feed Act-The Minister of Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: I indicated yesterday that I would attempt today to resolve the question of procedure that was raised yesterday with respect to Bill S-10. As I understand it, it is more a mechanical matter than one of substance. I understand that consultations are taking place in the hope that the matter can be resolved. Perhaps it can be left at that stage until Bill S-10 is next called before the House.


MARITIME CODE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 4, consideration of Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is resuming debate on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), and motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, when we concluded last night I was trying in my own quiet way to give the government a bit of hell for ignoring the maritime code and the opportunity to strengthen that portion of the bill dealing with cabotage. In the event that I did not put it on the record last night, and in order to refresh the minds of hon. members, my amendment is as follows:
"Canada: and, for better ensuring the attainment of the said purposes, any port or place in the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon shall be deemed to be a port or place in Canada, and the governor in council may, by order, provide that any other port or place not in Canada shall be deemed to be in Canada,".
In committee, the departmental officials assured us there is protection with regard to foreign ships coming into Canada, picking up tourists, travelling to other ports, touching at a foreign port, in this case St. Pierre and Miquelon, and returning to Canada. In our opinion, that assurance is not clear in the act. The amendment is to clause 8. It would delete line 20 at page 12 of the bill. It is our submission that this particular clause could be construed or interpreted in more than one way. I quote from the clause:
For the purposes of this section and sections 9 to 14, the "coasting trade of Canada" includes
(a) the carriage of goods by water or by land and water, the carriage
of passengers by water, and towage,
(i)	from one port or place in Canada to the same or another port or place in Canada,
(ii)	between a port or place in Canada and any marine structure that is engaged in exploration for or exploitation of natural resources in accordance with a permit or licence issued pursuant to an act of parliament or of the legislature of a province .. .
whether directly or by way of a foreign port-
It is that which gives us cause for concern. There are ample precedents in other statutes of Canada: it is spelled out very, very clearly. This amendment and the parallel amendment of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) would state in no uncertain terms what we understand to be the intent of parliament, the drafter and the act. By using the gimmick of stopping at a foreign port en route, foreign cruise ships-Russian, in the case of the east coast-can get around that section of the marine code directed to the closing of the coasting trade of Canada for Canadian ships with Canadian crews.
The amendment, as I say, is in two parts. What we seek to do is simply to declare that for the purposes of the act, St. Pierre and Miquelon are parts of Canada. It has become obvious that the Canadian cruise industry has been destroyed by the operations of Soviet cruise ships carried on without regard for any normal commercial considerations. Cruises are carried on in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, on the Saguenay River and out to the coastal waters of Newfoundland with stop-offs at St. Pierre and Miquelon. Soviet ships are permitted to do this by reason of the loophole in the existing law.
March 5, 1976

We submit that the code is vague to a degree unacceptable to us in this regard. What these vessels do is make a 10-hour or 12-hour stop-over at some foreign port. All they have to do is sail from a Canadian port to a foreign port; this enables them to satisfy the letter of the code and we regard it as a way of getting around the requirement of this particular section since, technically, the voyage has become an international voyage.
Comments were made by other speakers last night with respect to the carriage of goods from the east coast to the west coast of Canada. Certain problems were envisaged. Mr. Speaker, the amendment changes only slightly the definition found in the old Canada Shipping Act. We suggest that the present provisions are not adequate to provide the type of protection the code should contain. The amendment would simply eliminate any ground for dispute.
The second part of the amendment gives the governor in council authority to designate other foreign ports or places to be, for the purposes of the act, ports within Canada. This would enable the cabinet to intervene with respect to certain situations which arise on the Great Lakes when ships picking up Canadian tourists are able to take Canadian dollars from our own tourist industry. It would also enable the cabinet to intervene in the case of similar practices on the west coast.
To illustrate the seriousness of the situation, I would put on record the statements made by various witnesses who appeared before the committee. It is estimated that in the tourist industry alone, between 300 and 500 jobs are lost to Canadian sailors, suppliers, shipbrokers, and so on, because Canada cannot compete with offshore companies which operate in our waters without regard to the profit motive. The president of the Seafarers' International Union had this to say when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, as reported in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence for December 11, 1975:
Cruises in Canada, even if they include St. Pierre and Miquelon or U.S. ports, should be explicitly reserved for Canadian ships.
In recent years, foreign cruise ships have increasingly been operating in Canada. On the west coast, this has resulted in the replacement of vessels manned by Canadians. In the east, Danish and U.S.S.R. flag ships are operating St. Lawrence River cruises. They leave Montreal and sail to Quebec, Bagotville, Perce, with a perfunctory stop at St. Pierre and Miquelon. The passengers disembark to sightsee at the various ports. We have contended that there are violations in the present laws regarding the coasting trade ...
The emphasis he placed on the lack of Canadian jobs is significant in light of the amendment. As I say, several hundred jobs are affected directly and indirectly. I can see no reason why such a simple amendment should not be taken into serious consideration by the government. We are not attempting to impose upon that French colony or, indeed, on any other foreign port, the laws and regulations of Canada. We are simply saying, for the purposes of this act, that those ports should not be designated as foreign ports, thus getting around the loophole in the old Canada Shipping Act and in the new Maritime Code.
I maintain the amendment should enjoy the support of all hon. members and is a necessary one if we are to lend to the act the spirit which I am sure it is intended to reflect. This question has been before us for a long time. I might
Maritime Code
add that the amendment has been carefully drafted with regard to the uncertainties and fears felt by the council of maritime premiers and by representatives of British Columbia ports with respect to the impact it might have on freight costs.
We need further assurances which will satisfy the council of maritime premiers and the government of Newfoundland as well as British Columbia interests. We need a forthright statement from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to the effect that the assurances given by his predecessor to the council of maritime premiers in Charlottetown some 18 months ago are, in fact, being carried out.
We would much prefer the government to have imported something in written form into this particular clause so as to give statutory authority to the type of protection required. Failure to do so has caused us some difficulty with respect to legislation which otherwise we on this side generally support. We reserve our right to make a final decision with respect to the attitude we shall take toward third reading. I may say it will depend to a large degree upon the type of assurance the Minister of Transport is able to give us. The issue is an important one to the thousands of men and women whose lives are directly related to maritime activity, as well as to the country as a whole. The Maritime Code is too valuable a piece of legislation to allow to go by without our calling attention to the fact that it contains major loopholes through which Russian cruise ships can take away dollars and cents from Canadians.
What we will be attempting to do by this amendment is to strengthen and clarify the legislation and remove uncertainty respecting the intent of the act, which is to provide the framework for the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine, one that will be slowly developed and will pay regard to the requirements of the competitive transportation of goods in this country. We do not suggest exclusively closing our waters in any place. We have always recognized that there will be situations where Canadian vessels are not available or where for one reason or another a specialized type of ship is required. This might be a cruise ship, an ore carrier, an ice strengthened bulk carrier for operations north of 60, and so on.
Canadian businessmen and entrepreneurs require ships when they need them, not six months afterwards. When the need arises, they require access to adequate means of transportation. So we do not interfere with the rights or principles that protect users, the governor in council can always consider the granting of a special permit. Were that not in the legislation, we would insist upon it.
Canada should have its own merchant fleet and I suggest that starting with the coastal trade is the right route. We are not going to see the development of a Canadian merchant fleet next year or within five years, but if we do not start somewhere we will never achieve this goal. The thousands of potential jobs in our shipyards, on board ship and in related industries are too important for us to permit legislation of this significance to go through without the assurance that it is tight, that it is not full of loopholes but reflects our desire to provide the framework within which Canadians can redevelop their merchant fleet, and lending

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
institutions engaging in maritime activity can approach without fear those entrepreneurs prepared to invest their talent and credit in achieving this end.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address myself to motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). In this particular part of the act we are dealing with what amounts to the core of this legislation, the definition of "cabotage". We must be sure we mean what we say and that Canadian shipping is assured the right to cabotage.
During my remarks on second reading of the bill I went into the use of that term to a considerable extent, and I suggest we briefly review its meaning here. It originated, as I mentioned at the time, from the business of going from cape to cape. "Cabo" is from the Portuguese or Spanish, but it has been translated in much more definitive terms in air law. In air law we never accept that a non-Canadian carrier can pick up passengers in Canada, call at a U.S. port, drop them off, pick up additional passengers bound for Canada and call this a domestic flight. These flights have to be worked out very carefully in agreements.
We insist that between Canadian ports we will not have foreign carriers picking up passengers in Montreal and dropping them off in Toronto. This is reserved to Canadian carriers. This is the basic principle we are seeking to define much more rigidly in cabotage or, if you like, in the coasting trade. We are transferring it from air law back into maritime law from whence it came. I insist, Mr. Speaker, that without a full definition of "cabotage" as defined so precisely in air law and translated into maritime law, there can be no encouragement given the Canadian maritime industries, Canadian mariners, shipbuilders, provisioners, victuallers, and our steelworks as well, to provide Canadian bottoms for the carriage of Canada's coastal trade.
In connection with motion No. 2, it is easy to make a pro forma call at St. Pierre and Miquelon, saying that your voyage plan requires a stop-over or route stop, to convert a voyage from, say, Montreal, up the Saugenay via St. Pierre and Miquelon, from a Canadian trip in which cabotage should be the rule into an international voyage and therefore open to any carrier.
I cannot help wishing there were greater awareness in this chamber of the significance of St. Pierre and Miquelon. I was greatly helped by reading a book by a very prominent Canadian historian who is now attached to the University of Carleton at the Institute of International Affairs, Professor Douglas Anglin, who wrote a book entitled "The St. Pierre and Miquelon Affair". I commend the book to all members of the House. It relates the manner in which the Free French occupied St. Pierre and Miquelon during the Second World War and the problems this created for the then prime minister, which he faced in one particular way. But it also drew attention at the time to the significance of St. Pierre and Miquelon to Canada's geography and sovereignty.
We are now seeing a further significance in dealing with the law of the sea and the extension of our territorial and fishing limits out from our coastline. The mathematical and cartographical problems of extending southward from

St. Pierre and Miquelon their claim to territorial jurisdiction, in which French law will predominate, is a most complex question for anyone who has thought about it for more than two or three minutes. Recognizing that St. Pierre and Miquelon is within what would ordinarily be Canadian waters, recognizing that it is a blob of foreign territory within what are otherwise our territorial waters, we must consider that a call there will not convert a voyage from Montreal or Quebec, up the Saugenay with just a formal call at St. Pierre and Miquelon, into an international voyage but will be for all purposes a voyage in Canadian waters.
This same sort of operation occurs in the Great Lakes. It permits non-Canadian carriers, foreign carriers, to exploit an industry which, with the encouragement of a very strict cabotage rule, permits some carriers to enter the luxury trade, if you like, the summer cruise trade, simply by enabling a ship to call alternatively on one side of the St. Lawrence River or the other and convert that particular trip into an international voyage rather than a voyage through strictly Canadian waters.
Even a trip, let us say, from Thunder Bay to Sault Ste. Marie could be converted by making an intermediate call at Duluth. This is the sort of thing we would like to see closed in order to encourage Canadian ship-owners, shipbuilders and the whole maritime industry to build Canadian ships and give a start again to a Canadian marine industry so that we again will be a maritime power which our position, our coastline and our whole tradition dictates for us. We must do this before it is too late.
We have heard that there are difficulties in obtaining crews for Canadian vessels because of the cost. I have thrown out a suggestion to some of our marine architects. I have suggested there is a way perhaps to deal with this admittedly difficult problem of having the breadwinner away from home at sea for many, many months. I think the matter has been greatly facilitated by the introduction of the container ship. I suggested to this particular marine architect that it should be a simple matter to have standing on most container ports trailers which could be hoisted aboard in the same way a container is hoisted aboard. These could be fully equipped trailer camp homes. The crew could live in them. They could even take their families with them. There would no longer be the need to separate the breadwinner from the other members of the family, because the other members of the family could go on the voyage. The families would have the advantage of the education overseas which travel conveys. If enough of them were on board, it is conceivable that there could even be correspondence classes carried on for any children who might be there.
It might be of interest to know that in addition to this particular suggestion I was told by the naval architect with whom I was speaking that there is a movement among those industries in Canada which are concerned about naval architecture to establish at the University of British Columbia a special course in naval architecture. Such an institute of naval architecture at my alma mater would be a further sign of the intent of this country to proceed with the purpose this bill attempts to display,

namely, the creation, as I understand it, of a Canadian merchant marine.
I commend this notion to the government and suggest that if some application for assistance along these lines is made, it be favourably received. We must tighten up clause 8 of Bill C-61. We must have a definition of "cabotage" which is meaningful even, if necessary, by borrowing those concepts from air law and translating them into maritime law. We recognize that at least as an interim measure there is under subclause (5) the authority vested in the governor in council to permit exception, to carriers for specified purposes and for a specified time by way of an interim measure. That particular clause need not be there for all time, but only until such time as Canada's merchant marine is capable of standing on its own feet and carrying out the trade which is so important to the Canadian economy and to Canada as a trading nation.
This particular amendment, motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, deals with the trade on the east coast particularly, the cruising trade if you like; but there is also the merchant trade, the carriage of goods on the east coast, which has caused considerable concern, I understand, to the first ministers of the maritime provinces. They want assurance that if we tighten up the cabotage provisions in this particular legislation, there will still be competitive bids on the carriage of goods between the provinces, between the mainland and Newfoundland if you like, and up into Labrador. This is most important. We have mentioned it in other contexts and we will mention it again on many occasions.
We want assurance from the minister that the first ministers of the maritime provinces are in agreement with the regulations which are to be drawn up, I believe, under clause 12 of this bill. We mentioned in committee, as well, that members of parliament would like to see the regulations before this bill becomes law. I found it altogether surprising that so much of the legislation that is brought before us, legislation of a fundamental and basic kind such as this, contains provisions for the eventual appearance of regulations. I would like to think that we would get away from this practice. We have schedules I and II, and I believe there is also a schedule III here. Schedule III provides for Book I of the Maritime Code, and I suppose schedule IV provides for Book II. Why could there not be a schedule which contains the regulations?
The provisions of the code are fundamental. They are the ground rules under which Canadian ships and foreign ships will operate in Canadian waters. I think it is important that the regulations be published before this bill becomes law. For the time being I will reserve my comments on the amendment which stands in my name. There may be others who wish to comment further on this motion which has a bearing on the waters in the mouth of the St. Lawrence and on the east coast trade.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is a point of procedure which it might be worth while bringing to the attention of the hon. member. Motions Nos. 2 and 3 have been grouped together. This means that the hon. member is entitled to speak once on both of them, not once on each of them. There is only one debate. Therefore, if the hon. member has
Maritime Code
some comments to make on motion No. 3 now would be the time to make them.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, up to now my comments have been confined exclusively to motion No. 2.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I also bring to the attention of the hon. member that since he is the promoter of a motion, he is entitled to 40 minutes, so nothing prevents his carrying on. He is permitted to speak again, but this would necessitate the consent of the House. I leave the decision up to him.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will continue my remarks now, but will direct them to the motion which stands in my name and which is of a more general nature but still deals with the cruising industry. It could also deal with the merchant industry on the west coast. I do not know how many members in the House have done the trip from the top of the island, from Kelsey Bay, up to Prince Rupert through the inland passage. It is a trip which is reminiscent of the Norwegian fiords for those who have travelled through the narrow waters with mountains coming right down on both sides. You feel, as you go through some of the passages, that if you stretched out far enough you could touch the shores on either side. The same applies up the coast beyond Prince Rupert. I am sorry that the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) is not here because I am sure that she would like to describe some of the beauties of this area.
Because these areas are so attractive they are great summer cruising areas which are being invaded by ships conducting international cruises. Therefore, we must have some provision within our definition of "cabotage" in this act to enable Canadian ships to get into the trade in this area as we were describing it on the east coast. It is a very simple matter which can be done in a variety of ways. A ship can load its passengers in Vancouver, let us say, go down Pugit Sound to Seattle to pick up some more passengers, then come up to Victoria. It is then involved in an international cruise, whether passengers have gone down and got off in Seattle or gone for a day's shopping and come up to Vancouver. Then the ship might go on through the inland passage, up through Johnson strait. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) is not here either, but he also knows this area. Instead of going from Vancouver directly to Prince Rupert, they could go on to Ketchikan and convert this interCanadian port cruise into an international cruise. This is exactly what has been happening and the trade on the west coast has been taken over.
My first sight of the Pacific was from a ship travelling from Vancouver up the west coast to Vancouver Island and to Zeballos for a summer job. This is one of the delights of the summer in that particular area. You can run into some rough weather, but in good weather it is a splendid trip and I commend it to anyone who can afford the time. But those trips are no longer possible. The Canadian ships have been taken off those particular journeys, unfortunately, because of the simplicity with which it is possible to convert a trip into an international voyage and therefore bring in a non-Canadian or non-American carrier to do the

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
trip. At present it is the Norwegians and the Dutch who do this, if I remember correctly. There are a few others.
Sometimes some of the world cruise trips do part of the journey, but basically, on a back and forth deal between the extremities, it might be San Diego, San Fransisco, Vancouver, Ketchikan, Prince Rupert, and out farther into Alaska and then back down. This has been turned over because of the absence of a firm, solid definition of what cabotage is to foreign vesels. We see vessels coming in, as was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Dar-mouth-Halifax East, which are not even required to fulfil the standards of work within Canada. The workmen are not subject to our Workmen's Compensation Act and they are not paid the wages that Canadian workmen demand.
We should close the loopholes in this definition of "cabotage" so as to encourage Canadian shipping to resume those trips up the west coast, whether it be up the Pacific or up the inland passage. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) had.done some of these trips from Vancouver, and he can testify to the great beauty of the trip and to the relaxation which a trip of that sort on a good ship can provide to anyone who is a little weary of life in the city and who seeks some way of being carried back to nature. But we will not do this on Canadian ships unless we close those loopholes in the law. That is the whole meaning of the amendment which I am putting forward.
I have used the word "cabotage" too much, but I think it has a meaning in English to which we should get back. The coasting trade is one thing, but it does not carry that connotation of "cabotage" which it does in air law. I think we must get it back into the maritime law where it came from and where it belongs. It is with that view in mind that these two amendments have been drafted.
There is one caveat here, Mr. Speaker, which was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). There is a problem in intercoastal trade in Canadian bottoms. Let us say there could be a problem unless we have provision for competitive bidding, because when you load at Nanaimo, say, and offload at Dartmouth or St. John's, the quickest way of making the journey is, through the Panama Canal, winter or summer. I do not think you can do it the other way with a load of lumber. The Panama Canal, of course, means a call at a foreign port, which turns it into an international trip and therefore it is open to non-Canadian carriers.
We have to find some means-and we have not found it yet-of encouraging Canadian bottoms to get into that lucrative trade. It is a part of the Canadian business. I am sure it is still true that it is cheaper to carry goods by water than any other means, over long distances. Wheat, of course, cannot be carried any other way than by ships, but the carriage of goods by sea has historically been cheaper than carriage by any other means. Time is involved in going from the west coast to the east coast though the Panama Canal, but it should be cheaper to carry lumber, minerals or whatever commodity from the west coast across the continent by water than by rail.
There was some mention in the debate yesterday that if ships were in the hands of one of the railways, the water

rates would be increased to match the rail rates. Perhaps we should ensure there is encouragement to shippers, independent of the rails, to build Canadian ships and enter Canadian coastal trade from the west coast to the east coast.
Perhaps it is looking a long way ahead, but there has been mention of the trade that could develop in the Arctic. I was shocked to hear that consideration was being given to having ships built in German shipyards to take ore from the Canadian Arctic to Canadian refineries in the St. Lawrence. This is cabotage in its pureset form from the Canadian Arctic to Canadian mills and foundries whether they be in the St. Lawrence or up the Great Lakes. This trade should be carried by Canadian ships, manned by Canadian crews. We are not going to have that opportunity until we give encouragement with law and with subsidies. I think we must face the fact that subsidies will be required to encourage a Canadian maritime service to get Canadian vessels back into the trade, particularly in Canada. From there we can expand to the wider, lucrative trade of carrying Canadian goods to international ports.
The Norwegians do not lose money in this type of trade. They have very high standards of seamanship and shipbuilding, and are making money. Why should the Canadian industry not be doing the same? This is the reason we have been seeking to tighten the meaning of clause 8 so that the need to invoke section 5 will become less and less frequent as the years go by. In the course of time we would like section 5 to be no longer necessary because cabotage would mean exactly what it ought to mean, namely, reserving to Canadians the right to carry goods from one Canadian port to another. There are strange anomalies in our geography, in the history of the development of our continent such as we see in St. Pierre and Miquelon, and in the geographic and diplomatic anomaly of the appearance of the Alaska Panhandle, which cut off a great part of the north of our provinces from the sea by an award in the nineteenth century. Those anomalies exist and we have to accept them. Since they exist, we should be able to provide the appropriate wording in the law to overcome them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will call it one o'clock.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of points that I should like to make briefly in response to some of the comments which have been made by the hon. members who have proposed these two motions, but I see it is one o'clock. If I may, I should like to call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, just before one o'clock I rose to respond to the comments of the two hon. gentlemen who spoke between twelve and one o'clock, in the hope of allaying their reservations about clause 8 of Bill C-61.
March 5, 1976

First, however, may I thank the House for allowing last evening a procedural modification which will facilitate the consideration of Bill C-61. In error, we had grouped motions 1, 2 and 3 together for discussion, whereas motions 1 and 5 and 2 and 3 ought to have been grouped together for discussion. May I extend my thanks to the House, to the Chair and to the Table for their assistance in this, which will help in the consideration of this bill.
Last evening hon. members commented about the brevity of my remarks at the beginning of the report stage, and about the minister's absence. Let me make two points. First, my initial comments dealt only with the technical accuracy of the French version of a particular clause vis-avis the English version. That concerned motions 1 and 5. I am happy to see the confusion on that point resolved. I did not mean to imply last evening that I had nothing else to say about the other substantive portions of the bill. I welcome today's opportunity to comment more extensively on substantive aspects of this legislation and proposed amendments to it.
Hon. members also commented last evening on the minister's inability to be present. Let me explain why the minister was unable to be present when we began the report stage discussion. The minister was in the House yesterday until late afternoon waiting for Bill C-61 to be called. It was called only late in the day, unfortunately after he had been called away on business. Any inference to the contrary is misleading. I think it important to indicate the reason for the minister's absence. To those hon. members who want an assurance, I am able to say that the minister intends to participate in this debate. He would have done so last evening if he could have been present. He will at the first opportunity during our consideration of Bill C-61, address himself specifically to concerns which hon. members and people outside the House have voiced about various aspects of the bill.
It is apparent that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), in whose name stands motion No. 2, and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), in whose name stands motion No. 3, are concerned about the provisions of clause 8. As has been mentioned, clause 8 involves the basic principles of the Canadian coasting trade. The establishment of such provisions for Canada is, in the opinion of many in this House and outside, long overdue. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich argue that clause 8 is not strong enough, should be tightened or strengthened or made to speak more loudly, if I may say this. Meanwhile, other hon. members opposite are not so sure. Last evening the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) went so far as to say that in his opinion clause 8 should be deleted from the bill altogether. I draw attention to that point not only to illustrate differences of opinion or a division of view among members opposite, but it also illustrates the complexity, delicacy and fundamental importance of coasting trade provisions and of the general question of the coasting trade with which clause 8 deals.
That question is not to be easily, neatly and simply resolved. The issues on both sides of the question are of concern to the government. Having consulted the industry, labour, professional groups, provincial governments and
Maritime Code
others interested, we have tried to meet the problem. The result is this bill. I trust that in the final analysis all the work undertaken in the attempt to reach an accommodation will bear fruit.
Dealing specifically with the second motion on the order paper standing in the name of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East, I want to assure him that the concern he has raised is not an issue which has escaped the attention of the government or the draftsmen who did the technical work in putting the legislation together.
There is a good argument that relates more particularly to the next motion that also applies here. The wording as presently drawn in general terms covers the situation adequately. The hon. member argued in committee, and I believe in the House, that it would not be an uncommon step for us to give the governor in council the power to make a declaration from time to time that a certain foreign area, territory, port or place would be deemed to be a part of Canada. It may not be an unprecedented move to do that, but it is an unusual step, particularly in the terms in which this amendment is phrased; that is, virtually giving to the governor in council the authority to declare a foreign territory in its entirety to be a part of Canada. That is a fairly extreme and drastic power.


J. Michael Forrestall: For the purposes of the act.


Ralph Goodale: Yes, but it is still a power which I do not think we should exercise casually. I do not mean to imply that hon. members should take the matter casually. Quite to the contrary. I know they do not. However, it is important to recognize that it is an extensive step for us to take. It has international implications. Even though you limit your wording to the purpose of this legislation, it has implications, viewed in its international context, that go beyond that. We must be careful before taking that step. At this moment in time I would not be prepared to recommend adoption of that particular measure by the House because of the international implications it might have.
The other point relating to this motion is also interesting and should be borne in mind. I refer to the extent of the power that this amendment would give to the governor in council. The power is not circumscribed by anything. It would give the governor in council the ability to declare any place or any territory anywhere in the world to be Canadian for the purpose of this legislation. That goes a little bit far. Perhaps that is something that may or may not be implied as a matter of necessity by the hon. member who proposed the motion, but it is a fact we have to bear in mind.
This amendment, to accomplish the purpose to which the hon. member has addressed himself, would give to the governor in council a rather sweeping and unlimited mandate. It would have serious implications for our international relations. We would want to be more cautious about it than maybe we have had the opportunity to discuss in the course of this particular legislation.
I will return to my original point that I passed over rather briefly before getting into the more technical argument. I believe that the legislation as drafted adequately deals with the concern my friends across the way have

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
raised. I would urge the House to approve the legislation as it has been reported to us from the committee and not go to the extent of amending it as my hon. friend has suggested.
Motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is, as he indicated, in the same vein or spirit but approaches the problem from another angle. I might say that this particular idea was also proposed and discussed at length and ultimately turned down during the course of our committee proceedings. I want again to assure the hon. member that the principle for which he is arguing is not one to which we take exception. Indeed, it was indicated during the committee proceedings and previously in this House that the very points which he made in his statement on the motion are ones with which we fully agree, and I would argue that the legislation as presently drafted accomplishes the objectives he has in mind. From a technical and procedural point of view we would accomplish those objectives in better fashion than the wording proposed in motion No. 3.
The technical answer is a matter of drafting. As it is presently worded, the clause is designed to cover the situation in general and all-encompassing language. You get into some difficulty when you try to reduce that language specifically to deal with certain circumstances. You may cover a particular circumstance very well, but as the situation changes from time to time you may find that the specific wording chosen fails to include or to cover situations which arise later down the road that really were not thought of at this moment in time. We would be further ahead and would cover the concern more adequately if we were to use the broader, all-encompassing language that we have in the bill and not restrict ourselves to more specific language that may at some time in the future leave out something.
On this point I would refer hon. members to evidence given to our committee when this particular issue was before us. The evidence appears in issue No. 34 of the committee reports. The witness being questioned was Mr. J. J. Mahoney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice. The particular quotation I want to refer to is on page 28. I will read one brief paragraph.


Mr. Paproski:: Did you say Justice Mahoney?


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker. For the benefit of the chief opposition whip, the witness was Mr. J. J. Mahoney, Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Justice. I want to make that absolutely clear. After Mr. Mahoney had given some indication of the technical and drafting problems involved, he went on to say:
-it is felt that by using these more general words, it is possible then to tie down the situation more tightly than if one uses rather specific language, but either events change or some new system is developed which has not been taken into account in that very specific use of language. It is the same old legal problem you have in contracts or in incorporating companies and in many areas of the law where it is often better to use general phraseology and so encompass all of the objective than it is to be very specific and forget something.
That is the opinion that Mr. Mahoney offered on that occasion. I think it is the right one. It is a pretty basic principle in the sense of technical drafting of statutes. We have there an assurance that we cover the situation more effectively by using the broader wording as it presently stands in the legislation, rather than reducing ourselves to
(Mr. Goodale.]
more specific words which may result in our omitting to cover a situation which may arise at a later time.
In concluding what I have to say about these two amendments let me once again stress that we appreciate the spirit and the thrust of the amendments, but it is our view that the statute as presently worded covers the situation in a fair, reasonable and adequate fashion and that it is not necessary to add the additional words proposed either in motion No. 2 or in motion No. 3 and that these motions should not be accepted by the House.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the parliamentary secretary permit a brief question before he resumes his seat?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would he not agree with me that the basis of our concern is to be found in his very words of a moment ago? If I am paraphrasing them, I apologize, but I hope I reflect the intent of what he was saying. He said, "I think". He didn't say, "I know". He was not able to give us an unqualified assurance. He simply said, "I think" with regard to the assurances given by Mr. Mahoney, a man for whom all members of the committee have a great deal of respect. The parliamentary secretary reflects his own doubt. The existence of that doubt gives us cause for concern with respect to his reassurances on this point.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I think it is my style of phraseology and not my particular words which are concerning the hon. member. When I said "I think", I did not want to imply doubt on my part.


An hon. Member:: You said it again. You began by saying it.


Ralph Goodale: It is too bad that the recording processes of the House cannot take into account the tone and emphasis in a speaker's voice. There is a great difference between saying "I think" with a rising inflection, and saying "I think" with a more firm inflection in one's voice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Ralph Goodale: In any event, I want to allay the fears of the hon. member by saying I did not mean to imply by using the words "I think" that I entertained some doubt on the particular point. I suppose that until any statute has been adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court in the event of final recourse thereto there would, in a strict legal sense, always be some legitimate room for argument. We can only do our best by phrasing the legislation in the most effective way we can, and I think the legislation as written accomplishes that objective.


Donald W. Munro: Perhaps I, too, could direct a question to the parliamentary secretary. This question relates to the discussion we had yesterday and also to the discussion we are now having in seeking to tighten up the incidence of cabotage. Part of our discussion yesterday concerned altering the French text to correspond more closely with the English text. There are two places, one of which I think we might accept as showing conformity between the texts, but there is one absence, to my way of
March 5, 1976

thinking. I have gone over it again. I said to myself, "It must be there." Yet I cannot find it.
Again it comes down to the French text being so short. It is in subsection (iii) of 3(a). It says in English-and the preamble is about the same-"from one port or place in Canada to the same or another port or place in Canada". This is translated on the French side as, "Entre des ports et lieux du Canada". I think that probably does carry the sense. The other section in the English text is there, yet I cannot find its meaning in the French text. Following the (iii) under section 3 we find the words "whether directly or by way of a foreign port".
We might go back to the notion which was floated yesterday, the suggestion, concerning which we seek clarification, that in the Superior Court before French-speaking judges there is a practice of using historical documents and then they would realize what we were getting at-that the English version said one thing and that in the absence of that particular clause in French we intended that it be in the French version. But surely in a country such as ours we should make sure that it is in both texts. There is nothing I can see in the French text which conveys the message conveyed by the final phrase of section 3(a), namely, "whether directly or by way of a foreign port". It is there implicitly but not otherwise. Why does it have to be explicit in one language and implicit in the other?


Ralph Goodale: I do not profess to be an expert on translation, and I appreciate the concern the hon. member has raised. But I think, if I am not mistaken, that this particular issue was dealt with in motion No. 1, standing in the name of the minister, where clause 8(3)(a) is amended by adding a phrase which to my way of thinking specifically covers the point which the hon. member has raised. I think that motion should resolve the problem. The amendment was designed to cover the very point which has been raised.


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


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there is agreement that this and two other votes should be deferred until five o'clock on Tuesday afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall).
All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am not sure what procedure we are attempting to follow. You have just put a very specific question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair has to ask
for the yeas and nays, and then we shall defer the vote.
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
Maritime Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it. Pursuant to standing order 75(2) the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
[DOT] (M30)


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the vote is to be deferred until Tuesday of next week at five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will five members please stand.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.


J. Michael Forrestall: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-61, an act to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in clause 10 by deleting lines 31 and 32 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"renewal or terminating later than September 24, 1978".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will see if it is possible to get another 35 or 40 minutes out of a one-liner. Years ago when I was working for the Halifax Herald, being taught by a now distinguished deputy minister of the government of Nova Scotia, I would be called into the newsroom because it was my job for a long time to make an eight or ten paragraph story out of some little news release. I do not know whether I learned my lesson well.
The purpose of this motion is to attempt to give some recognition to the notice given by the government under the former minister of transport to our member Commonwealth countries of our intention to withdraw from the Commonwealth shipping arrangement. The act calls for a termination date in April of 1980, and I am suggesting that it be on September 24, 1978. Notice of this intention was formally served on the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth nations which participate in the Commonwealth shipping arrangements in 1973.
We suggest that we withdraw from these arrangements on September 24, 1978, for a variety of reasons. It is many years since those interested in the redevelopment of a Canadian merchant marine initiated the action that we are discussing in parliament today. There can be no occasion for any shipping company operating under a Commonwealth flag to complain that they were not adequately forewarned of our intention, of which notice was served in 1973. We are fully in accordance with the five-year notice and we went through the one-year period before formal notice could be given. Formal notice was then given that we would subsequently withdraw from the Commonwealth shipping arrangement.
In support of my argument I should like to quote briefly from the evidence given to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on December 11, 1975, at

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
page 30:7. These words were introduced into the record by the president of the Seafarer's International Union and were also endorsed by the CBRT:
Third, grandfather rights set out in clause 10 should expire on September 23, 1978.
In 1973, the then minister of transport announced a policy restricting the coasting trade of Canada to Canadian ships and indicated that there would be a five-year period of grandfather rights in favour of the British ships then engaged in the coasting trade. We think the five-year period should commence from September 24, 1973, which was the date of his announcement, or at the very latest, from the date on which notice was given to the Commonwealth countries that Canada was withdrawing from the Commonwealth Shipping Agreement, which was on April 26, 1974.
He then went on to urge the committee to give consideration to this matter, and I think the committee did give it consideration. I appreciate the arguments that have been put forward on the matter by the parliamentary secretary, bolstered by their expert witness, Mr. Maloney, that from the point of view of formality the later date was the best date to follow. However, our reaction is somewhat different. We have been trying for 15 to 20 years to re-establish the framework within which we can redevelop not only a foreign deep sea fleet but strengthen and bolster the existing coastal shipping capacity and capability which Canada has.
Most of Canada's trade is now carried in Canadian ships, so there is not going to be any great problem here. I think 75 to 80 per cent of our export trade, not only today but traditionally, has always been carried in Canadian ships, so not too many ships are going to be affected. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) yesterday expressed to the House fears he had about interference or intervention with competitive rates for the movement of goods. That aspect is present and we do not treat it lightly, but what I am saying is that so far as our coastal trade is concerned the matter is not significantly important. A relatively small percentage of our coastal trade is carried in other than Canadian registered and crewed ships.
Where this does have an impact is that it affects, morally-and, I suppose, philosophically-our approach to the development of a Canadian merchant marine. Canada had some 452 registered ships serving in liner conferences alone in and out of our country last year. If we went to the UNCTAD arrangement and the new code of ethics for liner conferences, in terms of securing forever 40 per cent of our incoming and outgoing export traffic it would mean 175 Canadian ships. Under the UNCTAD arrangement, 55 per cent of the major carriers of the world have already endorsed this particular proposal, but this is getting a little far afield from the date of withdrawal from the Commonwealth shipping arrangement.
I am attempting to draw to the attention of the House that we are talking here about at least 7,000 new jobs for Canadians. For example, the Halifax shipyard in my own constituency will come to the end of the offshore oil drilling rig construction and development program some time within a year. What is going to happen to the 600 or 800 men who are going to be laid off? We are trying to create work for our shipyards. We are trying to create jobs for our seamen, merchant service officers and Canadian suppliers. We are talking about hard-earned money. A total of $2.7 billion is being given away to the cartels in Toyko, New York, London and Athens. I want this to come home to

Canada, not in 15 years or in 10 years but as soon as it can be done in an orderly fashion. I want us to hold strong to this point.
Someone might ask what difference it makes whether the anniversary date is 1978 or 1980. Probably the only difference it makes is that it points out to the people of the world that we are serious in our intention to keep some of this amount of $2.7 billion for our own use rather than give it away. A number of recommendations were made by the somewhat scholarly report of the Darling commission in respect of an international shipping structure for Canada. I am sure members of the House have read this report. Some interesting comments were made in respect of Canada's position if we continue to rely on foreign shipping.
There are some interesting comments and observations about our procrastination in this regard. It is pointed out that we must not only be doing these things, but we must be seen to be doing them. We have the situation of our wood being shipped from British Columbia to Japan in Japanese ships. Our lumber from the west coast is being shipped on vessels of foreign registration. Our potatoes are being shipped from New Brunswick to the United States, to the Caribbean and to Europe in foreign registered ships. Why? By taking the extreme end in establishing the anniversary date beyond which the grandfather rights will not apply, except in the absence of a suitable Canadian ship, we are seeming to say to these countries that they can carry on and use our dollars because we need their vessels. We have heard the argument that we really cannot compete offshore in respect of exports because of the cost of a crew. That was true 40 years ago, but it is an insignificant factor now in respect of today's highly automated vessels and ships. It really is not an argument.
I come back again to the position in which we find ourselves. We are saying, in effect, to the countries of the world that we will do this even if it takes 100 years. We should tell the world we intend to do it as quickly and efficiently as we can, and that the delay will only be for two or three years. This probably is a relatively minor point I am making. However, what is at stake is a substantial Canadian industry. Every other significant transport industry in Canada today is protected and subsidized. But this industry for a long time has been treated as an accident of circumstance, while in fact it is an integral industry; it is a major industry in Canada. We are talking about
14,000	seamen and another 3,000 to 5,000 officers and engineers. Any industry which employs 14,000 people is a substantial contributor to the Canadian economy. Let us tell the people around the world who are hauling our exports because it costs them a few dollars less for a crew, with the exception of the Russians and one or two other countries, that we intend to do it ourselves, not at some point in the future but at the first possible opportunity.
I suggest that notice was clearly given to the countries of the world, particularly the Commonwealth countries which are members of and were participants in the Commonwealth agreement, that we want to see that amount of $2.7 billion which we lose in the form of transportation costs revert to the Canadian consumer and come back to the government which can squander it, if you like. We want it to come back to Canada so that it might be the
March 5, 1976

basis upon which we can build our own Canadian merchant fleet and develop it in an orderly fashion so that it will not disrupt or disorient the competitive movement of our goods.
I commend these points to the chamber because they are important. I suggest this amendment is a simple attempt to make known to the foreign cartels which operate at our expense, and who make it difficult for us to get on with what we intend to do, that we are serious and intend to move in as quick and orderly a fashion as we can. I hope other members will have observations to make in this regard because it is important that people understand we are serious and intend to move.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Again I would say to the House that we had the benefit of very substantial argument on his particular points during our committee hearings. He has read into the record some of the proceedings in respect of this matter. Clause 10 of the bill refers to what we call in shorthand the "grandfather rights," the rights which exist in respect of certain vessels which have been in the coasting trade of Canada to continue in that trade.
I was happy to hear my friend across the way agree with the basic concept of those rights continuing for a five-year period. There does not seem to be any dispute about that. I gather his argument is for a stronger appearance or a stronger impression. His only argument seems to be that somehow we should go back to an earlier base date in calculating those five years than the one which may be the more proper formal date. Perhaps, for the information of members, it would be useful to explain the difference between the two dates. I think the date to which my hon. friend refers is September 24, 1973. This is the date upon which the former minister of transport issued a statement in conjunction with his colleagues from the Atlantic provinces following a meeting at Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
On that occasion the minister indicated that the government of Canada would be withdrawing from the British Commonwealth merchant shipping agreement. That was a general indication of intention at that particular moment of time in 1973. I would say to the members of the House that in my view that falls substantially short of what in law and justice would amount to formal notice.
At some time later, on April 26, 1975, the formal notice was served by Canada, as is required under the agreement which I have just mentioned, the British Commonwealth merchant shipping agreement, of our intention to withdraw from the terms of that agreement. So in the first instance we have a general statement of principle or of intention issued in the form of a press statement or a communique in September of 1973, followed by the required legal or international action which was necessary on our part in 1975 to accomplish in law what we indicated we would eventually be doing after September of 1973.
Maritime Code
The fact remains that the necessary legal steps could not be accomplished until a later date, that is until 1975, and it seems to me that it is far more than just a formality or perhaps the more polite way to proceed; it is, indeed, the legal and proper way for us to proceed to look at the later date, that is, the date in 1975, as the basic date for the calculation of those five years for the purposes of the so-called grandfather rights preserved in clause 10. We should not, and indeed cannot, go back to the earlier date in 1973 for the basis of that calculation. For these reasons, I think it is necessary and important that the House not accept this particular amendment which would terminate those rights in 1978, but in fact leave the statute in the words in which it is now phrased where those rights would expire in 1980.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Would the parliamentary secretary allow a question?


Ralph Goodale: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Could he perhaps clarify a statement he made, that the British Commonwealth merchant shipping agreement requires a formal notice from a country five years prior to pulling out of the agreement? Is my understanding correct?


Ralph Goodale: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I was commenting on the reference which the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East made about the general consensus that the grandfather rights, as they are called in shorthand, in this legislation should last for a period of five years. The formal notice required to withdraw from the agreement is only one year. The five-year period is the period of existence of these rights as specified by the legislation, but the formal period of notice which is required before withdrawing from the agreement to which I referred is a notice of one year. As I have said, that notice was formally given in 1975.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on the motion of hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
And more than five members having risen:

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
We now go on to motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: Motion No. 6.
That Bill C-61, an act to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in clause 11 by
(a)	deleting the word "and" in line 6 at page 15
(b)	striking out line 9 at page 15 and substituting the following therefor:
coasting trade of Canada; and
(c)	while the ship is operating under the licence, the employees aboard will be Canadian or landed immigrants, and the operator of the ship will comply with the Canada Labour Code, the Immigration Act, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and, in general, with the laws, regulations and standards that are applicable to a business or enterprise operated in Canada under federal jurisdiction.
Motion No. 7.
That Bill C-61, to provide a maritime code for Canada, to amend the Canada Shipping Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential or related provisions, be amended in clause 11 by adding immediately after line 48 at page 15 the following:
(6) Any person having an interest therein may make oral or written representations to the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of the issuance, suspension, cancellation or renewal of a licence applied for or issued under this section.
He said: Mr. Speaker, here, again, I think perhaps we erred a little. I draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that these two motions bear no relationship whatsoever. They deal with entirely different aspects of this section of the bill. I will deal with motion No. 6 first.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I gather that the hon. member is proceeding to discuss these two motions. I should like to have a ruling on the point. It is my opinion that a vote on one motion should not automatically be a vote on the other one. Personally, I object to these two motions being grouped together. One motion involves people working on ships and the protection they are given under a number of acts, and the other motion evolves around the problem of licensing, the obtaining and renewing of licences. Therefore, I should like to suggest that these two motions not be grouped together because a vote on one should not affect the other. Unless someone convinces me that there is some relationship between the two, I think they should be put separately and voted on separately.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It was my understanding that a vote on motion No. 1 will dispose of motion No. 5, a vote on motion No. 2 will dispose of motion No. 3, motion No. 4 will be voted on separately, a vote on motion No. 6 will dispose of motion No. 7, a vote on motion No. 8 will be taken separately, and motion No. 9 will be voted on separately. I also understand that there was agreement to that.


William Arnold Peters: Whether or not it was agreed upon, I should like to make the point now that there is no relationship between the two.


Mr. Harquail:: Do you not respect agreements?
[The Acting Speaker.]


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member, who knows nothing about the bill, probably, does not know either what bill we are discussing. He should be aware of the difficulty of taking a vote on a subject which has no bearing on another subject. This is a very complex bill, but I think even the parliamentary secretary who appears to have responsibility for the bill will agree that there is no relationship between the two motions. Although an agreement may have been reached by members who are not too familiar with the bill, there is a legitimate reason for raising this point.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I just want to inform the hon. member and the House that I happen to be a member in good standing of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Apparently he is not aware of that.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, that really does not tell me anything. The hon. member may well be what he says. However, I attended several meetings of that Committee and met a number of members who really did not know much about it.
The point raised by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) should be considered. It would seem to me that in taking those votes we should be able to make a decision on a fact, rather than have two separate facts involved where the votes may be contrary on both facts.


J. Michael Forrestall: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just resumed his seat is quite correct.
For the benefit of hon. members, the amendment proposes adding after line 48 at page 15, new subsection, (6). This proposes to include in the act the procedure whereby an affected person may have the right to appeal or declare his interest to the regulatory body, the Canadian Transport Commission, in respect to the issuance of a licence.
The other amendment deals very clearly with the working conditions and rules and regulations under which ships operate in Canada-the waters, the crews, etc.
I apologize to the Chair and the Chamber because it was my understanding that we could discuss the two lumped together but that a vote would be called on each.


Donald W. Munro: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest we debate both motions and vote upon them separately. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Thank you for restoring some order to the proceedings, Mr. Speaker.
We will deal first with the absence from the bill of a procedure by which an affected person could make his views known to the Canadian Transport Commission where a permit or licence had been granted. I am not sure whether it was an oversight in the bill. In committee I had intended to introduce it as part of a larger amendment dealing with publication of notice by an applicant seeking a permit or licence to operate in Canadian waters under the terms of the proposed Maritime Code. In my concern to make sure the notices were published in the two languages in the official Gazettes of Canada and the provinces and so on, I drafted but neglected to instruct my secretary with respect to this particular amendment.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is very important in the context of the practice in recent years. A lot of people view the practice of the Canadian Transport Commission in issuing special permits and licence as a rubber-stamp operation-a buddy system. Somebody wants to charter to move potatoes to the Caribbean and says "I have such and such a motor vessel. I will fix it here and be in Halifax on such and such a date. How about it? How are you Dave? How's the wife and kids?" And that is the end of it.
It is a rubberstamp operation and always has been. The practice is likely to continue, and there have been many instances of it in recent years. There is the matter of the seismographic work in the north in connection with the search for oil. The government chartered an offshore ship while there was a Canadian ship that could do the job. The owner of the ship had no recourse except to go to the newspapers and make a noise, or go to his member of parliament. None of the remedies were satisfactory and he had no appeal, nowhere to turn.
My amendment proposes that:
Any person having an interest therein may make oral or written representations to the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of the issuance, suspension, cancellation or renewal of a licence applied for or issued under this section.
What that does is make it possible, where the owner of a Canadian vessel finds his vessel lying idle while a foreign owned vessel is working in Canadian waters, for the Canadian owner to state his case to the Canadian Transport Commission. It would then act according to the degree the affected person was able to demonstrate injury.
When I introduced this amendment earlier I introduced with it a substantially longer amendment which called for a procedure by which the public would be notified that a special permit or licence was being sought by a particular operator. The notice was to be published where the shipping community would normally expect to see it. In other words, people would not have to buy the Vancouver newspapers to find out whether a ship was coming here under special licence. That required four weeks' notice and was not accepted because it was felt to be unduly restrictive. I
Maritime Code
accept that, as I accept the admonition of the council of maritime premiers that we must be careful not to interfere with the need to move quickly in some instances. This is simply a procedure by which somebody who feels the commission has gone outside the terms of the statute can appeal his case and tell his story.
I have not heard the view of the parliamentary secretary with respect to this rather simple amendment but I would appreciate hearing his comments. I see the parliamentary secretary busy with a pencil. I hope that is an indication the government will accept our suggestions. It is important to have these matters spelled out clearly in statute form.
Next I shall speak of something fundamental to our Canadian way of life. It is basic to our sense of propriety, of fairness to those who work for us, and to our sense of dignity. I should like to see foreign registered vessels, operating in Canada under special licence for one or more permit periods, come under Canadian law totally. I am not talking of the vessel which you charter quickly to move one cargo of grain from Saint John to the Lakehead. No, I am talking of specialized ships which operate in Canada for prolonged periods. We should require such ships to comply with the Canadian Maritime Code and with all Canadian law.
It is grossly unfair to our own shippers and our own sailors to allow foreign ships working in Canada to comply with standards completely different from those we impose on our Canadian seamen. It is only fair to require foreign crews working in Canada for extended periods to comply with all aspects of Canadian law. They should comply with the labour code, the Immigration Act, and other laws. While here they should assume the status of landed immigrants. If they refuse we should hire Canadian seamen to work on those ships.
It is a myth to suggest that Canadian crews are not available. We have all kinds of seamen available in this country. The ships should be covered by the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. We do not want foreign seamen in this country to work under conditions worse than those which we accept as decent for our own seamen. When I make these remarks I think of ships like the Traveltol, and the ro-ro-roll on, roll off-ships which operate out of Saint John, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, and Halifax, and carry cars and other vehicles. They are specialized ships and operate here for extended periods with foreign crews. At present I do not think those crews come under Canadian law. That is not fair. It is wrong. Either our laws apply to all who work in Canada, or they do not.
No person should be entitled to work in this country unless he conforms to the Canada Labour Code. We do not allow people in this country unless they meet the conditions of the Immigration Act. Why allow them to work here if they do not meet the conditions of the labour code? Apparently seamen are the exception. That is not right and I suggest is not what parliament intended.
We shall be more humane, show more concern, and be more highly respected if we ensure that all foreigners who work in Canada are protected by and conform to Canadian law and enjoy the benefits and protection of that law. I commend this course to the House. I hope my colleagues

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
will support my suggestions. One suggestion relates merely to a certain procedure which can be used for the redress of grievance. I am thinking of procedures with respect to the issuance of licences. The second suggestion is that we should make foreign seamen working for extended periods in Canada conform to and enjoy the protection of Canadian law.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker,
although I have not participated much in the deliberations of the transport committee one thing is apparent to me. Many Canadians are in favour of establishing a Canadian merchant marine. It is argued that passage of this bill will lead to the creation of a Canadian merchant navy. Well, I have been interested in a Canadian merchant navy, ever since C. D. Howe gave our ships to Onassis. Apparently we could not use our Liberty ships, but Onassis could. With them he built a shipping line and made himself extraordinarily rich. At one time we had the fourth or fifth largest merchant navy in the world.
I suggested in previous remarks that only four blue water ships are of Canadian registry. An official of the department said I was wrong, that there are 300 or 400 such ships. Perhaps he was thinking of rowboats, dories, small ships of 100 tons or so, and so on. The fact is that although we have one of the largest coastlines in the world, export vast amounts of raw materials, and import commodities from all over the world, we have to hire foreign ships. When we wanted to move oil from the west coast to the east coast, the shortage of shipping was so severe that we were forced to hire a ship so run down that nobody else would hire it. The ship was unsafe and there was a danger of losing the oil. That did not matter. In the crisis we were forced to hire that ship, to carry oil from the west coast to the east coast.


Donald W. Munro: Was her owner
Onassis?


William Arnold Peters: I don't know. She was not under Canadian registry but she was the only ship available, shipping being in short supply.
Obviously we need a Canadian merchant navy. An hon. member speaking last night said he was afraid that Canada does not possess the wherewithal to build a merchant navy. I suggest that Canada may need to treat the merchant navy as it treats its railways. The Canadian public and the government perhaps need to be involved directly with the payment of subsidies. We shall need to decide if a Canadian merchant navy is worth our while. If it is we must provide the means to make it possible. That question is relevant to clause 6.
Some think that by establishing the Maritime Code we are embarking on a new program which will ultimately lead to the creation of a Canadian merchant marine. They think that we shall control our waters with our own ships in much the same way as we influence events in our portion of the Seaway. I suggest that is not correct.
An archaic, backward-looking department would be involved with our merchant navy. They are so far in the background they will never get into this industry. They do not believe in having a merchant navy. They believe in meeting all the considerations involved in a system of

licensing. They use as a basis for their licences the economic factors and take into consideration the operation of their bureaucratic control over the issuing of licences and permits. They have been doing this for some time. As long as they continue it will be cheaper to hire foreign ships under licence than Canadian ships. Why? Read the amendment and clause 6 and you will see why.
A shipper on the east coast shipping from one port to another can hire a convenience flagship from Panama, the Bahamas, Libya or any other country flying a convenience flag at lower cost. They have the labour costs that apply in those countries rather than Canada. We must supply the kind of food they eat. Their conditions are very substandard to ours. The wages are very low. Safety and health standards are almost non-existent. That is why these ships can be hired at very low cost. As long as that continues it will be impossible for Canadian entrepreneurs to compete.
What happens with our ships? We in this country own ships. Some are owned by Canadian National Railways. They operate under flags of convenience with crews that, in the main, are recruited in countries where the wages are very low. It is also true that CP and most other Canadian owned ships operate under flags of convenience.
If we want to develop a Canadian merchant navy we must do a number of things. If the Department of Transport is going to give licences to all the friends it has established over a long period of time, they will have to agree to operate under the conditions we now have and our economic circumstances. We must apply the criteria under this amendment. If we applied these criteria, Canadian entrepreneurs would be able to build Canadian ships and hire Canadian crews. If the Canada Labour Code applied, and immigration officials applied the immigration law to these ships from one port to another in Canada, as well as our safety regulations, Canadians could compete. They are as smart as anyone. However, if only Canadians have to abide by the Canada Labour Code and operate under Canadian safety regulations and other regulations, we cannot compete.
I am aware of a simple fact the department has been aware of for a long time. Officials have been giving top priority to it. I refer to the economics of the operations of the department and the economics of the trade in the maritime provinces, and the added cost that will obviously be passed on to those making the transfers and the arrangements with the shipping companies.
I am aware that it would cost more to ship from Halifax to St. John's, Newfoundland, if Canadian crews are used. However, it is also a fact that when you apply those regulations to shipping by rail it costs more. There have been concessions made through subsidies and the Crows-nest Pass agreement, and special arrangements with regard to the shipment of coal, potatoes and so on. We have made these exceptions. However, we have not ensured that those who work in these transportation facilities are paid a reasonable rate of pay, observe safety standards, and become landed immigrants. There are two problems. First there are the people in the area who want to ship from one point to another and, second, Canadians in general who want to establish a Canadian merchant navy.
March 5, 1976

If we accepted the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, we would immediately eliminate the great need for permits being granted at this time. Most of our shipping is done by permit. It is true that some shipping is done on small ships, but quite possibly this is only on a part-time basis. In the main, however, it is safe to say there is no Canadian merchant navy.
If we want a Canadian merchant navy we will have to pay for it. If we were unable to ship our wheat in foreign bottoms, we would have to supply Canadian bottoms to move the wheat. With the amount of wheat we have been moving to other countries we could well afford to support a large grain moving fleet. We would be able to control that fleet as to availability, and relate it to the operations of our ports and our rail transportation system. In fact we would have real control over it. We would be in a much better position to guarantee delivery on certain specific dates and not have to renege on our contracts, as in now often the case.
There is a desire on the part of Canadians to have their own ships with their own flags moving their merchandise around the world. Most people will agree that our international trade is important. We have to do something about it.
The second motion, in my opinion, is different with regard to developing a Canadian transportation facility by insisting on Canadian crews and Canadian working conditions. It involves Canadian entrepreneurs who will be competing with the permit system which is mainly operated for foreign or exemption ships. Is it unreasonable to tell that archaic department which issues these permits that a person should be able to appeal? There must be some justification for a permit being granted. One would think that permits are the exception. However, they are not. The licensing system covers most coastal shipping. Most of it is done under the permit system. Is it unreasonable to ask for an appeal against a bad decision by the department?
The Canadian entrepreneur must hire Canadian crews. He is unable to meet the competition because he has to carry other liabilities involved in our law. That should not be taken into consideration is assessing whether one ship is providing as economic service as another, although the end result per ton may be considerably different. The Canadian entrepreneur may be operating much more efficiently and providing a less costly transportation service, taking into consideration his requirements under the law as opposed to those given a licence and exempt from all these conditions.
There has been considerable argument in recent years about seamen under Canadian registry and the demands they have made over the years for better safety standards, higher salaries, and improved living conditions. They have been aggressive, in some cases more aggressive than they should have been, but they were not only fighting the ship owners in this country they were fighting the Department of Transport as well. They have always had to fight the Department of Transport.
I can remember attending a meeting with a former minister of finance who was then parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport of the day. Another hon. member
Maritime Code
and I, together with that gentleman who is no longer with us, put up a fight, and that fight was not against the steamship owners or the pilots' association but against the Department of Transport. The department had made up its mind at that time the certain radio facilities would not be provided because no allowance had been made for them in the budget. The companies were willing to make the necessary changes in their structure, and so were the unions, but the Department of Transport was not.
With regard to licensing and the appeal procedure, as well as labour standards affecting workers in this trade, they are backward, they are not progressive. In my opinion this is the type of department which should be disbanded and started over again, because no matter who goes into it he seems to fall into the same mould. I have never met anybody in the department who has been progressive to any degree. The minister and the parliamentary secretary should take a close look at the people they are dealing with and the advice they are getting.
Fortunately there are those who are concerned about the development of the Canadian merchant navy, people who are concerned about the future of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, people who want a fleet under Canadian registry capable of moving our goods between one port of this nation and another, and eventually, if this is at all possible in an economic sense, capable of carrying our goods to countries abroad in the course of international trade.
I am sure the parliamentary secretary would agree that even in Saskatchewan where he comes from people were quite happy to enlist in great numbers in the navy during the last war, as well as in the Canadian merchant navy. They did so because they had an understanding of our necessity to deal by sea with other countries across the world and they were willing to make a contribution to that end.
The situation has not changed. The Canadian people are still waiting to make a contribution of that kind, and when the parliamentary secretary declines to accept motion No. 6 he is really saying to the department "Go ahead, operate on the basis of the exemptions, operate with foreign crew between Canadian ports, operate with cheap labour, operate in such a way as to accept conditions which do not conform with Canadian labour standards, operate in the same way as you would if this were a banana republic." If this is what he wants let him go along with the department and oppose this amendment. Those who really want a Canadian merchant navy will support motion No. 6.
Motion No. 6 means that sailors, even those operating under licence, will have to be paid Canadian wages and enjoy Canadian safety standards, besides having to meet other requirements which have been mentioned during the debate. If the Liberals are stupid enough to vote against this motion the Maritime Code will be set back for at least 100 years.


Donald W. Munro: I, too, wish to speak on this amendment. May I say I agree that the motions to which Your Honour drew attention are not related substantially, but we can, for purposes of discussion, talk about them together and we appreciate the

March 5, 1976
Maritime Code
thoughtfulness of the Chair in allowing us to vote on them separately.
The first of these motions relates to the application to a ship under licence of certain of the laws in Canada, for example, laws regarding employment, the Immigration Act, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act, and so on. This may very well highlight one of the comments which was certainly made from this side of the House, and possibly by one or two members on the other side as well, about the introduction of only Books I and II of the Maritime Code, books which deal only with certain aspects of the subject. Book No. Ill is tremendous, as my hon. friend remarks, but there are portions of it still to come. Only Books I and II are scheduled in connection with the bill before us. There might have been no need to have come forward with an amendment of this sort had the full Maritime Code been brought forward at one time, and I think the minister should have worked toward that end. Then we would have the full code before us and be in a position to know what issues are covered. I am thinking of inspection service and ship building standards.
Here we are talking about crewing and the law which should apply to ships operating under licence. I feel that, at least pending the introduction of the rest of this code, we should adopt a section of the kind proposed to make sure there is jurisdiction over ships engaged in the Canadian trade. We must not allow that trade to be carried on by ships which refuse to recognize the laws of Canada in this area. This is a theme eloquently expounded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
Motion No. 7 provides for an appeal procedure or a chance to object to a licence being issued. I am afraid I shall have to revert to an earlier discussion on interpretation from one language to another. It is conceivable that someone could take exception to a licence being issued to another party on the understanding that he would be able to exercise the licence under the second column in the law, which is the French text.
We are back again to the interpretation of the word "cabotage". I am sure someone will put a third initial in my name and call me Donald W. Cabotage-not John Cabot. I am sure the name will stick with me in some way or another.
In looking at the English version on page 15 of the bill I cannot help but be struck again by the particularization in the English text and the generalization in the French text that would provide a person who felt he had cause for appealing the issuance of a licence with just cause to do so. If I may quote the comparative texts, the clause provides:
(2) No licence shall be issued by the Canadian Transport Commission pursuant to subsection (1) unless the applicant for the licence establishes to the satisfaction of the Commission that
(a) utilization of a ship, other than a Canadian ship, in the particular aspect of the coasting trade of Canada in which the applicant proposes to use the ship to which the application relates-
This might involve the carrying of passengers, the carrying of coals, the carrying of general cargo. It might be specifically the carrying of petroleum products. Now, the French version provides:

(2) La Commission canadienne des transports ne peut delivrer la licence prevue au paragraphe (1) que si le requerant la convainc de ce que le navire, autre qu'un navire canadien,
(a)	est destine a etre, dans l'interet public-
That is covered only in the English version.
(b)	presente les caracteristiques necessaires pour etre utilise pour faire du cabotage au Canada.
The words "pour faire du cabotage" are so general that they could mean anything-carrying passengers, carrying lumber, carrying general cargo, carrying coal, ore, petroleum products. However, in the English version it is particularized. Therefore I feel there is some cause for us to ask that this particular method of interpreting from one language to the other be examined most carefully over the week end.
I understand it is not possible at this stage of our procedure to introduce an amendment, but there is surely some corrective device which can be applied between now and final reading that will clear up the uncertainty that exists, at least in my mind, and the uncertainty that I think would be in the mind of any judge who had to decide on an appeal that a person might make against the issuance of a permit under the provisions of this legislation.
The amendment proposed by my hon. friend for Dart-mouth-Halifax East may simply be a temporary one pending arrival of the other portions of the code, but until those portions of the code become law the amendment deserves to be accepted. It provides protection and for authority to extend Canadian law to those ships working in the coastal trade of Canada. Secondly, as I say, grounds for an appeal might very well arise simply because of the uncertainty and unclarity existing between the English and French versions of clause 11(2) of the bill.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the proposed amendment is important, and several hon. members have said so before me. We are dealing with an area where the policies implemented up to now have been far from adequate. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, Canada has always neglected shipping, so much so that we do not even have a merchant marine. In fact, we have acted somewhat childlishly in this area and have always left foreigners a free hand in all such matters. Of course, this has been a basic mistake, but we do not have to go on making it if we are intelligent enough to realize it.
Therefore, since we now have before us a bill to provide a maritime code for Canada, why should we not take this opportunity to make more truly Canadian a piece of legislation which is clearly inadequate? Although we do not have a truly Canadian merchant marine, we should at least have the decency to have a maritime code with specific sections to protect the interests of Canadians.
That is why I unreservedly support this amendment to clause 11 of Bill C-61. The motto of Canada-which is vast-is "From Sea to Sea" but that motto seems to me to be only symbolic since we are not all that interested in shipping operations. It remains obvious that a country washed by two oceans must monitor the shipping operations being carried out in its waters.
March 5, 1976

We previously experienced circumstances that were to say the least ridiculous and stupid, if not premeditated. For example, we saw ships in the St. Lawrence in Quebec City carry out coastal trade without any authorization. There is nothing in Canadian legislation to force a minimum of respect for our territorial integrity.
Mr. Speaker, we know that existed and will continue to exist. And when we have the possibility of providing in a code in a very specific way terms for having a licence. It seems to me that there is no mistake, that members of this House should understand this excellent amendment before us and it ought to be accepted immediately. Whether it be said that it is implicit in the fact that we are talking about coastal trade in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I repeat that considering the situation that always existed in this area it is important to dot the i's.
And that is why is added as proposed in the amendment the following:
-the employees aboard will be Canadian or landed immigrants, and the operator of the ship will comply with the Canada Labour Code, the Immigration Act, the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act and, in general, with the laws, regulations and standards that are applicable to a business or enterprise operated in Canada under federal jurisdiction."
Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said earlier. It is not possible that we should not agree on that because that would be showing very little national or patriotic feeling. Consequently, I think this amendment should be passed, and there is absolutely no shame to doing so. It is only a motion to strengthen our national pride a bit.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with these two motions I intend to be rather brief. There are short yet substantive answers to the specific points raised, particularly by my two hon. friends in the official opposition.
I have some substantial difficulty, however, with the address made to the House earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I shall quote him rather loosely, but I think fairly. In the latter part of his speech he said that we should take a close look at the people with whom we are dealing. I think in hearing his remarks we had an opportunity to take a close look at him. I do not think many of us were pleased by what we heard or saw. I think we saw a negative, non-specific, unfair, irresponsible, and inaccurate attack against people, past and present, who work for the people of Canada through the Ministry of Transport.
The diatribe this member delivered in the House today unhappily is all too typical of the kind of unfairness and irresponsibility we frequently see across the floor on the part of members of the New Democratic Party. I think it is terribly unfortunate that the member has injected into this discussion a note that is totally irrelevant, unfair, and which has detracted from the substantial good work done by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) in connection with this bill. As I say, it is unfortunate that the member for Timiskaming had to inject such an unfortunate and unhappy tone into the
Maritime Code
debate. He has detracted from the good and constructive discussion we were having prior to his intervention.
May I deal specifically with motions Nos. 6 and 7. In connection with motion No. 6 I have some initial difficulty.
I	think it is just in respect of the arrangement dealing with the removal of the word "and" in the first part of the motion. I think there might be a technical problem in indicating we are going to an "either/or" situation instead of "and". I think that is a technical problem and is not a substantial problem. There is another point I should like to mention in connection with the major portion of motion No. 6 which has been discussed rather extensively this afternoon.
I see the time is approaching four o'clock, so rather than go into the detail I would simply point out that the second part of the motion deals with the application of the Canada Labour Code and other standards to the operation of unlicensed foreign ships in the coasting trade. Hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich, have indicated that this kind of provision might well be one we would look at very seriously down the road as further books are added to the Maritime Code, but I do not think it would be appropriate to consider it at this stage.
Dealing with motion No. 7, the purpose of clause 11(5) is to expedite proceedings by making the issuance of the licence an administrative act rather than a quasi-judicial act. The right of appeal, however, is retained by the provisions of clause 12. The proposed motion could, I suggest, lead to rather onerous delays in the processing of the applications. With those few remarks, Mr Speaker, I would conclude my comments on these motions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The question is on motion No. 6 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Section
II	of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The question now is on motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.

March 5, 1976
Order of Business


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Pursuant to Section 11 of the Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the proposed motion stands adjourned.


J. Michael Forrestall: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since it is not quite one minute to four o'clock I wonder, in light of the serious reservations the Chair might have in respect of the next amendment, and since the government has no further amendments, whether it might facilitate the business of the House if that amendment could be dealt with and disposed of now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Chair has strong reservations about the procedural acceptability of motion No. 8. This motion seeks to amend a statute which is not presently before the House, namely, the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. It seems to the Chair that motion No. 8 goes beyond the scope of Bill C-61 as adopted by the House at the second reading stage, and therefore it cannot be put to the House. I would refer hon. members to Citation 406 in Beauchesne.


J. Michael Forrestall: Very briefly on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, we recognize that this objection was raised in committee. That is the reason we accept the ruling. It is unfortunate that I did not personally have the opportunity further to commend to members of the House the necessity of closing our Arctic waters to foreign ships and retaining them for Canadian ships with Canadian crews, operating within the parameters of Canadian law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It seems to the Chair that motion No. 8 goes beyond the scope of Bill C-61 as adopted by the House on second reading stage and therefore cannot be put to the House.
Order discharged and Motion No. 8 withdrawn.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall notice of motion No. 2 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall notice of motion No. 15 stand?
[The Acting Speaker.]


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Turner):	Shall	notice	of
motion No. 19 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Turner):	Shall	notice	of
motion No. 34 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
The	Acting	Speaker	(Mr.	Turner):	Shall	notice	of
motion No. 37 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The House will now proceed to the consideration of motion No. 5.


ENVIRONMENT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 18, 1974, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacLean:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an Institute of Human Environmental Studies to determine, among other matters (a) the degree of air, soil, water and noise pollution the human species can tolerate without serious effects on physical and mental health (b) the type of environment which stimulates the most desirable qualities of physical and mental health in the human species (c) the type of national development which would give satisfactory environment to the greatest possible number of Canadians (d) the minimum of modifications to the present day indiscriminate and largely unplanned growth of our metropolitan areas necessary to put within reach of the inhabitants of these areas a quality of environment which would provide (i) adequate housing (ii) adequate recreational facilities including parkland (iii) adequate social infrastructure, such as transportation, education, hospital and recreation facilities.
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I take real pleasure in resuming debate on this motion which was put forward by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). It is a sad fact that this motion is not in the form of a government bill so that we could give it the due consideration which it deserves.
This motion refers to the setting up of an institute of human environmental studies in co-operation with the provinces. The whole motion, when viewed in clear perspective, shows that it is a positive motion which refers to the analyzing of human behaviour and forces which affect the behaviour of human beings both positively and negatively.
I think it would be of interest for the House to note at this time that we are about to enter into a debate on Bills C-83 and C-84, both of which deal with how and why we should punish human beings. Bill C-83 recommends a minimum 25 year prison sentence and Bill C-84 discusses whether or not this country should apply capital punishment. Both these bills are punitively orientated. For far too long our society has been hooked on the notion of cure rather than prevention. That is true so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned, and also it is true of the whole of our legal system. To deal with
March 5, 1976

human behaviour is to set out to punish those acts that are deemed undesirable, as proposed in the bills which we will be debating in a few weeks. The motion before us, however, recognizes the importance of the environmental, physical and social aspects in shaping the human condition.
Thomas Edison thought he was constructing a better candle when he invented the light bulb. History proved him to be quite wrong because the light bulb did not just produce a better form of light, it changed our society. The effect of the light bulb was to bring in shift work and to transform the lives of men and women in North America. Likewise, the women's liberation movement is not a product of women per se but rather the aftermath of technology and technological development. The new role of women is brought about largely by the dishwasher, the automatic laundry, drip dry fabrics, instant foods, flush-a-bye diapers, contraceptive devices, television, and many other products of technology.
Similarly our hope for human happiness lies in our understanding and control of our physical and emotional environment. We watch television programs such as "Untamed World" and "Outdoor Canada" and we learn about the space requirements for the Canada goose and the travel patterns of the red fox, but we fail to concern ourselves with the crowding in urban areas, the lack of daylight in many of our apartments, the lack of green areas and places for children and adults, the harshness of noise. We note that the places we allow for children and adolescents are largely restricted to places where an adult is necessary to organize the child's play.
Simply put, Canada today is quite a different Canada from that of 100 years ago. One hundred years ago 80 per cent of Canadians lived in rural communities. Today more than 80 per cent of Canadians live in urban areas. It is predicted that 95 per cent of all Canadians will be living in urban areas by the year 2,000. In the single decade fm 1961 to 1971 over 179,000 people left the rural communities on the prairies and migrated to cities.
Let us take a look at some of the changes that are taking place in our society as a result of the tremendous emphasis on urbanization. U.S. studies indicate that cities of 100,000 people cost an X number of dollars to police. Therefore, a city with one million people would cost 10X dollars to police. It would seem mathematically correct. The fact of the matter is that it costs 60 times as much to police cities with one million people as it does those of 100,000. What that illustrates is that the more dense our population is in the cities, the more negative is the behaviour of the population.
The increasing density of our population results in the increase in murders, suicides, robberies, and rapes, in fact an increase in the incidence of behaviour which we assume to be negative in our society. We could ask then, why do we continue to debate the issue of capital punishment, the issue of punitive measures, without at the same time focusing on preventive measures and looking for conditions which would induce a more positive human relationship in the country.
We have debated capital punishment previously, but this time the difference will only be in the speakers. I am referring to the speeches made on the private members' bill
Human Environmental Studies in 1924, in the joint committee in 1956, on the private members' bill in 1960, on the Criminal Code amendments in 1961, on the private members' motion in 1966, on Bill C-168 in 1967, on Bill C-2 in 1973 and 1974, and on Bill C-84 in 1976. It is high time that our society began to focus intelligently on what are the environmental conditional changes which can be made that can lead to a more positive kind of behaviour.
We know, for example, that when rats are crowded together they stop breeding and finally resort to eating one and other. We know that horses on a wild range land have a conception rate of nearly 100 per cent but under domestic conditions they have a conception rate of only 30 per cent. What we are really talking about is the biochemistry of our environmental changes We also know that architecture and architectural changes in the styles of our homes and apartments have an effect on human behaviour.
Let me give the example of what happened in an Italian village following World War II. In the 20 years that followed the destruction of the village by bombing during the war a whole new community arose and all the negative behaviours in society, such as murders, rapes and suicides, increased to an abnormal rate. It was discovered through psychological probing of that community that what was fundamentally wrong was that the community had been rebuilt under the Marshall Plan and architects and engineers from the United States were employed in the rebuilding. The building was done without any relationship to Italian architecture. It is simply an example to point out the importance of design and architecture and space relationships to human behaviour. We can give a large number of examples of how we design and put together the world in which we live and how in fact it changes the biochemistry of people, and subsequently their behaviour.
All the following animals will show aggressive or adverse behaviour due to crowding. The sika deer will abandon its young, canines will fail to nurse their young and commence fighting, the Norway rat will begin to eat itself or to eat others, and fight. Those things are all due to crowding, yet on the North American continent today we find that almost 95 per cent of our people are clustered into large urban areas without respect for the full consideration of what might happen in terms of human behaviour.
Over and over again throughout the century we have been contemplating the question of capital punishment and whether we should have stiffer jail sentences, but obviously one of the things we should be focusing on is whether we ought to be concentrating on our real relationships with one another as a result of the environment which we create.
Let us look at pollution. I should like to quote from the book "The Crisis of Survival" by William Steiff, which deals with the city of Los Angeles "where the birds cough". Mr. Steiff writes:
... Or consider the experience of the 22 men working the toll booths at either end of the Brooklyn battery tunnel-all but one in their twenties and thirties. More than half were found to have dizzy spells from a higher than average concentration of carbon monoxide in their lungs. Over the one month period in which the 22 were studied, five of the men had blackouts.
11558

Human Environmental Studies
Later he writes:
The death rate from bronchitis and emphysema in the United States is nine times as high as it was 20 years ago. At the present rate of increase, 180,000 Americans will die of these lung ailments in 1983.
Let us look at noise now. One thing we can say for sure is that we are up to our ears in noise in Canada. Some of the problems that come from noise relate to the eyes-the pupils dilate blood vessels constrict, stomachs turn, and nerves jump. Yet for many people in this society there is no escape. Some experts claim that the noise level in Canada is increasing at a rate of about one decibel per year. Most people feel extreme discomfort at 115 decibels. If loud sounds persist, undoubtedly permanent hearing loss will result.
Noise can also affect the cardiovascular system. Research in both the United States and Europe indicates that noise increases the level of cholesterol in the blood and raises blood pressure. German and Italian medical researchers have found that even moderate noises cause small blood vessels to constrict. This vasoconstrictive reflex is the body's automatic way of responding to the stress of noise. It also occurs during sleep, as is shown by Dr. Gerd Jansen of Essen, West Germany. He measured the vasoconstriction that occurs in the fingers of sleeping subjects when he played recorded noise at only 55 decibels, the level of nearby traffic. The vasoconstriction took place even when the noise exposure lasted only a fraction of a second. Even with this limited exposure the blood vessels took minutes to return to normal. Dr. Jansen concluded that the sound of traffic at night heard by sleeping individuals can endanger their hearts and arteries.
In Italy Dr. Giovanni Straneo found that noise not only causes the blood vessels in fingers and eyes to constrict, but also has the opposite effect on the blood vessels of the brain. The dilation in the brain could be a reason why noises cause headaches. He also found that noise threatens the heart itself by directly altering the rhythm of its beat. In addition it makes the heart work harder by thickening the blood while constricting its flow in peripheral vessels. One of his associates at the university of Pavia found that noise also increases the stomach's flow of acid.
We are only trying to point out that unless we give due consideration to the whole environment then obviously society is making a wrong judgment if it simply decides how to punish people for what is held to be abnormal behaviour. We create the society, Mr. Speaker, and we create the kind of situation that causes people to behave the way they do.
To give another example of the effect of noise I would like to quote from the 1973 edition of Psychology Today which states that children living at street level on busy streets had significantly lower reading and language acquisition levels than those who lived above the fifth floor. In controlled experiments in the laboratory it was discovered that noise levels as low as 55 decibels could negatively affect a testing program requiring concentration and manipulative skills.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that noise can cause distress, irritability, and abnormal human behaviour. But here we are just a few weeks away from talking about bills that will deal with capital punishment and whether to put people in jail for 25 years or longer. What we ought to be

focusing on is how to build the kind of Canada in which minimal negative behaviours are elicited.
Let us look at the space relationships on this continent. In the city of Los Angeles 60 per cent of the land area is devoted to the automobile. If we look at our spatial needs in a diatic situation we find that from one culture to another there is a difference in spatial needs. A person who has come here from England usually will communicate with another person by focusing on that person's both eyes. In the French culture there is a closer spatial relationship. We note the Italians do considerably more touching than the English, while we find that the Arabs get right into the breath stream of the other person, and even in business relationships speak only a few inches from the other person's mouth.
In Canada we build cities where the parks are miles away, where picture window looks into picture window, and then we tend to blame the abnormal behaviours of society on those who commit them, irrespective of the fact that we have in our culture done a great deal to cause those behaviours. The question should not be how to punish or not to punish, but how to focus on what we can do to create a society which is happy.
We can make any species of animal act abnormally simply by controlling the following factors: the amount of light or darkness, the increase or decrease of temperature, space limitations or crowding factors.
The motion reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the government should consider setting up, in co-operation with the provinces, an institute of human environmental studies to determine among other matters (a) the degree of air, soil, water and noise pollution the human species can tolerate without serious effects on physical and mental health (b) the type of environment which stimulates the most desirable qualities of physical and mental health in the human species (c) the type of national development which would give satisfactory environment to the greatest possible number of Canadians-
Today we should ask the House to consider that if as a nation we consider we have the right to punish people who act in some form extraneous from those mores outside the law, then surely we bear an obligation to reshape the kind of environment that causes that behaviour. I think we have ample information to illustrate quite clearly that environment definitely has its effect on all of the animal species and in many cases, as is clearly demonstrated, on the human organism.
We know how high noise levels can affect children and their ability to learn, how pollution can affect health, and how lack of living space can give rise to aggressive and abnormal behaviour. The motion asks the federal government, in conjunction with the provinces, to take seriously its obligations and responsibilities to those who act outside the law but, at the same time, to recognize its responsibilities for creating an environment which will stimulate a positive and constructive response. Let us create an environment which will elicit from people positive and constructive behaviour. I commend this motion to the House, Mr. Speaker, and wish to tell hon. members that it has been a pleasure to participate in this debate.
March 5, 1976


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted, on behalf of the government party, to respond this afternoon to the motion calling for the establishment of an institute of human environmental studies. First, let me say this. We are in a period of restraint. Despite that, hon. members opposite propose motions in private members' hour calling for the expenditure of money. Is not that strange, considering that hon. members opposite plead that the government should cut costs here and there, and criticize expenditures on government programs? Notwithstanding such criticisms, an hon. member opposite presented the motion now before the House.
This afternoon I should like to address myself particularly to that part of this motion concerned with creating an environment which is likely to provide, among other amenities, adequate housing. First, Canadians by and large are adequately housed. There are individuals who need public help to obtain suitable housing and there are excellent programs in operation to help them. Legislation is now before parliament to make these programs even more effective. Canadians are, as a general rule, among the best housed people in the world. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are not complacent about our accomplishments. Certainly we need to be continually striving to improve our housing stock and to anticipate our changing needs in the years ahead.
From what I have been able to discover, Central Mortage and Housing Corporation is doing a very good job in its field. In so far as housing is concerned I do not see pressing need to create another institution, be it an institution of human environmental studies or any other. We should resist the temptation to create a brand new organization each time a new challenge appears on the horizon.
I should like to speak for a few minutes about the work being done under CMHC's demonstration and development program which is to ensure that housing and the community environment will adequately meet the needs of our present population and of generations to come. I am satisfied with government directives and policies relating to CMHC. We are concerned not only about bricks and mortar; our main concern is to meet the real needs of the people of this country. Canadians are concerned about the environment in which they live; they are concerned not just with their own individual houses; concern extends to their physical and social environment as well.
The demonstration and development programs are directed toward developing and demonstrating attractive and affordable alternatives in housing and community. The government hopes to share with the building industry the results of these demonstrations and development projects. The builders will have to produce these structures at market prices, which means fair prices, and we will see what the Canadian public feels about them.
We want to build communities that better meet the needs and aspirations of all Canadians. The Woodroffe demonstration project here in Ottawa is one example. This will be a new community of about 14,000 people on 425 acres of land. The first task, of course, is to find out what people want. They ultimately decide whether a community succeeds or fails. People should be brought into the planning process at the very beginning, to work with the designers and the various levels of government.
Human Environmental Studies
At Woodroffe there is already a citizens' program to provide for the participation of citizens in the surrounding area affected by the project and for that of future residents or their representatives. A forum has been established to help identify and resolve controversial issues which might otherwise hold up the planning process. The object of these programs is to provide people with a satisfying environment and with the full range of possibilities for enhancing the quality of their lives.
Woodroffe will demonstrate that a totally planned community is better than piecemeal development. It will set standards for improvement of social, physical and economic arrangements for community development. CMHC will underwrite the pre-development and research costs. CMHC will be the developer and will use whatever techniques are necessary to build successfully. Then the corporation will transfer the ideas, products, and knowledge gained, providing an incentive to the building industry in this country to follow suit.
This work concerns the whole realm of human settlements in the suburbs as well as inner city. It concerns rural areas, new communities and metro satellites, and the aim is to improve living conditions. One of the objects is to reduce the pressure on the suburbs where, at present, most housing development takes place, and to restore balance in access, distribution, and choice of housing in urban as well as rural areas.
CMHC is examining ways to revitalize the inner city by recycling old buildings such as warehouses for residential and related uses. It is continually searching for alternative solutions to housing needs which will provide variety in order to broaden choice of housing accommodation and ensure sensible use of available physical resources. For example, it is studying the feasibility of building housing and community facilities over existing shopping centres.
At present the choice of housing accommodation is too limited. At one extreme we have low density single family housing eating up the land. At the other extreme we have high rise, high density housing developments. There is little doubt that between these two extremes there is an opportunity to build medium density accommodation, and CMHC is trying to fill this gap by developing new housing forms to increase choice, provide more amenities and save on land, services, and agricultural land.
As I said when I began, we are in a period of restraint. I am surprised that an hon. member opposite would introduce a motion asking the government to involve itself in the control of environment right across this country. If the motion were to succeed we should be forced to assume a substantial financial burden. Members on the government side are only too familiar with the attitude of opposition members who criticize and attack the government for spending money in the carrying out of various programs and policies the government has adopted.
I feel that existing government institutions, including CMHC, the ministry responsible for urban affairs, and DREE, are effectively improving and managing our built-up environment. I share the concern which is evident in the motion about the preservation of our living places but cannot support the motion because I feel that the institute which it proposes to establish would be an inappropriate and unnecessary response.
21419 -39>/2

March 5, 1976
Human Environmental Studies


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada certain environmental problems such as poor sanitary conditions and accompanying communicable diseases are no longer the greatest cause of mortality and morbidity as they still are in many other countries. As a result of progressive measures introduced by the federal government, the provinces, and municipalities, conditions such as inadequate, unsafe water supplies, and poor or non-existent waste disposal have been eliminated in many regions, and are being brought under control elsewhere.
As these classical causes of human suffering and death have been eliminated, other environmental hazards to human health have become apparent. These often exert their effects in a more subtle way. Many are the direct result of man's social and economic development, notably as a result of industrial development and urbanization. Well known problems of this type include the release of mercury from chlor-alkali plants and the emission of lead from automotive exhausts or from industrial smelters.
Even our increased opportunities for leisure bring environmental hazards to health; for example, amateur pottery has brought hazards of lead poisoning from incorrect glazing techniques, and the pollution problems associated with cottage development around many of our lakes are well known.
I believe we have recognized the importance of environmental factors in relation to human health. Much of the emphasis in the Department of Health document "A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians" is concerned with the importance of preventive measures as a means of reducing human illness, death and suffering, and perhaps as a more cost-effective way of maintaining good health than the traditional medical approach of diagnosis, treatment and cure. Environmental factors, and the need to control their influence on human health, figure prominently in the propositions set forth in the "New Perspective" document which proposed courses of action to identify and bring under control those physical and chemical factors and psycho-social influences that, together with microbiological agents, make up the ecosystems that most directly affect human health.
Toxicologists of the Health Protection Branch are conducting research on a number of chemical agents in our air, soil, and water in order to determine the degree of pollution that people can tolerate without serious effects on health. The results of these investigations will continue to be used, together with all other available relevant scientific evidence as part of the ongoing monitoring of the indications for control of the environment, including the workplace environment, in order to safeguard health.
The influence of physical factors such as heat, light, noise and ionizing radiations on health and well-being is also being studied by the Health Protection Branch.
Several of these programs, such as that relating to ionizing radiations, have been in existence for many years, but others are relatively new or have recently been greatly expanded. For example, in recent months research to identify potential toxic chemicals in drinking water has been intensified. As new concerns arise, the Health Protection Branch has responded by adapting its research priorities.

Perhaps a good example of this is provided by the present concern over asbestos fibres in drinking water.
The identification of significant amounts of asbestos in drinking water was first accomplished by scientists of the Health Protection Branch a few years ago. The health significance of the discovery that water supplies in certain areas contain relatively high levels of asbestos was, and remains, uncertain. Officials of the branch have worked closely with their colleagues in the United States to design extensive investigations that may be expected to resolve this question; these officials continue to receive and evaluate the results of these studies as they become available. At the same time other scientists in the branch are involved in the development of methods that could be used to monitor drinking water for asbestos fibres if it should become apparent that there is good reason to develop regulatory standards because of a health hazard. Others are studying the possibility that asbestos fibres in water could become airborne and consequently available for inhalation through humidifiers.
These are some of the ways in which the Department of Health is addressing the problem of identifying risks to human health from environmental agents. Of course the work directly carried on by the department is augmented by research on the influence of environmental agents on cells, tissues, and organisms, undertaken mainly by university laboratories sponsored under the national health grants' scheme by the Medical Research Council and by the National Research Council.
Having defined the nature and degree of environmental health hazards it becomes essential to control those agents that pose a threat to human health and well-being. At the federal level a number of acts of parliament may be used in particular cases, depending on the nature of the hazardous agent, the medium, whether air, water consumer products, in which the agent occurs and on the nature of the population at risk, be it general population or workers. We must recognize also that the provinces have significant responsibilities in relation to health matters.
In the context of environmental health issues there is a good deal of federal-provincial co-operation in order to co-ordinate programs and to attempt to get results which will lead to a more uniform standard of health protection across Canada.
Under the aegis of the Subcommittee on Environmental Health of the Advisory Committee on Community Health, a federal-provincial committee reporting directly to deputy ministers of health, the Canadian drinking water standards and objectives are currently being revised. Another working group of this committee has recently completed an in-depth study of the incidence of asbestos-related disease in Canada and has recommended steps that ought to be taken by the appropriate authorities at the federal and provincial levels to confer a greater degree of protection for workers who come into contact with asbestos as a result of their employment.
Another group is at present considering a number of occupational health problems including the development of model legislation for use in Canada, and an assessment of occupational health manpower needs and training.
March 5, 1976

The interrelationships between environmental factors and health are highly complex ones. This results in appreciable uncertainty on many issues on which judgments and decisions are required. It is important, therefore, that any regulatory actions be followed up by monitoring and surveys to determine if these actions have indeed achieved the desired effect. This may involve analysis to determine the quantities of toxic agents present in the environment, and much is already done by the Department of the Environment to provide just this type of information.
In some cases it may be preferable to assess the health status of target populations either by intensive studies in high risk groups or by more general surveys such as the Canada Health Survey. In conjunction with the provinces, this type of investigation is now well established in the Health Protection Branch's programs. It seems to me that many of the matters proposed for an institute of human environmental studies are already dealt with in the Environmental Health Directorate of the Health Protection Branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare.
Co-operation with the provinces is being achieved through consultative mechanisms that are in place; a number of joint investigations have already resulted from these arrangements. Other aspects, inferred in the motion, are already addressed by ongoing programs of the Department of the Environment and by other federal agencies. Again, consultative mechanisms, formal and informal, exist to ensure co-ordination of programs.
In summary, the scientific and medical expertise already exists within the federal and provincial governments to achieve the aims suggested for the proposed institute, and while there is always room for improvement in the co-ordination or development of existing programs I find it difficult to persuade myself that we need yet another structure when there are existing structures in place.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate today on motion No. 5 which proposes the establishment of an institute of human environmental studies.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) for bringing forward this motion. The subject is a noble one. It harks back to the more idealistic concepts of the sixties and the stress which was laid then on education, culture, science, and the preservation of the environment. It is certainly a contrast to many of the more hard-nosed subjects with which we seem to be preoccupied in the seventies-economics, law and order, and so on.
We have already heard about the government's role in environmental concerns. Some age old problems have been brought under control in countries like Canada although not in many less advanced countries, problems such as poor sanitation, inadequate and unsafe water supplies, poor or non-existent waste disposal systems, communicable diseases, insect and animal reservoirs and vectors of disease. These have recently been replaced, however, by other environmental hazards of modern industrial society-heavy metal poisoning often involving mercury or lead, and our leisurely, sedentary lifestyle. The latter is
Human Environmental Studies being attacked by the federal department of health through a modern approach which may prove more economical as well as more effective than health care.
Research and control programs are being conducted with respect to many chemical and physical agents in our surroundings which might affect our health, agents in the air, the soil and in the water. But there is a further approach apart from the considerable and fine work which is going on in government. I became aware of this other approach to the environment in 1974, and indeed I became involved in it.
I should like to refer to some correspondence. The subject involves the concept of a United Nations university with headquarters in Tokyo, Japan, and departments scattered around the world. Perhaps there will be one in Canada. There is a certain interest in having a department of the environment in the UN university in Canada, perhaps in Toronto.
On February 4, 1975, I received a letter from Professor Alfred P. Bernhart, Chairman, Environmental Health, University of Toronto. It read:
Dear Dr. Philbrook:
The United Nations General Assembly, as you probably know, has passed a resolution to form a United Nations University. Japan has taken the initiative to secure the United Nations University headquarters in Japan, yet several centres will be spread throughout the world.
As Toronto citizens, we feel strongly that Canada, and Toronto in particular, should be the location of the centre for environmental problems.
We feel that in Toronto there are many of the intellectual resources which are needed for such a centre and we feel that the support of such an undertaking would fall very well into Canada's external aid program.
The Mayor of the City of Toronto has set up a committee under the chairmanship of Alderman David P. Smith and this committee has reported to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We respectfully request at this time that you support this endeavour in discussions with the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, Secretary of State for External Affairs.
A little later, on March 31, 1975, I received a second letter from Professor Bernhart as follows:
Dear Dr. Philbrook:
Thank you for your encouraging response to our request to support the United Nations University concept in discussions with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Honourable Allan MacEachen.
I am sorry that it took us so long to answer, but there were some important developments during the last two months, which clarified matters relating to the head office of the United Nations.
The Secretary General of the United Nations, after receiving advice from a selection committee, has appointed Dr. James Hester (President New York University) to be rector of the United Nations University effective September 1975 for a 5 year term, once renewable. Also appointed were 24 members of the governing council of the United Nations University, the council then elected Dr. Roger Gaudry (Rector University of Montreal) their chairman.
The rector will establish the United Nations headquarters in Tokyo, Japan. Japan has pledged an endowment fund of $100 million. The fund will be payable in 5 yearly installments, but only if that amount is less than 25 per cent of money given to the United Nations by all countries. In other words, they expect other countries to allocate $300 million. Only one country has so far responded: Senegal with $23,000.00.
In its charter, the United Nations University states as objectives the betterment of mankinds conditions, co-existence, human rights, social justice, quality of life environment and resources. The charter outlines a head office (now decided to be in Tokyo) and several (ten to twelve) centers located in various countries of the world, each for one "Mission" (for Canada we suggest the environmental center).

March 5, 1976
Human Environmental Studies
Our association suggests that Canada's interest is twofold: first to make a contribution towards the UN University as a whole; and second to establish a regional center in Canada, preferably in Toronto.
Canada's contribution towards the UN University as a whole is expected to be about $12 million, payable over several years. This is 3 per cent of the estimated total requirement of $400 million,-(Canada's share of the overall United Nations budget is 3 per cent).
We believe, that if budgetary difficulties should occur, the required funds could come from the already approved allotment for the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), which is about $730 million.
A draft of our associations proposal for a Canadian international component on environmental "missions" is attached. I like to stress that our proposal entails an all-Canadian thought input, even though we like to see the office of the component in Toronto. The financial requirements for this proposal would be $45,000.00 per year.
That letter certainly establishes the interest in this country, particularly in Toronto, in this United Nations environmental centre.
Finally we had the response by our own government through the then minister of the environment, as follows: Dear Dr. Philbrook:
Environmental Centre for the United Nations
I have studied the letter which you received from Professor A. P. Bernhart in which he seeks your support for the establishment in Toronto of a centre for environmental problems associated with the United Nations University.
In 1972, Canada voted for the principle of the establishment of a United Nations University. Since then, a Canadian position with respect to our participation in the project has not been determined. An interdepartmental task force, under the chairmanship of the Department of External Affairs, currently bears the responsibility of establishing a Canadian position.
As indicated by Professor Bernhart, the headquarters of the university has been set up in Tokyo. A few months ago Dr. Roger Gaudry, former rector of the University of Montreal, was elected as Chairman of the University Council. The location, throughout the world, of centres associated with the university will be a function of the Council of the University, for which the Council will be responsible to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
With respect to your specific question I am advised that, in terms of intellectual and physical resources, the location of a centre for environmental problems in the Toronto area is feasible. There are, as you know, a number of universities and associated specialized environment institutes in the area. Of these, a number, among others in Canada, receive federal assistance. Further, federal environmental activities in the area include the Canada Centre for Inland Waters in Burlington and the headquarters of the Atmospheric Environment Service of the Department of the Environment.
It should be noted, however, that the desirability of establishing such a centre in the Toronto area may be another question. The interest in such a project and the willingness of the various groups to collaborate in the development of an intergrated program and to accept the additional influx of students will require careful planning and cooperation amongst the institutions involved.
Furthermore, because of the administrative costs, it is almost certain that the Province of Ontario would have a direct interest in the matter and should be included in any further consultations.
I imagine that it is questions of this sort which are being dealt with by the interdepartmental task force considering the whole United Nations University question. In any event, I will ask my officials to pay particular attention to the possibility of establishing a United Nations University centre for environmental problems in the Toronto area.
Yours sincerely,
That is signed by the present Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). It was dated July, 1975.

In conclusion, I suppose one wonders why this is not going ahead faster since it certainly seems to be a worthy project for Canada. It would seem to be in line with motion No. 5 proposed by the hon. member for Malpeque. I suppose the obvious answer is simply economics. We have a tight money situation and most countries seem to have restraint programs at the present time, so I think it is a reasonable answer to the hon. member's proposal for this worthy institution. Personally I think it should go ahead. There are several alternatives, and it would be reasonable at this time to accept the necessary financial restraints for such an institution.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to contribute to the debate this afternoon. The part of the hon. member's motion of prime interest to me is his reference to the growth of our metropolitan areas and the largely unplanned aspects of that growth which are having an increasing effect on the living conditions of a very large number of Canadians.
The thing that really frustrates me more than anything else about parliament is that over a number of years, having made representations almost since the time I arrived here, I have yet to convince the government that it should be utilizing one power that exists, at least indirectly, as a lender under the National Housing Act. Our cities have grown and expanded enormously since the second world war largely, at least initially, as a result of money lent, to individuals and companies building homes, through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the provisions of the National Housing Act. Had we wished to use this power and not been so fearful of upsetting provincial sensibilities, we could have avoided many of the errors in planning that characterize the suburbs of every city in Canada. Even now the minister is talking about one million new homes, so it is not too late to act.
We should be using these lending powers of ours to insist on basic standards of planning, basic minimums for green space and minimums for recreational facilities. Although we are told this is being done, we are not really doing this yet. There is now a move afoot to apply more pressure on municipal and provincial recipients of lending funds to provide basic standards of planning, but we have a long way to go, it seems to me, before achieving the kind of minimum planning that will guarantee to the future population of Canada the kind of cities and suburbs that are possible if properly planned.
We have heard a lot over the years about quality of life. Quality of life means to me the quality of the living conditions in the places where we spend most of our lives, that means our homes, our communities, and the access between our communities and the places where we work, shop, and are educated.
As far as housing is concerned, I agree that Canadians are probably the best housed people in the world, but what about the communities in which their houses are situated and the access of these well housed people to their work and schools? Ask the people in my constituency who have to wait and choke for two or three hours every morning in the fouled atmosphere of traffic jams to cross the St. Lawrence River into Montreal when they are sitting beside an unused rail line what they think of their quality of life.
March 5, 1976

As for the communities that have been built since 1945, communities that were expanded usually every time the economy needed a boost, will they stand the test of time? How many of these suburbs will our children point to with pride and say were built with foresight and with long-term human objectives in mind?


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Question.


Ian Watson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe another hon. member has an intervention to make, and although I have many more things to say I will concede to him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not only a filibuster, it is an organized filibuster.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I realize time is very short. I think we on the government side are very gratified that the hon. member has brought this motion to the attention of the House, which looks at environmental problems in a comprehensive way, not just as an isolated problem of polluted air, water, or waste disposal.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't care about the problem; you just want to talk it out.
Human Environmental Studies


Hugh Alan Anderson: There is ample evidence that high quality is necessary to sustain high biological productivity, with the best and most efficient use of resources on which we depend for prosperity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Question.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I think the hon. member on the other side may have some interest in this subject, though perhaps it does not affect his area as it does my area in British Columbia. For example, if much more pesticide is put into the ocean we will have a dead ocean.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You are talking it out.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am sorry that the hon. member does not feel that this is a subject for his attention.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 8, 1976