1977-06-06

Hon. Len Marchand (for Mr. Allmand) moved: that Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Len Marchand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand), I am pleased to make a few brief remarks on the third reading stage of this legislation, which is not a very complicated bill. Nevertheless, it is an important bill. It is not complicated in that it only seeks to do one simple thing, which is to add two more members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. That is simple, but it is important because those representatives will come from the two territories-the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory.
In the course of considering Bill C-13 there have been interesting debates at both second reading stage and when this bill was before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When this bill came forward for debate, many members took the opportunity to talk about historic sites or persons within their own constituencies. Thus, we had an interesting cross-section sampling of Canadiana during the course of this debate.
It was said that we ought to be doing more in the House of Commons to make ourselves aware and to inform the citizens of this country about the very colourful and dramatic history which we have as a nation. Bill C-13 gave members an opportunity to refer to some of the fascinating historic events
which have taken place within their ridings, and whether they were or were not properly designated. Where there has been such an important historic event within a province, region or constituency, members would like to have it properly marked in one way or another. That is the function of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It is always pleased to hear from members of parliament or from other Canadians concerning historic sites or historic personages which ought to be appropriately recognized through the work and functioning of this board.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Act provides that the board bearing the same name recommend to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development places, events and persons of historical significance to our country. This board has been functioning since the time of its establishment in 1919. Presently, the board is composed of 15 members, two representatives each from Ontario and Quebec and one each from the other eight provinces. As well, there is one representative from the National Museums of Canada and the Dominion Archivist, and also an officer from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a position which happens to be vacant at the moment. The provincial representatives are usually historians or archivists of some repute. Mr. Marc Laterreur is the chairman of the board. He is also a member of the Department of History of the Faculte des Lettres of Laval University in Quebec.
In the past 20 years, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, more than 70 historic parks and major sites have been designated, and almost 700 persons and events of historical significance have been commemorated. Those statistics speak for themselves, Mr. Speaker. Some people may believe, if they are not as aware of the history of our nation as they ought to be, that not much has happened in our past that is of significance or import. In fact, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, through their work, has proven this to the contrary. There is a great deal in our history which is worthy of recognition. The board which examines these requests has come up with a significant number in the past 20 years: as I said, more than 70 historic parks and major sites have been designated, and almost 700 persons and events of historical significance have been commemorated.
The purpose of amending the Historic Sites and Monuments Act is to have better representation of two important parts of Canada-the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Up until now, representatives from these northern regions have attended board meetings only as observers, without the right to vote. The fact that there will now be representatives from the two territories sitting on the board is indicative of the government's

June 6, 1977
Historic Sites
policy to more and more recognize the place and the role of the territories in our federal system.
There is an evolution of government going on within the territories. In its own small way, this bill helps to recognize that. If this bill is adopted it will have delegates from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They will no longer simply voice their opinions or be there in an advisory capacity. They will have all the rights and privileges which the other members of the board have. The board will then have 17 members instead of the present 15.
In the eyes of all the people of Canada, the north, with all its human, cultural and natural resources, is becoming increasingly important. Therefore, I believe that the members of this House will approve a measure which ensures the participation of these vast regions of Canada on this important board.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the speech of the parliamentary secretary. I do not intend to unduly delay the passage of this bill. I regard this as a very significant event. The House is about to approve the addition of two more members to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. They will represent the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These two areas are frontier areas of our country, and are very much in the minds of all Canadians as we wrestle with the question of the approach to be taken to their development. All members are aware of the problems of development there and the importance of those areas to Canada. So I think this is a sound bill and one worthy of support, particularly in view of the status it will give to the representatives of those areas, a status equal to that of representatives of other parts of Canada which are in a different state of constitutional development.
The parliamentary secretary said the debate on second reading had given parliament-and, I hope, those who read Hansard-a cross-section of Canadiana. That is an excellent description. Canadians everywhere should be mindful of the work of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. It has been going on for a number of years. In my own area of Grenville-Carleton, an historic area of the province of Ontario, many sites have been designated. Since 1 came here in 1972 I have dealt with that board and with those who work with it and with the historical societies which work in such close co-operation with the board, and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the board and those who work with it are to be commended for the help they have been giving to those within the area I represent and who have been interested in the preservation and the memorializing of our history and of the great events of our times.
I have the honour to be the honorary president of the Grenville County Historical Society which has co-operated completely with the board in terms of designating sites in Grenville county. There has recently been formed a Rideau Township Historical Society which with the work of the interested people of Merrickville is in the process of adding to

the lore of what is old Carleton county bordering on the Rideau River. The use of that river as a highway is a story in itself as exciting as anyone could imagine. Recently, an Osgoode Township Historical Society was formed. Osgoode township is an agricultural area of great significance in terms of the pioneer families who settled there; it makes one proud to be associated in any way with that area. This evening, in the township hall in Goulbourn township, they are forming a new society called the Goulbourn township historical society which will cover the old capital of Carleton county, Richmond, Ontario, where Colonel By, who participated so greatly in the development of this area, met his death.
We have in Prescott, Fort Wellington, a magnificent site marking the relationship between Canada and the United States when it was not quite as happy as it is today. There are stories in my part of Ontario, and I am sure each member of the House could find stories-as the parliamentary secretary has said-as interesting as any. L young Canadians want to look to an exciting past, let them look to the past of this country. If there is to be an understanding between the various regions of Canada and the various cultural groups in Canada, I think this kind of preservation and memorializing is more significant than we are sometimes prepared to admit.
We have a lot of difficulties in Canada now. We have misunderstanding-perhaps lack of understanding-from place to place, and I think we can begin the job of erasing these differences by understanding and having a feeling for the roots from which we have sprung and the events in our nation's development which have affected us. If that is the object of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board-and I am sure that is part of it-it should be supported by all Canadians.
I am very pleased to speak for this short period in the debate. I think we should not lose sight of the fact that sitting in this chamber we have a member of parliament who is himself a national historic site. I am speaking of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He happens to be a neighbour of mine. He has made a great contribution to parliament. 1 would not want this occasion to pass without reminding hon. members that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) is today in the United Kingdom with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) preparing to attend the jubilee celebrations of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. He has become a legend in this own time. He became a legend because he brought his tremendous powers of oratory and his great powers of perception to the defence of the little man. He had, and has, a view of this country which can only be described as sweeping.
It is important that the House know that what he regards as one of his greatest contributions, namely, placing upon the statute books the Canadian Bill of Rights, will be memorialized in this place by the affixing to the walls of the Parliament Buildings a bronze replica of his bill of rights. 1 think we could do with a little more of that around here. There was the union
June 6, 1977

of the areas of Canada in 1867. Many men and women before and after that date made a contribution to our country which we ought not to forget and which we ought to be prepared to recognize by the setting up of suitable memorials in these parliamentary buildings.
Lastly, though education is not within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, most of us are interested in the educational systems of the provinces and the territories from which we come. 1 hope there will always be an effort by those in charge of the programs to educate young people to pay particular attention to the exciting history of Canada, the development and evolution of its political institutions and the contributions'made by its men and women great and small. They are as much a part of the fabric of our nation as the concrete and steel that we see above us now as our country develops. In closing 1 want to say that 1 am pleased to have had the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on what I regard as a very important subject.


Mr. Paproski:: And here is our historic site!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) told the House that he was an honorary president of an historical society, I was tempted to interrupt him to say that he is not old enough. I wish 1 had done so, so that I could now say I am not old enough to be an historic site. When the reference was made, my good friend, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) said, "I can just see the pigeons flying over you".
The parliamentary secretary his indicated that we had a very good debate on this bill at second reading and that the committee also had an interesting time with it. Our hope is that the Historic Sites and Monument Board will pay some attention to the many suggestions that were made during the course of that debate. But I agree with him and with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, that it is not necessary for us to continue that sort of debate now that we have reached third reading.
There is, however, one reference that I would like to make to the committee. I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) will agree with me that the committee did something that was quite historic. It made a very slight amendment to the bill, as the House sent it to the committee, that deals with an issue that is very much with us. The bill, as it was sent to committee, contained a subclause that read in these terms:
A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a representative for a province or a territory unless he resides in that province or territory.
The committee amended it so that it now reads:
A person is not eligible to be appointed or to continue as a representative for a province or territory unless such person resides in that province or territory.
As the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and some others of us frequently point out, the word "he" and the word "him" seem to appear throughout our statutes. We are asked
Historic Sites
to operate under the umbrella of the Interpretation Act which says that the masculine includes the feminine. I hope that this is a beginning that can be carried through and that our statutes generally can reflect much more equality between men and women than they do at present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I have already indicated, it is not necessary, in my view, for us to repeat the suggestions that were made at an earlier stage, but I have an additional one that I should like to make and 1 am encouraged to make it by the references of the previous speaker. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton referred to known events in history and to persons who might be outstanding in the sense that their names are well known. These are the events and persons who are usually honoured. But I was disturbed a while ago when it came to my attention that a certain request for consideration by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board was turned down, and I would like to mention it briefly.
This is not something that many people will know about. There is a group known as the Parkland Ukrainian Pioneer Association located near Rossburn which is probably in the constituency of my friend, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart). People in that area are very conscious of the struggles, the sacrifices and the suffering of their forebears, most of whom in that area were Ukrainians. There is one particular spot in that constituency where there is a mass grave of Ukrainian mothers, children and some fathers who simply perished because of the rigours and the suffering that they went through in the early days.
People in that community think a great deal of that part of their heritage. Their names are unsung, but it seems to me that there is a place for this kind of thing also being remembered by our Historic Sites and Monument Board. Let us not get carried away with the fact that the only events worth remembering are wars, battles, and so on. Let us not get carried away with the idea that we must forever put up plaques or monuments to persons whose names are down in history anyway. This country has been made what it is by a lot of little, ordinary people, and 1 think that this request that something be done to mark that mass grave of Ukrainian pioneers who, by their sacrifices, helped to get those people settled in western Manitoba is one that should be considered.
Somehow or other it was shunted from the Historic Sites and Monument Board to the Minister of State for Multicul-turalism (Mr. Guay), I suppose because they were Ukrainians. Mr. Speaker, they were Canadians, and this is part of our heritage. I hope that this sort of thing will be reviewed. I ask the board to look at this particular case. But even more, I make the point that as time goes on I hope we will remember not only the well known names but the names of the little people by the hundreds and thousands who have made this country what it is.
I want to keep my word to the effect that I do not think we need to extend this debate, but we are glad to have this opportunity to endorse what the Historic Sites and Monument

June 6, 1977
Historic Sites
Board is doing and to say that anything that we can do to show our pride in our heritage is a good act on our part.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add a few thoughts also, but with no regrets at extending the debate for the next few minutes. I know that the House is disposed to move this bill along and it has proceeded with a good deal of the examination of it in committee. But since the bill involves the Historic Sites and Monument Act, it also involves the whole perception of Canadian history, and like other speakers who have taken part in the debate on this bill I believe that the bill involves our history and how it is taught in our schools, which has been a pet subject of mine.
The teaching of history in our schools is not even required in some school curricula, which is a most retrograde and unfortunate situation. A student is able to go through the whole school system, at both elementary and secondary school levels, and graduate from grade 11, 12, or 13 in this province having had no real exposure to our vibrant history, the history of our country which is just as exciting and dynamic as the history of the country to the south of us. Quite understandably, we are preoccupied with Canadian culture and we have set up CRTC to define Canadian content so that we know what a Canadian is and so that when we see ourselves in the mirror we are able to recognize ourselves and find out who the devil we are.
Having been exposed to education, not as a teacher but as a member of a school board, and then having been privileged to be chairman of a school board in the west, it has never ceased to amaze me how little the Canadian student is exposed to the vital history of this land. Were he exposed more to it, it would give him some pride, in light of some of the problems which we have in this country at present. Maintaining Canadian content in our programs and trying to instil pride in our history, almost after the event, may be fine; but for it to be taught properly in the schools is much more important. A great deal of the legislation we deal with in the House involving Canadian culture is pump-priming and band-aid procedure. It does not get to the fundamentals which must be taught in our schools.
Today I flew in from Nova Scotia and walked into the House as the bells were ringing this morning. This weekend we were involved in the apple blossom festival with the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) gracing the parade by being the parade marshal and participating in a unity breakfast in which I also participated. 1 think it was the minister's first venture into the Annapolis Valley. Perhaps that is why I was interested in seeing this bill come forward today and hearing the parliamentary secretary's explanation.
I am sorry that I did not participate in the committee, because I certainly would have got into a more detailed examination of some projects in my riding. The House may be aware that my riding is Annapolis Valley, and I am being quite modest when I say it is literally the cradle of a European civilization in North America. It has the oldest continuous settlement which is still in existence. That settlement dates back to 1604. Because I was exposed to some of this over the

weekend I am glad to have the opportunity to make these remarks.
It was a fellow called Joseph Howe, a tremendous Nova Scotian, who said something like this, "A nation which does not preserve its monuments starts to lose its soul". Considering statements such as that of over one hundred years ago, in the present context I wonder if this is not one of the reasons we try to define what our soul is. We have not paid enough attention to this. There is more than stale, dusty history; Our history is vital and active.
I do not know how many students in our country know some of the interesting things about our prime ministers. No prime minister has not had some facet of private or personal life which was just as fascinating as anything that happens south of the border. We all know the attributes of Sir John. A. Macdonald. Few realize that he had a daughter who was very retarded and sick. He used to walk from this House of Commons every night to what is now the British high commission, his former home, to read to her during the supper hour. Perhaps it was as a result of her affliction and other tragedies regarding his son that Sir John A. Macdonald became a great gourmet of certain liquids. However, he was a great parliamentarian.
The fact that the home of the first prime minister of this land no longer belongs to Canada is testimony to the fact of how retarded we have been as a country. It is now the site of the British high commission. It was a beautiful house, and it still stands. I do not know if the history of that house is pointed out by guided tours. This would never happen in the United States-but it happens in Canada all the time.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is not in the chamber now, but he has been a consistent spokesman for those who want to have a federal government and the provincial governments recognize some of our historic sites. Three miles from me in my riding there was once the home of one of our prime ministers, Sir Robert Borden, but that house has been torn down. It was an original American planner home. Now the site is barren: there are now just trees and shrubs; the house is not there. At the intersection of Grand Pre there is a little plaque saying that down the road half a mile is where the house once was. When I was knee high to a grasshopper I attended the unveiling of that plaque. Henry Borden, of Brazilian extraction and a descendant of Sir Robert Borden, pulled back the veil; but even at that time, if my memory serves me correctly, the original home was still in existence.
I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to repeat what Joseph Howe said, "A nation which does not preserve its monuments starts to lose its soul". The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) once said in a speech-and I have used this at every school at which I have spoken-that the man who does not know his history is the same as a person in the hospital who has amnesia. We do not have to become slaves of the past, but certainly an awareness of the past would help define and chart the course for the future.
June 6, 1977

I am not going to discuss all the areas of concern in my riding. I am proud to be a member of parliament because we are dealing with a bill which extends and enlarges the Historic Sites and Monuments Board by adding to it representatives from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Less than two weeks ago I happened to be in the Yukon for the first time. I was 300 miles north of Whitehorse, at the westernmost settlement in Canada. That part of the country reeks with history. That history basically has to do with the gold rush. But history is also taking place today because now we have the Lysyk commission studying the Alcan pipeline route. This is a kind of marriage of the old with the new. We should try to achieve the proper blend of the new with the old.
I became interested in the Yukon and some of its history because, quite frankly, I did not know very much about it. There is a tremendous book entitled "Prelude to Bonanza", written by a well known citizen of Whitehorse, Allen Wright, which points out that long before the gold rush there was quite an active history and quite a lot of development by the Americans and the French in this most westerly region of Canada.
There is one specific matter which 1 want to mention. There has been a repeated request by the West Hants county historical society. I would like to pay credit to at least one individual involved with that society, Mr. Roland Meuse, its president, who has helped inform me and who has brought to my attention in a most constructive and consistent way various matters of concern to his society. One request of this historical society is backed up by a resolution. It is also backed up by the affiliated boards of trade of the Annapolis Valley. The request is that there be some federal help with regard to Fort Edward, in Windsor. I think I should read the resolution passed by the West Hants historical society. It was adopted December 13, 1976, and reads as follows:
Whereas, the West Hants historical society and other organizations in the county of Hants, Nova Scotia, have asked federal authorities to undertake an historical redevelopment of Fort Edward in Windsor; and,
Whereas the society has requested the reconstruction of the simple wooden barracks buildings for museum and display purposes; and,
Whereas Parks Canada has opened the blockhouse for public inspection in the summer season, providing pictorial displays and guides, and has indicated that plans for redevelopment are somewhere in the remote future; and.
Whereas, the hon. Mr. Warren Allmand, Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs, on December 1, 1976, announced a ten-year program and an expenditure of $20 million by Parks Canada for restoration of the nineteenth century Halifax Citadel;
Be it resolved:
That the West Hants historical society approves of restoration work at the Halifax Citadel, but feels that at a time when restraints are being placed on restoration programs elsewhere, the Halifax project is being done to the serious neglect of other sites such as Fort Edward and Annapolis Royal, which were not merely displays of British military muscle, but were involved in more active roles in the historical development of Canada, and had notable influence in the destinies of the French, British and native peoples of this country from a much earlier period; and,
That before any further projects of the magnitude of the restoration of the Louisbourg Fortress are carried out, to which the Halifax Citadel project was compared by the minister, more visible attention in restoration should be given to the smaller and more significant historical sites in this province.
Historic Sites
That resolution has been supported by many institutions in the Annapolis Valley, including boards of trade. The Fort Edward site was constructed in 1750, and the original blockhouse is still there. The request is that there be federal funding for the restoration of the wooden barracks so they could be set up as a display and museum area. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars; we are talking about some help to develop this site in one area of the valley. The other historic sites and museums-the habitation in Annapolis Royal and Fort Anne in Annapolis Royal-are developed. You can see the Fort Edward blockhouse right from Windsor. From all sides you can see the tides of the Bay of Fundy and the Minas Basin which are the highest tides in the world.
I do not want to prolong the debate, Mr. Speaker, but merely to put on record the request from the West County historical association and ask the department seriously to reconsider its decision. It did not completely reject the application but said it does not fit within the priorities of the programs of the department right now. Perhaps in another year, if there is more money, something might happen. I ask that this be reconsidered in view of the fact that in 1978, Windsor, which is the shire town of Hants county will celebrate its centennial. I cannot think of any more significant recognition from the federal government and the Historic Sites Board to mark the history of this region than a firm commitment of funds. This would help the people who up to now have done things pretty well on their own, as so often happens in small towns.
I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the large projects are often able to carry themselves: everyone knows about Louisbourg, the Citadel in Quebec and the Citadel in Halifax, for instance. It is the smaller projects that require more compassionate assessment by the Historical Sites Board and officials far away in the bureaucracy in Ottawa. These small sites involve the local people much more than some of the national museums.
I certainly do not want to hold up the bill, Mr. Speaker. I have read the resolution. We are talking about something that goes back to the early 1700s which is wrapped up not only in the history of the British and French but also of the Indians of the area, the first Canadians. I cannot think of any better birthday present to the people of Annapolis Valley in western Nova Scotia, and specifically to Hants county and Windsor, than to have a commitment that in 1978 something will be done at the Fort Edward site so that there will be a barracks to complement the blockhouse that is standing there.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to take up too much of the time of the House in my remarks on this measure. There is one aspect, however, that I feel should be brought to the attention of the House. It relates to one of the most outstanding navigators and hydrog-raphers of all-time, James Cook, and the commemorative plaques and symbols that ought to be placed in various parts of the country, particularly on the west coast, in commemoration

June 6, 1977
Historic Sites
of his work. We are coming very close to the anniversary of that period of our history where James Cook made extraordinarily accurate charts of the west coast of Canada. I think it is time we commemorated those activities with more recognition than has been accorded to them.
When I visited Quebec City about two months ago I was surprised to learn that this same Captain Cook had a great deal to do with the plotting and drawing of the charts of the St. Lawrence River in 1758-59 prior to his explorations on the west coast. I have suggested to the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) that he should consider that Captain James Cook be commemorated at the appropriate time in 1978 with either a commemorative stamp or a series of stamps which would do what we have been talking about in this bill, that is, commemorate what we owe to those who opened up the country for us.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned the need for remembering the smaller people, those who have made contributions but whose names do not appear in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Of course, Captain Cook's name appears there, but we need to be reminded more often than we are at the moment of the dates when all of those who came before us discovered and plotted our lands. I make a plea again to the Postmaster General, which 1 hope will be picked up and brought to his attention-as he is not in the House today-that Captain Cook be commemorated with an issue at the appropriate time in 1978 and that a series of commemorative ceremonies be organized on the west coast to mark the historic work he did there.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it would be repetitious to go over, again, the importance today of historic sites to Canadians. I ask the House to be tolerant if 1 should become a little local in my remarks. Any country which has pride in itself, any group of citizens who has pride in its community and its history should use this pride as the cornerstone of development. History reveals the errors of the past, and as we plan the future it is hoped that we may learn from these errors and go forward with greater confidence in our ability to cope.
In comparison with other countries, Canada has been remiss in exploiting her historic sites. It must be admitted, of course, that we do not have the history of Athens, Rome, Paris or London. But we have our own history. It is a brilliant history, something of which we should, and must, be proud. Our citizens spend billions of dollars abroad absorbing the history of other countries, yet virtually nothing has been done to create attractions which might keep them at home or which bring people from other countries to Canada as tourists.
On the occasion of the Queen's silver jubilee, presently being celebrated in London, it is estimated that two million tourists are in the city enjoying its history. Even if we discount the historical appeal of this bill, we should perhaps examine it for its potential to keep Canadian money at home and attract foreign money to our shores.

Not too long ago I was privileged to visit the New England states. I was invited out to dinner, to the house which had formerly been the home of that famous author, John Greenleaf Whittier. That home is an historic site, preserved in all its historic grandeur and recapturing the flavour and life of the era in which the author lived. We do little of that sort of thing.
I appeal to the government to be aware of our significant historic sites and to preserve as an historic site the home Mr. Van Horne built and lived in, in my constituency. Failure to preserve the house as an historic site would cast no credit on the federal government, or on the government of New Brunswick. The site, together with all its artifacts, was at one time available for $100,000, but neither the Historic Sites and Monuments Board nor the provincial government of New Brunswick saw fit to buy the island on which Mr. Van Horne had lived and preserve it as an historic site. The house stands in a community which depends on tourist traffic for its living in the summer. Actually, tourism is the underpinning of the area's economy all year. The local chamber of commerce, the heritage trust, interested people in St. Andrews, the honorable member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and I, among others, have pleaded with governments to act immediately. All these pleas have met with procrastination.
If we do not act quickly, the site may be lost to the public. We must help the government of New Brunswick which has done its best within reasonable limits to acquire the assets of that estate, an estate of significant historical importance in the development of this country. Mr. Van Horne's first home in Montreal was destroyed to make room for development. Unless we act promptly, Mr. Van Horne's other home in my constituency may not be available to the public as an historic site. I suggest that federal and provincial authorities must co-operate to secure this site for the public.
These sites are valuable as historical records because we have reason to be proud of our history. If economic hard times lie ahead and money becomes scarce, surely it makes sense for the government to take over these premises. I could point to many significant historic sites in Carleton-Charlotte, a constituency settled relatively early in Canadian history. I expect many hon. members know of the articles Dr. George Frederick Clarke on matters of history and on historic objects he has collected over the years. But for his writings Canadians would be unaware of many matters of historical significance. Dr. Clarke has written about at least a dozen sites or places in Carleton-Charlotte which could be classified as historic sites.
Many of the sites he mentioned ought to be taken over. They would be useful for fostering the pride of our citizens and attracting visitors. I urge the government to be cognizant of places of historic interest in this country, that is, of historic sites and of the contributions of the people in our history, people who come from the west, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and all other parts of the country. We are spending millions of dollars on the development of Beausejour. I applaud the expenditure. Let us not lose sight of the impor-
June 6, 1977

tance and value of other sites, equally interesting and equally valuable to Canada today and in future.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


FISHING AND RECREATIONAL HARBOURS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, December 10, 1976, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-7, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister not present?


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was slow to rise because I thought one or two hon. members opposite wanted to speak on the bill. Unfortunately, the minister cannot be in the House this morning because of prior commitments but will try to attend in the House later to close the debate. Although I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to close the debate. I know that several hon. members still wish to speak on the bill.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely such an important bill seeking to confer significant powers of enforcement on officers, under certain conditions, merits a statement from the minister. If the minister cannot be here this morning, perhaps we could put off the introduction of the bill until this afternoon and so allow the minister to explain the bill and why these extensive powers are proposed.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. With respect, we are continuing consideration of the bill. When it was introduced on second reading last December, the minister opened the debate, after which some six or seven members spoke on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. When the House finished its consideration of the bill on December 10, the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) had the floor. He is not present this morning; therefore, 1 recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
1 have not had the opportunity to read why the minister requires the extensive powers sought in the bill. I find it odd that we should debate a bill of this sort, an important bill, and the sort of bill which we have just finished debating, in order to fill in time near the end of the session. I find this particularly odd since other questions of consequence for this country need debating; for example, the income tax measure which has caused considerable perturbation. I ask, why did the government decide to bring forward for discussion at this time this bill?
I notice that this bill would confer powers on the minister to produce regulations and make definitions. Normally, definitions are written in clear language. According to clause 2, "goods" means "tangible personal property other than vessels." Presumably that definition could include fish on board a vessel, or any other goods or chattels. However, on page 2 of the bill one finds that "scheduled harbour" means "any fishing or recreational harbour included in a schedule prescribed by the regulations". Once more we see regulations rearing their heads. Mr. Speaker, in our history this parliament will be known as the parliament which passed many regulations and which tried at the same time to review regulations and statutory instruments in which are enshrined many of our legislative enactments. This parliament will be remembered for the number of regulations we were obliged to approve. Here we have a definition defined through regulations which are not actually in the bill.
I think of one particular harbour that might very well fall within this definition. It might be prescribed as a scheduled harbour within the regulations. We have had trouble with this harbour before. It is within Indian territory. An attempt was made to create a marina there. The Indian band rose up against the particular movement. The municipality in which the band finds itself also rose up against it. I understand there is a further movement to have a second crack at this particular harbour in order to convert it into a marina. There have been marinas in the area of my constituency. Some have had rather sad histories. This particular one was investigated by a developer, up to a point. He thought it was in the bag until pressure developed to have his project put on the back-burner. I thought it was not only put on the back-burner but out into the woodshed and into the archives. However, I gather there is talk at the moment that it might come forward again. The bay I have in mind is Saanichton Bay. It should be mentioned. We ought to serve warning that developments of this sort should not take place under cover of regulations which we do not see.
There is something else that concerns me in another part of this bill. I will come back to Saanichton Harbour in a minute. Clause 5 reads:
The minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, construction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour-

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Subclause (2) reads:
The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with any province-
That is fine. However, he may also, as provided in subclause
(3)-
The minister may, subject to the regulations, enter into an agreement with any person-
That removes the development of harbours such as Saanich-ton Bay from the reach of this House. If there are harbours that are being considered as harbours, they ought to be scheduled. A list of those harbours should be brought before this House so that we will know exactly what waters, harbours and bays are being considered. The municipalities want to know, as do the people living nearby. According to my recollection, the Saanichton Bay development occurred about two years ago. Objections were raised by the Indian band community which harbours its boats in that bay. There was going to be a lot of dredging. They were going to completely change the whole estuary or the creek that flows into Saanichton Bay. One of the other objections raised at that time was the industrial development that was going to be attracted by the development of that marina. No thought was being given to the community infrastructure that would have to proceed, or at least be considered hand in hand with the development of that marina project.
The Indian band was very upset because of the parking problem that would arise once the marina took shape. I do not have the file before me, but I believe they were talking of the order of 1,000 boats: once developed, the marina would handle 1,000 pleasure boats. It would, of course, receive pleasure boats from the United States, which is not very far away. Actually, the American islands are within sight of the development that was contemplated.
The municipality was very upset because this operation was to take place at a time when there was a critical water shortage in the peninsula. I have mentioned this before. People in this House find it difficult to believe there is a water shortage in Victoria and in the Saanich peninsula-but there is. There is a very high building development in the area. It is pressing in on the ground resource of the water. This 1,000 vessel marina would have a requirement for topping up the water cannisters before going off. Also, when people came in, their water supplies would be down and they would expect to have pure water available. These matters should be taken into account very seriously before any projects of this kind take place. The minister will be able to schedule harbours in bays and then enter into agreements with the provinces or with individuals. He will have that power under this bill.
Let us suppose this bill had been in place when that previous marina had been brought forward. Would we have been able to stop it as we did? Would the community have been able to stop it? Would the municipality have had an effective voice?
Why are the regulations not available to us? I ask the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) whether he is satisfied with a bill of this sort. I do not ask that because it is a fisheries and harbours bill, but because of the regulations.

He has had a lot to do with alerting this House to the dangers of legislation by regulation. At one time I fondly imagined that it was law that prevailed in this country. I now find that the law merely provides the means whereby regulations can be drawn up. Regulations and ministerial discretion used in drawing up and promulgating regulations determine the lives of our citizens-not the law. Therefore, I find it a little too much that such powers are granted to the minister. Without reflecting on the minister himself-


Mr. Alexander:: Why not?


Donald W. Munro: Why not? But not in this particular case. I make no reflection on the minister himself, but this whole principle of ministerial power in drawing up regulations stemming from an act must be examined very carefully. I think we should exercise every precaution to make sure that, before we agree to give passage to legislation containing provisions of this sort, the regulations are before us and are appended to schedules to the legislation. There is no denying that this affirms, almost in stone, the regulations themselves. When amendments to the legislation are brought forward, amendments to the appendices can also be brought forward and discussed in the House. We must make sure we are governed less and less by regulation, and on all bills to which I speak I am determined to look into this aspect most carefully.
I cited the Saanichton Bay problem merely as an example of what could happen in any coastal riding in this country. A member may wake up one morning and find that a harbour in his constituency has been designated by the minister and that a developer with whom the minister has made certain arrangements begins to develop the area without first considering the wishes of the community. When we get to committee we must look at this matter again.
We are not finished with regulations in clause 2, because I find at page 11 of the bill there is a clause dealing with payment of fines. Clause 25 provides:
(I) The governor in council may by regulation designate any offence under this act or the regulations as an offence with respect to which-
And so on. So, again, we come across regulations which are to be drawn up by the governor in council. Why are these regulations not available to us? Is it not possible, before we move on to third reading, to have the regulations which are going to designate any offence under the act as an offence with respect to which certain things happen? I would have thought it would not be beyond the powers of those who drafted this legislation to put forward regulations which they feel should flow from this particular provision.
There is one other element which I think ought to be brought to the attention of the House and which I intend to look at more carefully in committee. I refer to clause 14 which provides for removal, seizure and detention of vessels and goods where an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for doing so. Having looked at the definition of "goods" in clause
June 6, 1977

2,	I presume this could refer to fish catches and that these could be seized and detained. Provision is also made for goods which might be spoiled to be disposed of, the proceeds being subject, of course, to the decision of the court as to whether the act which caused those goods to come on board was an offence under the legislation.
Since this bill deals with fisheries and recreational harbours in Canada, I should just like to mention one happy development which took place a week or ten days ago. I received a call from a community where floats should have been out two or three weeks ago, but because of the breakdown of the departments vessel floats were not in place for the main tourist weekend of May 24. I believe tourist vessels were standing off Sidney pier in my riding, some 500 of them, waiting to come ashore, but the floats had been taken out because of the winter winds and had not been replaced. A couple of calls to me and a couple of calls by me to Vancouver, Victoria and the fisheries interests there turned up the fact that the vessel operated by the Department of Public Works which normally puts those floats in place had broken down and that therefore the floats could not be put out.
However, the Sidney municipality and the Department of Public Works got together-something which should happen more often-and got the floats out for the next holiday weekend. When I came in to land on the Friday morning with a group of Canada-U.S. parliamentarians, the floats were not in place, but they were promised for the Friday night, and they must have been put out on the Friday or Saturday morning because on the Sunday morning the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group went out to do some cruising in the waters of Haro Strait to see what damage might occur if tankers came through those waters, and the floats were in place. I think the officials should be thanked for the speed with which they responded to the request of the local authorities.
When I was making inquiries about these particular floats, I was told one problem was that there was no breakwater and they were exposed to the winds and the waves which come in so readily from the southeast into Sidney harbour. Therefore, the floats have to be taken up during the winter. 1 do not know why this has not occurred to those who operate small craft harbours, but surely vessels which have come to the end of their floating life could be sunk and act as breakwaters off these unprotected harbours. After all, this was one manner in which the Mulberry docks played a role during the landings in France on the beaches of Normandy, and this could be adapted to our harbours to protect them from the winds. Did we learn nothing from the war? Did we learn nothing from these techniques? As a matter of fact, I have suggested that some of these 250,000-ton oil tankers might be the most appropriate vessels to sink for this purpose. They would be serving a much greater purpose, filled with cement and breaking the waves and the winds on some of our exposed harbours, rather than running around as dangerous vessels under doubtful command on the high seas and in our narrow waters. However, I leave that as a suggestion which might be taken up at some time.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Since we are talking about fishery harbours, I feel there is room for comment on the Canada-United States fisheries relations and agreements on the west coast. I have asked the minister to produce a text of the interim reciprocal fishing agreement. An English text was provided to me, but it was not a complete one; there seemed to be some gaps in it. I suppose that was because of the manner in which it was photostated. The top lines of several pages seem to be missing, but I will endeavour to have that sorted out.
It was the English text of the Canada-United States reciprocal fishing agreement which was sent to me as a courtesy by the parliamentary relations division of the department. In this letter I find the reason the text has not been tabled. It is because the French language text is currently being examined by United States authorities. I should have thought Canada could have been able to provide an authentic French language text of any signed agreement. Of course, a copy would be sent to the other signatory, because both texts are considered authentic. I am curious to find out whether any changes are suggested once it has been examined by our neighbours to the south. In this country of ours, which prides itself on its bilingual character, we should be able to produce authentic texts and authentic translations in both languages before we put a signature to either.
I feel we should have this agreement before us. I heard rumours that there have been exchanges of notes, aides memoires and letters back and forth between Ottawa and Washington concerning the interpretation of this agreement. I should indicate that this agreement has been signed by both countries, but not ratified. I have been told that diplomatic exchanges are privileged documents. This is a matter which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has been arguing about for a number of years. The hon. member has urged upon this government and previous governments that there ought to be complete disclosure of documents affecting Canadians. If they affect negotiating positions, certainly that is understandable. The interpretation of a particular clause in an agreement is a matter of public knowledge.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: This government plays with public secrecy.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, but it is a cover-up.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Certainly.


Donald W. Munro: It is extraordinary that diplomatic exchanges relating to this particular agreement should be considered privileged documents.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to have an explanation as to what the exchange of diplomatic notes and the signing of international agreements has to do with construction, maintenance and supervision of small craft harbours.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: If you cannot understand that, it shows you are not too clever.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Steve Eugene Paproski: Explain it to him; he is not too clever.


Donald W. Munro: 1 will explain it for the hon. member through you, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about reciprocal fisheries agreements between the government of the United States and the government of Canada.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That has nothing to do with small craft harbours.


Donald W. Munro: Well, fishing harbours are used by fishermen. It is as simple as that. If there were no fishing harbours, there would be no fishermen. This particular agreement is being worked out in a manner which will result in there being no fish, and thus no fishing harbours. Therefore, I suggest the point of order raised by the hon. parliamentary secretary has no relevancy to the present argument.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It has more relevancy than your referral to diplomatic agreements.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go back to sleep.


Donald W. Munro: There is relevancy in the particular line I am pursuing at the moment. We have had little opportunity to discuss the problems of west coast fisheries in this House. There are problems on the west coast relating to the division of fish caught there by Canadian and American fishermen. The United States federal court, in the State of Washington, made a ruling in 1974 concerning certain Indian tribes being provided with an opportunity to take one-half of the available salmon harvest in the United States. These salmon may be brought in to a fishing port or harbour. That ruling of Judge Boldt has led to further rulings which run counter to this particular agreement.
I would like to cite one particular clause of that agreement which can be found in article 11(3), which indicates that the fishing by nationals and vessels of each party in the zone of the other shall continue in accordance with existing patterns, with no expansion of effort nor initiation of new fisheries. I mentioned this section in an earlier intervention which I made on amendments to the Criminal Code. One might ask how I got fisheries into the Criminal Code. That occurred as a result of the amendments to the Criminal Code under the Fisheries Act. At that particular time I was concerned, and I am still concerned, that the ruling of Judge Boldt, as agreed to by the United States regional consultative committee on fisheries, should have run counter to the particular clause I have just mentioned. It alters existing patterns and changes the effort-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Did Dionne say "No"?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Yes, I did. I am glad the hon. member is aware of that fact.


An hon. Member:: We all said "No".


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Just as one of your members said "No" to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) the other day when he was speaking on a very important matter with regard to his department.


Donald W. Munro: He probably deserved it.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, now we will get back to Bill C-7. The hon. member who has just concluded his remarks is concerned with the regulations governing fisheries harbours and pleasure craft harbours in this country, and that these regulations are not known at the moment. If he will look at section 9 of this act, he will see that the areas in which regulations may be made are very specifically defined. I suggest it would be a great burden to the House if every time the status of a small craft harbour were changed, or every time some measure concerning the supervision or regulation of those harbours were to be introduced, a bill had to be passed through the House of Commons. We would get even less legislation passed, in those circumstances, than we do now.
It is well known that though the government proposes legislation, the opposition disposes-and this opposition has not been disposed to make any great progress in that regard. I invite hon. members to look at clause 9, where we see what may be controlled by regulation. The subjects concern the maintenance of order, the safety of persons and property, the form of tickets which may be issued, and so on. I am sure the House would be excited at the prospect of designing the tickets which were to be issued.
To my mind it is important that the bill should be before the House now. Perhaps it should have been brought in earlier, but it was not. I say this because it is time the small craft harbour situation was rationalized. The coastline of Atlantic Canada is dotted with small craft harbours. They are all important, for various reasons. They are important for the development of tourism and also for the work of the boat construction industry.
As opportunities for leisure increase, increasing numbers of people have the time and the money to take up pleasure craft sports and recreation. There are, as well, the fishing harbours, and these possess an importance to many communities in Atlantic Canada which cannot be exaggerated. These communities grew up around the fishing industries in the early days. In fact, it was the abundance of fish which brought many of the early explorers from Europe to our eastern shores. The communities which have developed on the basis of fishing have a very strong attachment on historic grounds to the sea and to the products of the sea, and these harbours are very much a
June 6, 1977

centre of their activities. They are certainly the centre of their economies.
There is one clause in the bill which gives me some concern; it is the proposition to set up a fee structure under which small fishermen would pay for the use of these harbours. I hope a close look will be taken in committee at this proposal. As hon. members know, most of the fishermen on the Atlantic coast today find a great deal of difficulty in eking out a livelihood from the resources and markets available to them, without being hit by additional fees. I would, therefore, not be in favour of making small, part-time fishermen pay fees at the various wharfs they use.
I also wish to address myself briefly to the proposal to replace the wharfingers, who are now in charge of many of these small craft harbours, by harbour managers. 1 have no objection to this, as long as the harbour managers come from the local community and are familiar with the needs of the local community and of the people who use the harbours. We do not need so-called experts being transferred to these communities when they know absolutely nothing about the problems or the needs of the people there. I should like to see some form of consultation introduced with the local fishermen with respect to the appointment of wharfingers or harbour managers. I want to see these harbours managed for the benefit of the people who use them, and not by paper-pushers who are more concerned with filing reports than with making facilities readily available.
We have heard criticism as to the timing of this bill. Members have asked why it should be brought forward at this particular point. I would ask a counter question: Why not? It is time there was rationalization of the development of these fishing harbours. Many of them are too small now for the purpose for which they are needed. Also, it is time we gave thought to the nature of the development which is required. In addition, I would hope that as a result of this bill we would continue to attach greater significance, at least from a financial point of view, to those harbours which are used by people for the purpose of making a livelihood rather than for the purpose of pleasure.
I am not downgrading the place of pleasure craft or of small craft harbours in the development of tourism. Indeed, in my area there is a group at work trying to develop a marina both for local use and for the promotion of tourism. I support this effort, but I insist that the fishermen whose lives are completely dependent upon the resources of the sea and upon the related shore facilities must come first in the financial considerations of the department. I have no worries about this as long as the present minister continues to hold his portfolio. He has shown a lively interest in the well-being of the fishermen, and he has done a great deal in a relatively short period to improve their lot. I encourage him in this attitude and look forward to the day when we shall see a rational system of small craft harbours both for pleasure craft and for those who use the sea to make their livelihood.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally planned to enter the debate, but the hon.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) did ask a question. Looking through the bill, I find I have five or six points which I should like to make-hopefully, in brief fashion. First, and perhaps most important in my mind from a general standpoint, I think something should be written into the bill to require a separate report on its administration each year by the minister responsible. I believe such a provision has been included in other bills of this kind. It might be regarded as implicit that the minister should include this information somewhere in his annual report, but I do not think it would hurt to give a little backing to this measure and to the important thing which it does by having a report made by the minister. This could be arranged in committee. As a matter of fact, I shall try to get on that committee so that I can pursue the matter myself.
The second point is a constituency one. I look at the potentialities of a series of beautiful little ports along the coast of my constituency-Herring Cove, Portuguese Cove, Catch Harbour, Sambro-all of which qualify for what is intended under this act. But there is clause 3 of the bill which provides that the bill will not affect any harbour, wharf, pier or breakwater under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board or any harbour commission established under any act of parliament. This might rule out help for these four communities, either because the definition of the port of Halifax could be so large as to include them, or else the operations of the harbour commission could be such as to include them as well.
Perhaps the adviser to the minister, who is in the gallery, would make a point of doing some homework, which I obviously cannot do this morning since I just started to read the bill, to find out from the National Harbours Board or the Department of Transport what the situation is in that respect. It would mean that the four small communities I have mentioned would not have their day in the sun under this legislation.
Another point which I think is of concern is that "the minister" is not defined in the bill. There is a provision at the bottom of the first page which states that the "minister" means such member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada as is designated by the governor in council to act as the minister for the purposes of this act. It seems to me to be a strange provision to have there. After all, the bill is in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and presumably that hon. gentleman would be carrying out the legislation. He might find there is conflict with clause 3(b) which would prevent the minister named to carry out this bill from ever being an acting minister of anything else. I throw that out as a legal technicality, not of any great moment. But I think the act would look a little brighter if the minister responsible for it could be set out there, and I do not see any reason why he cannot.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich has questioned the regulatory powers set out in the legislation. It is quite common to have such regulatory powers in any piece of legislation that goes through the House. The hon. member who spoke follow-

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours ing him thought that the regulatory powers would be ones that very ordinarily should belong to the governor in council. I cannot make an assessment offhand this morning, although I would, if people were interested, get the best advice I could on the matter of the regulatory process and ensure that that information was shared with the members of the committee who examine the bill.
However, there is one provision for regulatory powers that I think could not only have unexpected results, but might land the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment in difficulty, and that is clause 9(d) which deals with the control of pollution at any scheduled harbour. That might involve the minister in all sorts of regulations that were not primarily intended for the basic purposes of the act, which are to deal with fishing and recreational harbours, but might make him set foot beyond wharfs, piers or breakwaters, in inland topics more properly to be dealt with under some other act of parliament. So I question whether that subclause does not go too far.
Finally, I give a warning: Never fish from a derelict wreck. If you do, and the officials appointed under this act came along and saw you fishing peacefully, they might think that you appear to be in charge of the vessel, as set forth in clause 14(1), and get you embroiled in a long legal process that not only may cause you to spend a great deal of money but may also ruin your whole morning as a fisherman.


Mrs. Holt:: That could give lawyers a little business.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Both our hearts are in the right place-it would give lawyers some business, unless they happened to be the persons sitting there peacefully fishing from a wreck in some small harbour and the enforcement officer tapped their shoulders. I am mainly concerned about the need for an annual report, and I hope the government will consider it and we will not get into a protracted row in committee when the matter comes before them. Also, I think there should be an exact definition of "the minister responsible", and I hope officials of the department will be good enough to advise me as to whether the four small fishing communities I mentioned can fit in within the act and not be part of some strange jurisdictional dispute involving the National Harbours Board or the port of Halifax commission.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate at this stage of the debate on Bill C-7, but I will not become involved in any protracted debate. As I understand it, the subject matter of this bill was first set out in legislation way back in 1895, and somewhat revised in 1937. Since then there has been no fundamental change in the harbours, piers or wharves administration. So certainly a bill such as this, on fishing and recreational harbours to consolidate and, in the words of the parliamentary secretary, to rationalize many of the problems in the administration of the small craft harbours, is undoubtedly relevant.
I must say that when I heard the parliamentary secretary use the word "rationalize", I thought he used it not glibly but lightly. All bills must have regulations that come forward later

and, as the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) suggested, if his suggestion is accepted there will be annual reports stating what took place in the administration of small craft harbours, and unfair and perhaps contradictory regulations can be corrected. What concerns me very much, coming from the area to which the parliamentary secretary referred-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 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.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43. The urgent and pressing circumstances which appear in the motion are particularly prompted by recent alarming events which indicate an intent within the government to intimidate the news media. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House, deeply concerned by certain recent dangerous events, such as public comments by the Prime Minister and supporters against CBC in connection with reporting on Quebec, the implied threat by a Cabinet minister to the broadcasting industry that they might be called to account before a Royal Commission and in particular the alleged serious action on behalf of the Minister of Transport to prevent publication of The Canadian Magazine in Saskatchewan last weekend, and a statement by a supporter of the government, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, referred to in today's Globe and Mail, that there is "a phobia in Ottawa to domesticate this power of the press... to harness it", calls for an immediate inquiry into these events by a committee of this House or under the Inquiries Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
June 6, 1977


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the continued deterioration in the service offered by Canada's post office as documented by press articles and the increasing flow of letters of protest from constituents to members of parliament, a situation further aggravated by the current breakdown in contract negotiations over a matter that would have been insignificant if the post office management had introduced modern industrial relations practices into the post office department at the time when the decision was made to move rapidly into mechanization and automation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the government immediately set up a joint parliamentary committee similar to the committee that studied the 250 recommendations for improvement in employer-employee relations in the Public Service, a situation that has been further exacerbated by the government's failure to act on the Finkelman committee report, to examine in depth the Canada post office and to recommend solutions for the current crisis which has resulted in deteriorating service, a breakdown in labour management relations with the CUPW and the problems with mechanization and automation in the Toronto area that have been playing havoc with mail service throughout Metro Toronto and across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED COMMITTEE STUDY OF POSTPAK PROGRAM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of conflicting information in regard to the Postpak program of the Post Office Department where on the one hand departmental officials have informed the Canadian Trucking Association that Postpak has always been profitable and on the other, the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that it has only been profitable since December 1976,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the whole matter of Postpak be referred to a joint parliamentary committee to examine in depth the Postpak program which is causing serious problems for the Canadian trucking industry and to determine the economic feasibility of this program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Cuban Delegation


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Postmaster General said no again.


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since hard core pornography, in particular abusive child pornography, produced in the United States is now entering Canada through several ports of entry in our larger urban centres; since representations have already been made to the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) which would in effect limit the number of ports of entry; and since the incidence of pornography involving the use of children is increasing dramatically, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Prime Minister immediately establish a House of Commons task force that would study the extent of child pornography in Canada and report back to the House of Commons with specific recommendations within 90 days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 the presentation of such motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CUBAN DELEGATION, HEADED BY COMMISSIONER A. MARGOLLES, VICE-MINISTER OF FISHERIES
Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Before we begin the oral question period may I direct the attention of the hon. members to the presence in our gallery of the distinguished Cuban delegation attending the ICNAF meetings presently underway in Ottawa, headed by their distinguished vice-minister of fisheries, Mr. Commissioner A. Margolles.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 6, 1977
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, because of the vital importance of a speedy, efficient and reliable postal service to the well-being of the Canadian community and Canadian business, particularly the small business sector, and in light of the threat once again of a strike by the inside postal workers this summer, would the Postmaster General consider recommending the immediate establishment of a joint, non-partisan parliamentary committee patterned after the joint committee which studied the 250 Finkelman recommendations for employer-employee relations in the Public Service, to examine the Canada Post Office operation and to recommend solutions?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, the post office has always been a non-partisan department. It has always received much co-operation from members of the opposition, and I am sure the hon. member advanced his suggestion in that spirit. As the hon. gentleman knows full well, one of our difficulties is this: we have been examined too much. Hopefully, in the immediate future we shall engage in constructive negotiation in order to assure the Canadian people of continuous postal service. As of today we forwarded another invitation to inside postal workers to come back to the bargaining table in accordance with the suggestion of Mr. Brown of the Public Service Staff Relations Board last Friday. We hope the union will see fit to return.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the Postmaster General will not set up such a committee will he, at least, table the various management studies which the post office has done and commissioned, so that the Canadian public can get a glimpse of why the Post Office Department is in such chaos. Will he also urge his colleague the President of the Treasury Board to table legislation based on the Finkelman report as evidence of the government's intention to improve employee-employer relations in the Public Service?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the hon. gentleman, who in the past has always been helpful to the post office, for alleging-I do not accept his allegation-that the post office is in chaos. Indeed, the hon. member is merely encouraging the confrontationist attitude adopted by the members of CUPW. He knows full well that one of the tactics of that particular union is to attempt to demoralize management in the Post Office in order to advance its own bargaining positions. Surely, the hon. member is not intent on assisting them in that particular tactic.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Maybe I can get the point I am trying to make to the Postmaster General in a third question in spite of his belligerency. Is the Postmaster General considering positively the suggestion of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers

to set up a royal commission study of the Post Office with a view to involving the postal workers more directly in the planning process for technological change,-they have been left completely out of the planning process-a procedure that has been followed in all other modern industrial nations, as an alternative to the confrontation strike pattern that has brought Canada's postal service to the precipice of disaster or does he feel that his pre-written form letter campaign is all the action that is necessary at this time?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that since my appointment I have attempted to engage the CUPW in consultation. We have invited them to all intergroup sessions we have held very successfully with the LCUC. We have attempted to change the win-lose power struggle that has been in the Post Office for the better part of this decade as a problem-solving mode. We have done that with the LCUC. We have excellent relationships with the other unions. If the hon. member does not know, he ought to know that the CUPW has adopted within its constitution a confrontational stance. It is using nineteenth century union tactics. The hon. member ought to know that. He himself has chastised that particular union for not attempting to cooperate with us in solving those problems relating to mechanization for technological change. As the hon. member knows, article 29 in the collective agreement provides for that. We have been in constant consultation with that union. Because of the stance they have taken constitutionally of not cooperating but confronting, it makes it very difficult for us to do what the hon. member suggests. He is not helping at all by the very destructive suggestions he is putting forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSAL FOR DECENTRALIZATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad the Postmaster General does not receive any mail. He would then understand that people are truly concerned and disappointed with the type of mail service they are getting and for which they are paying exorbitant prices. In light of the massive and increasing number of mail handling problems referred to Ottawa each day by local post offices in major cities, and I point out particularly Hamilton and Toronto, when is the Postmaster General going to truly decentralize the Post Office so that such problems raised in the local post office can be settled fairly and expeditiously at the local level, thereby eliminating or reducing references to Ottawa which invariably cause undue delays and lowers morale?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. member consult with the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. He would then know of the type of background information I have made available to all hon. members in order to provide them with the information necessary to answer inquiries from their constituencies. The information I have made available is factual. It provides the sort of
June 6, 1977

replies the hon. member ought to have as evidence by the question he is asking.


REASON FOR REFUSAL TO ALLOW UNIONS TO POST BULLETINS ON BULLETIN BOARD
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I ask the
Postmaster General to update this action which he says is in effect but which I do no think is in effect. In other words, I do not believe the Postmaster General. With regard to the minor issue of posting union bulletins in post offices about which the Postmaster General has taken a tunnel vision approach, why has the Postmaster General disallowed this, which decision in effect has frustrated and stymied the continuation of labour negotiations with CUPW?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. gentleman would inform himself prior to putting questions to me. There has been no stymieing at all in regard to bulletins being put on the bulletin board. All we have said is that, in accordance with the collective agreement which is in force, a request has to be made of supervisory personnel before material is posted on the bulletin board or otherwise distributed. Surely, we are still in charge of the post office.


THREAT BY OIL COMPANIES TO STOP DRILLING IN MACKENZIE DELTA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it has to do with the announcement by Gulf Oil and Mobiloil, who have followed the example of Shell Oil, that they will do no further drilling in the Mackenzie valley delta until the federal government approves a pipeline and sets out new land regulations. They have also decided not to stockpile at their northern bases any of the equipment and supplies necessary for drilling this coming winter. What action does the minister propose to take with respect to this threatened strike by the oil companies, which has all the appearance of being an attempt at blackmail to influence the government to make a decision which is in the interests of these particular oil companies?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think as the hon. member has suggested the oil companies have left themselves open to the charge that they are attempting some form of blackmail. I would regret that interpretation. Perhaps the real reason is that they place greater importance on the views of the New Democratic Party with respect to the need for a pipeline.
Oral Questions


OIL-POSSIBLE SUSPENSION OF PRICE INCREASE IN VIEW OF SUGGESTION COMPANIES WILL STOP DRILLING IN MACKENZIE DELTA
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty tame answer which is not going to frighten the oil companies very much. In view of the fact that when the minister announced that over the next 12 months there will be an increase of $2 a barrel in the price of oil he gave as a reason the need for the oil companies to be able to accumulate a larger cash flow to carry out exploration in Canada, and since it is apparent that the three companies in question do not intend to carry on a certain amount of drilling or any drilling at all in the Mackenzie valley delta, does the minister intend to drop the idea of an increase in the price of oil until such time as the oil companies agree to spend this additional money on oil exploration in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention of dropping that proposal. As the hon. member must realize, the choice of where a corporation spends its exploration money is that of the corporation itself. We have made it very clear that we believe that cash flows are important in order to ensure that that exploration activity does take place and is funded by cash flow. The hon. member knows that at the present time a bill has been introduced in the Senate dealing with the monitoring of such cash flow and its application to exploration in Canada.


OIL-SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO FORCE COMPANIES TO SPEND MONEY ON EXPLORATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government's own monitoring survey shows that cash flow by the oil industry has increased from $1.3 billion in 1971 to over $3 billion in 1976, while at the same time the percentage of cash flow which has gone into exploration in Canada has dropped from 87.9 per cent to 78.4 per cent and the amount of money which these companies have spent in exploration outside Canada has gone from $34 million to over $231 million, is it not apparent that merely monitoring what happens to cash flow is not sufficient? Is he now prepared to consider mandatory legislation which would require the companies to spend their cash flow, which they get out of the pockets of Canadian consumers, on exploration in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member were not so selective in his figures, he would have understood that there has been a substantial increase in exploration activity and a significant application of the cash flow for exploration purposes. He has taken the year 1971. If he were to take the next year, 1972, as I pointed out to him before in this House, a year before the major increase in prices, he would find the percentage of funds which has been allocated for exploration and development. When comparing 1976 to 1972, the last year

June 6, 1977
Oral Questions
before the price increase, in percentage terms they compare very favourably.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not at all.


Alastair William Gillespie: He will also find out that there were very substantial sums of money devoted to exploration and development in Canada. I am referring to an increase amounting to billions of dollars. As the New Democratic Party would hope, the government does not intend to tell the companies where they should drill. We believe the corporate sector is the best judge of the risks involved and the best judge of where they are likely to find oil and natural gas.
[ Translation]


POSSIBLE DISCOVERY OF OIL IN EASTERN CANADA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It also deals with oil, but in another area.
In the May edition of Canadian Petroleum, there is an article signed Martin Kelly where we can find data on important oil and gas fields in Labrador and Newfoundland. These data have been established by the Canadian Armed Forces but they are kept secret on the Sherness base, near Halifax. Therefore I want to ask the minister whether it would not be more advantageous for Canada to invest in an eastern project where it is possible to extract 15 billion barrels according to Gulf Oil and Imperial Oil, twice as much as the potential for both the Mackenzie delta and the Beaufort Sea. Moreover, can the minister tell the House whether these data will be made available to the Canadian industry in the near future?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is talking about information which has been obtained from avionics equipment on overflights by the Argus plane with respect to the areas, that information is available. It is not information which would indicate the presence or non-presence of oil and gas. I checked into that particular question a week or two ago when a similar question was put. I was satisfied that that information is not the kind of information which can be used to determine the presence of major hydrocarbon deposits in the offshore. The major reason activity is not going on, at the present time, is that the government of Newfoundland adopted a very intransigent position with respect to the permit rights of the EastCan group. I suspect that was largely because of the influence of the former minister of energy and mines for that province, who now sits as the energy critic for the Tory Party.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I want to assure him that I ask this question with great seriousness and I hope he will take it under consideration. It deals with the misrepresentation of facts applied by the assured mail program of the Post Office. In view of the fact that studies done by a number of people including Alderman Ying Hope and organizations such as the Toronto Globe and Mail show without doubt that mail posted one day is not delivered the next day, will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs take action against the Postmaster General to ask him to cease and desist from this misleading type of advertising?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I will be happy to take seriously the point the hon. member has raised and will consult with my colleague.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it, then, the minister's policy that when actual evidence is brought to bear that misleading advertising is taking place in this country, that his department will do absolutely nothing about it and that private corporations which are involved in misleading advertising need not worry because it is the policy of the government to allow the Post Office to get away with misleading advertising when they will not let it happen in the private sector?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I am sure the hon. member realizes that legally and technically there is no way in which one arm of Her Majesty's government could prosecute another, even were the grounds for doing so to exist. So, when he makes an allegation of misleading advertizing about a government department the best I can do, and I have undertaken to do so, is to sit down with the minister and examine the advertizement about which he is speaking and take the matter into consideration.


James McPhail Gillies: When will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs report that he has taken this action, one which I consider to be completely inappropriate; he should be talking to the Solicitor General and finding means by which to cause the government to live up to the things it has promised to do. When will the minister report to the House? Will it be tomorrow? The operations of the Post Office in this nation are disgraceful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 6, 1977


POST OFFICE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: I, too, have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the successes achieved by the United States and United Kingdom post offices after their reorganization into semi-private and Crown corporation types of organizations respectively, is the Postmaster General considering either option for resolving the present chaos in the Post Office which is making delivery by Pony Express seem fast by comparison?


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDIES SHOWING PROFITABILITY OF POSTPAK-REPRESENTATIONS FROM TRUCKERS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In the light of the hon. gentleman's assertions that Postpak became profitable last December, despite the fact that his officials have been claiming that it was always profitable, will he table the studies which show its profitability?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I am very pleased the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has drawn the attention of the public to one of our very successful programs, Postpak, which is making the Post Office an even more competitive enterprise and is, in addition, providing extra revenue, thereby reducing the obligations upon the taxpayers of Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I suggest the Postmaster General should read his mail from the trucking organizations. Has he studied the claim of the Canadian Trucking Association that the only reason Postpak is profitable is the cross-subsidization which is forcing many truckers out of business because of unfair competition from the Post Office-as if unemployment in this country is not already high enough?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, I have read the brief and I am very pleased that they are feeling the rub of competition. We are in competition with private enterprise in a number of ways in the Post Office and we are competing very effectively indeed.


INCOME TAX
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the recent indication that her department will be levying income tax on cash advances on moneys which are given where interest is not paid, may I ask whether this is to include cash advances on farm stored grain and other agricultural products, or are these to be excluded?
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Bdgin (Minister of National Revenue):: I will look into the matter and report to the House or directly to the hon. gentleman as soon as possible.


PROPOSAL TO BUILD RAILWAY IN VENEZUELA-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Having returned from South America, can he tell the House about the results of his representations in favour of Canada with regard to the construction of a railroad in Venezuela?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Last Friday, I met the president of Venezuela, and as a result of that meeting Canada has been invited to form a consortium with Spain to build a railroad in Venezuela. We have been chosen as main contractor for the construction of a 700-kilometre railway which should cost about $1 billion. As you know, that is the first phase of a 3,000-kilometre railway which will mean a lot of work for the locomotive, track and car industry in Canada, as well as for Canadian technology since the railway will depend on North American technology and will be designed by Canadian experts.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In view of the failure of the Post Office to heed the recommendation of the Auditor General to bring forward enabling legislation to sell non-philatelic material, a recommendation made because of the Auditor General's belief that the Post Office is acting above the law, does the hon. gentleman still claim that section 13 of the Financial Administration Act gives him the power to raise postal rates by regulations?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: I fail to see the
connection between the two aspects. Yes, I do feel that section 13 of the Financial Administration Act permits us to raise the rates by order in council. In answer to the first question, we have reviewed this matter, we have examined the recommendation and legislation is being prepared. But we still feel we are entitled to sell a limited number of non-philatelic items which, of course, include postage within the transaction which is being made.
I should like to indicate, as well, with reference to a previous question involving the assured mail program that the term

June 6, 1977
Oral Questions
"assured mail" has not been used since 1976. If the hon. member for Don Valley has some allegation he wishes to make I wish he would make it to me because I have not seen any advertizing of the type he mentioned used since 1976. But the proportion of this mail delivered the next day is 85 per cent on the national average and delivery by the next day but one is short only 2 per cent, so it is 98 per cent for the next day plus one.


FINANCE
Bruce Halliday: In light of the minister's positive response to my last question I would like to direct my supplementary to the Minister of Finance. Section 13 of the Financial Administration Act states a minister can prescribe a rate for any service by regulation and since the government provides many services to Canadians, could the hon. gentleman tell the House if he intends to follow the trend set by the Postmaster General and bring in future tax provisions by regulation?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: The
opposition makes an interesting recommendation but I do not think I could accept it.


POSSIBILITY OF TRANSPORTING ALASKAN OIL BY PIPELINE OR RAILWAY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: May I address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker? It concerns the continuing threat of pollution to the southern offshore waters of British Columbia following the decision by Kitimat to withdraw its application for permission to construct a pipeline. Can the minister tell us whether his department has given any serious consideration by way of a study into transportation by Canada of Alaska oil overland either by pipeline or by rail? Would he advise us whether the decision by the Hall Commission to recommend rail as a form of transportation in these circumstances and the Queen's University study which similarly recommended rail have been co-related into a study of an alternative route for Alaskan oil over British Columbia or thereabouts so that we might avoid the hazards of water transportation in our coastal waters?


Alastair William Gillespie: When the United States government made the decision to go the Alyeska route, as far as Canada was concerned, it ruled out the possibility of moving Prudhoe Bay
oil across Canada.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: So that the minister might understand more particularly, might I say that a rail connection to Alaska would connect the whole of northern British Columbia and Alaska with both the Canadian trans-continental system and the United States trans-continental system and would also complete the British Columbia railroad to the north.
The reason I ask whether serious consideration has been given to this is that the government has known for a very long time that the risk of pollution as a result of the presence of oil tankers off our shores is great. What I want the minister to advise us is whether he or his department have made any positive proposal to the U.S. government, either in terms of an alternate oil port or in terms of land transportation. What have we proposed to the Americans to avoid the dead certainty of pollution of British Columbia waters so that they would have an option that would be acceptable to Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: As the hon. member knows, the government is not in a position to make a proposal to the United States with respect to an oil pipeline from Alaska through British Columbia, if that is the suggestion he is making. The National Energy Board was set up by parliament to consider, upon application from various companies, as to whether or not a certificate of public convenience and necessity could be issued. Clearly the initiative with respect to such a move would have to come from a group of corporations in the private sector, which application would then have to be heard by the National Energy Board to determine whether it is in the national interest that a certificate be issued.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the Postmaster General. In very combative replies today, without giving much information, the Postmaster General has refused to publish studies that have been conducted into the effectiveness of the Post Office; he has rejected either a joint parliamentary inquiry into the operations of the Post Office or a royal commission, and he has publicly attacked CUPW. We know what he is against, we know what he is not prepared to do, but what we are interested in knowing is what he is doing and what he intends to do to ensure that Canadians receive mail after June 30 and that there is an improvement in the Canadian postal services now. Can he tell us positively what he is doing, and can he give us a guarantee that there will be a new contract signed before June 30 or on June 30?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, surely that last request is not serious, or else the hon. gentleman is showing a greater naivete than has been attributed to him. I would simply indicate to him that we are doing our best,

June 6, 1977

notwithstanding questions from the opposition today, to stress the positive in the Post Office. Going back to the bargaining table and inviting CUPW back to the bargaining table, so that indeed we can have a collective agreement signed before June 30, is what we are trying to do. Judging from the very negative questions that have been directed to me by the opposition, I do not believe they are being very helpful at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REASON FOR REFUSAL TO TABLE MANAGEMENT STUDIES OR HOLD INQUIRY INTO OPERATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: The matter of having the mail delivered on time or at all may not be serious to the Postmaster General, but it is serious to a number of Canadians who might be looking forward to receiving pension cheques and to a number of Canadian small businesses which might be looking forward to having their businesses carry on. Would the Postmaster General, who claims he is doing the best he can do-we all know the results of that-tell us why he refuses to publish the studies that have been made into the Post Office, and will be tell us why he refuses to consider seriously the proposal to have a joint parliamentary inquiry into the operations of an agency of the government of Canada which, despite his defenses in the House of Commons, obviously to every Canadian who tries to get his or her mail is not working today?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Very simply because negotiations with a very combative union that I have described as exercising nineteenth century union tactics, are very difficult at the best of times, and we can only complete successful negotiations when there is no undue publicity. What the hon. gentleman is suggesting is completely counterproductive to achieving that particular end.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


An hon. Member:: Let us have Finkelman's legislation at least.


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government take steps to discontinue its policy of intimidation against the news media so that the public can receive facts and information which it refuses to disclose and, in particular, will the government dissociate itself from the alleged action of the Minister of Transport in suppressing or attempting to suppress the publication in Saskatchewan of the weekend magazine Canadian?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, obviously there is no such policy of intimidation either on the part of the government or the
Oral Questions
opposition. If there were such, it is obviously very unsuccessful and should be abandoned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On the second part of the question, I must say that I have only heard fragments of information that might provide the basis for an answer to the hon. member's question, and with that fragmentary information 1 hesitate to provide any answer at all. I hope that tomorrow I may be able to answer it in more detail, or the Minister of Transport may be present.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I try, with some success I hope, to increase the minister's knowledge? Will the government cooperate in holding an inquiry by a committee of the House or under the Inquiries Act into this question of intimidation as illustrated by statements of the Prime Minister and others in respect of CBC and the broadcasting media and, most important, the alleged action by the Minister of Transport to prevent publication of the Canadian magazine in Saskatchewan, and the statement by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, which are plainly indicative of improper pressure by the government on the news media?


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. It is in connection with the sinking of the ferry William Carson last Thursday. Is the Acting Prime Minister aware of the statement of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, that the sinking would have been avoided had there been a proper deployment of icebreakers off Newfoundland and Labrador, that the present deployment is scandalous and the sinking of the William Carson a prime example of this deficiency? Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with these comments of the parliamentary secretary, and if he does not will he have an immediate investigation carried out and a report made on icebreaker deployment and its relationship to the sinking of the William Carson, and will he have the results of this inquiry made public as soon as possible?


Hon. Ron Basford (Acting Minister of Transport):: Without commenting on those reports which I have not seen, as acting Minister of Transport I will inform the hon. member that an investigation by the Department of Transport is continuing and of course the matter will be investigated.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue, who is part of the ministry, has said that there is only one icebreaker for Newfoundland and Labrador and that the other is on lease, that four or five icebreakers are
6318

June 6, 1977
Oral Questions
sitting idle at Dartmouth, and that has contributed to the sinking of the William Carson. Will the minister have these allegations investigated and will he report to the House? What is the situation with respect to the propriety of a member of the ministry making these statements which indicate a scandalous lack of knowledge and scandalous behaviour by a government minister?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Before responding to the hon. member I would like to check the statements first to make sure they are free of exaggeration. With regard to the shortage of icebreakers, should that be the case, the hon. member will be happy to know that Her Excellency, Madam Leger and I launched a New Class III Arctic icebreaker in Vancouver last Friday night.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. With respect to the announcements last week by the railroads of an increase in the rail rate on the movement of potatoes from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick of 20 per cent on September 1 and of 12 per cent next January 1, and the subsequent meeting which took place in Charlottetown of those representing various aspects of the potato industry including federal representatives, a meeting at which, I understand, the Department of Agriculture was not represented, can the minister indicate whether his department has had a chance to analyse the impact of that announcement on the potato industry, particularly with respect to next year's sales in central Canadian markets? Second, in view of the regular increases over the last five years of something like 10 per cent each year, has any explanation from the railroads been requested?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put the record straight. I am sure the hon. member did not mean to suggest that I did not meet with the potato marketing board. I did meet with the Prince Edward Island Federation of Agriculture, and I received a brief from that federation. I have discussed this with my colleagues here in Ottawa. The premier of Prince Edward Island is coming here on, I believe, June 17. Unfortunately, I will not be here that day because of another commitment. I have to be out of the country. However, he will know what my feelings are because I have discussed it with him personally. He knows what my intention and the intention of the government is at the present time. I have not made this intention public, but I think potato growers will be satisfied with our decision when it is made.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful if the minister would put some of the views of his
department on the record, inasmuch as he was fairly forthright earlier in terms of the necessity of establishing a new fleet of refrigerated cars for potato growers in those two provinces. With respect to the statements which were made by the railroads concerning the necessity of this rate increase because they were going to bear the cost of these new cars and with respect to the misleading information that no significant increases had occurred before the two which were to be announced for this fall and for next January, has the minister taken steps to correct that seriously misleading information provided by the railroads, and can he give us some information because of the urgency of having some decision made in terms of having these cars available for next year's season?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion with my officials this morning, and we discussed this very topic. As I said, we will be discussing it further with those of my colleagues who are concerned with this. I have very strong views on providing equipment, etc., and I realize the importance of having that rolling stock for this year's crop when it is harvested.


POTATOES-EFFECT OF SUPPLYING ROLLING STOCK TO RAILROAD ON RATE INCREASE
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if the supplying of the rolling stock as proposed by him will be enough assistance to the railroad that it will be able to withdraw any request for any increase in rate whatsoever for the forthcoming season.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that depends on the progress we make on my submission.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. I believe the Acting Prime Minister has just returned from an extremely important conference in Paris known, I think, as the North-South Conference in which trade relations between the developed and the developing world were discussed. I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will make a statement to this House on the outcome of the conference and on any obligations Canada might assume as a result of the conference.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: Why are you applauding? It was a failure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Conference on International Economic Co-operation in Paris has concluded. Twenty-seven nations

June 6, 1977

were represented. The conference concluded with an agreed joint statement by all 27 participants in which all participants acknowledged that this had been a useful exercise in terms of broadening their understanding of international questions, and they committed themselves to continuing the dialogue.


James McPhail Gillies: It was a failure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In my estimation the conference achieved substantial results in very important fields, although there were disappointments on both sides. In my view the conference had a very positive result, and that analysis is shared by other leaders on both sides of the conference.


James McPhail Gillies: Have you read the reports about 21 items of disagreement?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I wonder if the minister could make a statement to the House, which could be commented on, as to the points on which there was success and as to the points on which there was no success, because this is a matter about which all the people of Canada are concerned and about which they should be interested. We would like the fullest possible explanation from the minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I intended to tell the hon. member, in direct response to his question, that I have under consideration making a lengthier statement to the House on this question so that hon. members can comment, and in this way I might be able to answer in more detail those questions which are raised. I did use this occasion to make a brief reply, if only to counter what I consider to be highly irresponsible interjections by the hon. member for Don Valley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION-REASON FOR DISAGREEMENT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and it relates to the disappointments to which the minister himself referred in connection with the North-South Conference. Inasmuch as the final communique listed 20 points of agreement but 21 points of disagreement, which led to the appropriate interjection of the hon. member for Don Valley, were these disagreements brought about by the intransigence of the oil producing nations to enter into an energy dialogue with industrial countries so that the price of oil over the next few years could be stabilized?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to items at the conference upon which there was agreement and upon which there was disagreement. That, of course, reveals that there are still differences of opinion between the two groups on quite a number of issues, but there has been agreement on some very substantial issues, issues upon which the position, for example, of the industrialized countries has moved rather dramatically in the last three months.
Oral Questions
The disappointment on the side of the industrialized countries, referred to as the group of eight, was basically at the failure of the conference to agree that there ought to be a continuing dialogue on the question of energy. The hon. member asks me to identify the cause of that failure. Certainly the total group of 19 took that position-the OPEC oil producing countries and non-oil producing, developing countries- and even to the present time some of the aspects of the dynamics of the negotiations are still obscure to me, even though I was there, but I do believe that the leadership against that dialogue seemed to come from a certain element of the OPEC countries. That is the answer I would like to give.


CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION-POSSIBILITY AID OFFER REVIEWED IN VIEW OF DISAGREEMENT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, following the disappointing conclusion of the conference last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs told the press that Canada's offer which was made at the North-South Conference may have to be reviewed. Can the minister state whether it is the policy of the government to review the aid offer which was made at the North-South Conference upward or downward?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I noticed a press report which attributed such a statement to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It was a press report which obviously came prior to the conclusion of the conference. It was open to the industrialized countries to withdraw the rather substantial commitments they made in the early stages of the conference, in the face of the refusal of the developing countries to agree to a continuing energy dialogue. However, after careful consideration by all members of the group of eight it was decided that in the interest of a positive conclusion and in the interest of continuing this very important dialogue, we would live up to all the commitments we had made, including the special action program of $1 billion which had been put on the table by the eight countries as a way of ameliorating the condition of the developing countries. To my knowledge there is no intention on the part of the government of Canada or any other government to withdraw from positions which they have taken at the conference itself.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: A supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister inform the House whether he is receiving full co-operation from all provincial Attorneys General in his efforts to control pornography and is it his intention to continue discussions with provincial representatives?

June 6, 1977
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: Generally yes, recognizing of course that the primary responsibility for prosecution under the Criminal Code lies with the provincial Attorneys General. A number of them have shown great interest in taking such prosecutions but none have made suggestions to me about amendments to the Criminal Code which might be appropriate in the circumstances.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to exercise its full powers in this field?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We have federal authority in this regard under the provisions of the Customs Act which are administered by the department of Customs and Excise and which I think have been fully exercised.


PORNOGRAPHY
Dean Waldon Whiteway: 

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 40 and our modified practices for the month of June, may I inform the House of the questions to be raised at six o'clock p.m. upon the motion for adjournment which are as follows: The hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Supply and Services; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)- Administration of Justice; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-Commonwealth Games.
I cannot rule on the point of special procedures during this month of June without touching on the aspect of the order which relates to the hours of sitting on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. The order reads as follows:
That, commencing May 31, 1977 and continuing to June 30, 1977, notwithstanding any Standing Order:
(1)	Any Standing Order that establishes a forty minute limit on speeches shall be deemed to establish a thirty minute limit;
The areas of concern at the moment, however, are subparagraphs (2) and (3) which read as follows:
(2)	Except on days allotted pursuant to Standing Order 58, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, the House shall continue to sit until 10.30 p.m.;
(3)	On Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, the House shall sit from 11 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. to consider Government Orders other than the business of supply, provided that proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 15(2) and (3) shall be taken up at the usual time;
The difference in the language between subparagraph (2) and subparagraph (3), upon careful consideration of the order, gives the impression that subparagraph (2) specifically excepts allotted days pursuant to Standing Order 58-that relates to the provision of sitting an extra half hour between 10 p.m. and 10.30 p.m.
Subparagraph (3) does not use that language and would invite the conclusion that even though tomorrow is an allotted day pursuant to Standing Order 58, the order on the face of it would provide for sitting between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. to consider government business. I am open to discussion on whether that was the intention of the order and the discussions which led to the order, and I think for the benefit of hon. members the sooner we clear this up the better.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been questioned by the various parties. I expect that we will have a meeting in early afternoon and I can possibly come back to the House with a solution.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the matter could stand for an announcement at five o'clock or six o'clock this afternoon.
June 6, 1977


PRIVILEGE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, as required by the rules 1 have given Your Honour notice of a question of privilege and if you find there is a prima facie case I shall move a motion at the conclusion of my remarks. 1 do not think it will have escaped Your Honour's attention that in a motion under Standing Order 43 1 raised a matter which in my submission is a very important area of privilege affecting every member of the House.
Your Honour is aware, as are members on both sides of the House, that we have been very careful not to restrictively define "question of privilege", leaving it to be modelled and to conform to situations as they may arise. It is my submission that the inalienable right of members of the House to discharge their responsibilities would be seriously interfered with if the free flow of information about what goes on in this House and in government were restricted by what I consider could be characterized as improper actions on the part of members of the government. It is on that basis that I think it is for the Chair to be bold and to find reasons to bring the rights of members of the House into conformity with modern day technology. It would be an assault on reality not to realize that in this day and age not to communicate what goes on in government to the public is a rejection of an essential privilege of the public, manifested through members of this House.
I have indicated several areas of complaint to the House and I will not go over them in detail again. There is the question of the abrasive actions taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his supporters in connection with the CBC. This has been a matter of discussion in the House and the subject of questions and motions. I will deal briefly with the allegation of the suppression of the June 4 weekend supplement in the two daily newspapers in Regina and Saskatoon. The Canadian carried an article entitled "The Unhappy Landing of Otto Lang". The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) indicated that he would make some inquiry into this and report back to the House. For that reason I will not pursue it any further at this time but I suggest the very fact that the Acting Prime Minister is prepared to do this is a prima facie indication that there is substance to the allegation.
I should like to quote from the article appearing in today's Globe and Mail, headed, "Liberal MP says party in panic since PQ win." Some statements in the article are in quotation marks, obviously indicating statements taken verbatim by the reporter reporting what the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont said. This is how the Globe and Mail puts it:
He told a group of journalists attending a seminar that the federal Government is deliberately and systematically trying to strip the courts of their power to interpret the laws of the country.
It is also trying to 'domesticate' and 'harness' the press in Canada because it fears the press and hasn't been able to control it.
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
Mr. Joyal said the government is changing the rules of the democratic game without the knowledge of most people. 'The very foundations of our society are involved," he said.
The article goes on to say:
Mr. Joyal said it is not simply coincidence that the federal government has introduced three pieces of legislation in which the court is no longer the final recourse to the interpretation of the law.
He went on to mention Bill C-42, the telecommunications legislation, the new immigration bill and the recently introduced bill relating to the question of privacy.
According to the article, the hon. member's position is as follows:
The government is also very much afraid of the press because 'the only opposition in Ottawa right now is the press' he said. He said it is the press that takes the case to the government, that digs up the contradictions and inaccuracies of cabinet ministers.
'There is a phobia in Ottawa, a fixed idea to domesticate this power of the press, to harness it', he said ...
'There's often been criticism of the press before but never as much since Nov. 15. There is a feeling of panic about the press. We had to feel assured we wouldn't get a trick bounce out of the press' he said.
The article reports further comment along the same lines. I submit that almost any one of these incidents standing alone could be cause for concern; taken together, they constitute far more than a prima facie case that this government is moving to restrict the inalienable right of this House to see that the public is informed of the processes of government. The public must be informed both of what goes on in the House, and what goes on in government circles. The hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont suggests that what the government is doing is related to legislation before this House and before parliament, and indicates the government's motives. That in itself suggests that the government has made certain that more is included in its legislation than meets the eye of this House; that these legislative proposals are intended to restrict the rights of the courts to hear and interpret legislation this House passes.
I suggest in addition that this House has a vested interest in connection with the people involved in reporting what goes on in the House and the actions of government and parliament. I am referring to the press gallery, and the reporters, a group with which this House has had a longstanding and traditionally sensitive relationship. I suggest that any act, any proposal or any suggestion, as conveyed by the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont, that the government is involved in attempting to control the free flow of information strikes at the heart of the rights of members of this House.
Finally, it is suggested that the government is involved in diminishing the powers of the courts, to which parliament entrust the interpretation and judicial implementation of legislation enacted by Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons. That is a further blow at the powers of this House, and at the rights and privileges of individual members.
I will not continue at length. It is a simple case. I think the Chair must look carefully at the allegations, to see if there is not a course of conduct involved in these actions by which the privileges of all members of the House and the inalienable
6322

June 6, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Baldwin
rights of all members to function on behalf of the public of Canada are being curtailed. If the government has nothing to fear, let it accept the motion I am about to move. If Your Honour finds there is a prima facie case of privilege I would move:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections inquire into the statementes alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, which appear in today's edition of the Globe and Mail, and into related or other incidents, which indicate that the rights of parliament on behalf of the people to have full and unabridged reporting of the actions of government are being threatened.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As a minimum I would accept the earlier indication of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that an aspect of the presentation he has made on the alleged question of privileges relates to allegations concerning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in respect of certain journals in one or two provinces. That being the case, it is only appropriate, I think, that the matter should stand over until the Minister of Transport is in the House, so that we may see if he wants to make a contribution on this subject. That would be in line with the earlier, brief comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). However, there may at this time be other hon. members who may wish to contribute on this question of privilege.


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and in particular refer to these words of his motion, ". .. inquire . . . into related or other incidents, ..." I wish to speak particularly on one of these "related or other incidents".
It seems to me that the basic duty of this House is to protect the freedoms of the Canadian people, not the least of which, indeed one of the most important of which, is the freedom of the press. This House must protect the right of fair comment on any matters whatsoever, including the conduct of those elected as members of this House.
Last weekend the "Canadian Magazine" failed to appear in Saskatchewan. It was alleged that this failure to appear was attributable possibly to interference or pressure exerted by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or those acting on his behalf. If this is so, that action contravenes parliament's right to protect freedom of the press-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Is the President of the Privy Council rising on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of order. Surely there is some sense of justice left in the House of Commons. A question of privilege has been raised concerning
the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), and another question of privilege is based on statements alleged to have been made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal). Neither person is in the House, and debate is proceeding on the question of privilege. Where is the sense of fair play and justice of this House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That is why, after the hon. member for Peace River had explained his position in raising the question of privilege, I suggested the matter might stand over. However, I was not able to determine if the contribution which other members wished to make ought to be made in the presence of those other hon. members. I really think that it is in keeping with our practices if the presentations on this kind of motion could take place in the presence of those who are accused. I see the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rising.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened carefully to what Your Honour said, and I thought in fact that you had invited comment without limitation. If we are to ensure compliance on the point the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) raised, I suggest it is incumbent on him to ask the two members, whose names have been mentioned in connection with the matter, to attend in this House so that the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) and others who may wish to contribute on this matter may do so, without being fettered, except to the extent that Your Honour may fetter them. If that is agreeable to you and to members of the House, any member who wishes to participate in the debate on the matters raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) particularly in his motion, ought to be able to do so then. I think there is a duty on the President of the Privy Council to rise in his place to ensure that the Minister and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont will be here so that the matter can be settled rather than straggle on for a number of days. This is a very important issue.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, it is not my fault or that of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that the other two members are absent from this House. As the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has pointed out, it behooves the government House leader to guarantee us not just that they will be here some day, but when. Those of us on this side, just as those on the other side, have other plans, obligations and things they must do. I do not feel it is fair that if a member wants to raise a question of privilege he should be curtailed from doing so by the mere absence of someone opposite who probably is not here because he knew this would be raised.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether it be done voluntarily, as has frequently been the case in the past, or whether those who wish to participate are not prepared to do it voluntarily, I should insist that at least on an initial basis, particularly in the case of a minister-I know it will be argued that hon. members are on an equal basis, but it is difficult to expect that a minister's schedule can be changed on a moment's notice to permit him to be here because he has been the subject of some question over a particular news article-that the courtesy be extended of indicating in a preliminary way that a question of

June 6, 1977

privilege will be raised, particularly one that concerns two members, and that their ability to be present at the earliest possible moment be explored. The matter should proceed at the earliest possible moment in the presence of those two members. Therefore, the matter perhaps ought to stand over for at least one day. I will call the question tomorrow at three o'clock.


MR. McKINNON-ALLEGATION MINISTER MISLED HOUSE CONCERNING ADMIRAL BOYLE'S RESIGNATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege goes back a few days. I indicated to Your Honour on May 16 that I intended to raise a question of privilege on the first occasion on which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) and I were simultaneously in the House. That occasion is now with us.
As I mentioned briefly on May 16, my reason for raising this question of privilege, my first in over four years as a member, is the difference between the answers given to me in this House by the minister and the statements made by Vice-Admiral Boyle. With your permission, I will quote from excerpts from Hansard and some of the statements of ViceAdmiral Boyle.
On May 13, I asked the Minister if he would enlighten the House as to the reasons for the early retirement of Vice-Admiral Boyle. The Minister replied:
It reflects the normal rotation of commanders which has taken place throughout the armed forces with the appointment of the new CDS.
I asked a supplementary question:
Does the minister deny that Admiral Boyle was asked to resign-
The Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, I can absolutely deny the allegation of the hon. member.
I asked the minister a second supplementary, and I quote the second half:
Is it not true that after he declined to resign he was offered a position which would have removed him from any participation in naval affairs for the rest of his service?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is still suggesting that the admiral was asked to resign.
That tells us what the minister had to say about the resignation at that time. The Globe and Mail came out with a CP release from Halifax dated May 19, and I quote:
Admiral Boyle was asked to resign his post here but when he refused he was offered a position in Ottawa which he originally declined.
The Montreal Gazette came out with a story on May 14 headlined "Admiral was asked to resign". I quote from the story:
Vice-Admiral Douglas Boyle was asked to resign as a commander of the navy by military brass, he said yesterday.
The Globe and Mail of May 14 stated, and I quote:
I was asked to quit Admiral Boyle reveals .. . Vice-Admiral Boyle confirmed yesterday he had been asked to resign ... Mr. Danson invited Admiral Boyle to
Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
Ottawa to hear his side of the story and was embarrassed to admit yesterday that he did not know about the Falls-Boyle confrontation.
There are many more statements that could be quoted to show the contradiction. I find difficulty in believing that all of these members of the press gallery were individually and collectively misled into believing something that was not true. I will summarize briefly.
The minister claimed that Vice-Admiral Boyle had not been asked to resign and that his resignation was a normal routine retirement. Anyone accepting Vice-Admiral Boyle's statements would have to conclude that the minister has indeed misled the House.
I have never said, or indeed thought that the minister did so deliberately. It is my opinion that he did so through being uninformed or ignorant of what was going on in the Department of National Defence in the weeks prior to the resignation. Why else would the minister be embarrassed by what he found out from his discussion with Vice-Admiral Boyle on the afternoon of the 13th of May, shortly after he had stated unequivocally that Boyle was not asked to resign. He would not be embarrassed by any misunderstanding between two senior officers. No, Mr. Speaker, he could only be embarrassed in this instance by finding out that he had unwittingly misled the House.
The Minister did not in any way qualify his remarks in the House on May 13. Had he prefaced his remarks by the usual cautionary remarks such as "to the best of his knowledge" or that "he couldn't be expected to know everything that took place in private conversations between senior officers", it would have been understandable and forgiveable, but no, he stated quite flatly, definitely and unequivocally that ViceAdmiral Boyle had not been asked to resign and that this was a routine retirement.
If this were only a matter of disagreement or debate between the minister and myself, believe me, I would not consider it important enough for my first question of privilege in this House, but the reputation of a third person is at stake here. If the minister's statements were to remain unchanged and unchallenged, it would mean that the statements of ViceAdmiral Boyle are considered by this House to be fabrications.
Two things should be considered here. First, Vice-Admiral Boyle and not the minister was present at the meeting Boyle had with the senior officer or officers at NDHQ when his resignation was allegedly requested. Second, the reputation, and a very good reputation it is, of the senior naval officer in the Canadian forces has been or will likely be tarnished if the hearsay evidence, unfortunately placed by the minister in Hansard is allowed to stand, and it should not be overlooked that Vice-Admiral Boyle has no opportunity to defend himself in the same forum in which he has been accused. You are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, that an opportunity for him to present his side of the case to the Standing Committee on National Defence was vetoed by the government majority on the steering committee.
I sincerely hope that the minister will now rise and admit that he was either ill-informed, misinformed or uninformed
80016-60'/2

June 6, 1977
Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
when he made his misleading remarks on May 13 concerning Vice-Admiral Boyle's resignation, and I hope he will withdraw them. If he is the gentleman and parliamentarian I have always considered him to be, he will do so. In the unlikely event that the minister is not willing to do so, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie),
That the matter of the Minister of National Defence misleading the House concerning Vice-Admiral Boyle's resignation be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the allegations made by the hon. member, I have reviewed the correspondence exchanged between Admiral Boyle and myself and with other officers of the department. I have inquired about discussions as well. It would be normal in reading the correspondence that Admiral Boyle would construe that one of the alternatives available to him was that of resignation. In my view, the manner in which the question of resignation has been raised is a legitimate misunderstanding. I am aware that the option of his resignation was privately discussed with him as would be normal between senior officers under similar circumstances.
I very much regret that Admiral Boyle, who has served Canada well for the past 38 years, apparently interpreted the discussions and the exchange of correspondence as a request for resignation, when in fact it was only another alternative open to him, as it would be to any other senior serving officer.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I take part in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Admiral Boyle on this. He did not want to release the correspondence himself but he did say that he hoped, for the sake of his own reputation, the minister would be good enough to release the correspondence the minister has mentioned. Therefore, I make that request on behalf of Admiral Boyle.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Certainly, I have no objection, Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated earlier. However, since it is personal and confidential correspondence I would really want to have the assurance of Admiral Boyle himself. Then, I would have no hesitation in tabling the correspondence that ensued.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is extraordinary to allow a member to participate twice in discussion on the same subject. Unless there is a specific way in which the hon. member for Victoria might be of assistance at this time, I would have to have some indication of the nature of the contribution he wishes to make.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to say that, in view of the sterility of the reply of the minister, I wish my motion to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the circumstances the Chair would certainly like some time to review the matter and consider the precedents. In particular, I would like to review the previous contribution of the hon. member for Victoria and to examine the contents of the minister's answer carefully to see whether or not there is a difference of opinion or a difference of interpretation, either in the answers given by the minister in the House or leading up to those answers, of the events now described by the minister occurring between Admiral Boyle and the minister. In any case, I should like to reserve on the matter to study these answers very carefully and see to what conclusion they lead me. Therefore, I will reserve my opinion on the question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I just want to give notice that I may have a question of privilege to raise tomorrow as a result of an answer given by the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) to another member which unfortunately I did not hear but which has been related to me. I should like to take a look at the matter but I thought I should serve notice on you now, sir.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the point of order raised on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I should have said earlier that I have a statement I wish to make tomorrow when the subject comes up, and that I do not want anyone on the other side saying that they had no notice. It has nothing to do with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and it has not anything directly to do with the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal); it is another illustration of what we feel to be a dangerous situation in connection with interference with the media and the free flow of information from parliament to the people. It relates to the situation in radio and television communications in Newfoundland, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and his position. I will be making a submission on the matter tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, but I wanted to give notice so that I do not hear any member crying out "unfair" or whatever. It is a serious point that I have to raise.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council inform the House what he intends to deal with today in terms of government business and for the balance of the week which is allotted to the government?


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, I can give an initial indication at this stage of the order of business. The next two days, of course, are allotted days. For the balance of the day, we will be proceeding with the legislation relating to small harbours, which we are in the process of dealing with at the moment. We will then move on to Bill C-23, the metric legislation and,

June 6, 1977

depending on our progress, our intention at this stage is to move then to Bill C-36, relating to motor vehicle safety.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what happened to the representations that I made to the parliamentary secretary on Friday? Since we are scraping the barrel, it might be a good idea to deal with Bill C-30.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I undertook to my hon. friend to raise this item with the President of the Privy Council upon his return to the House. Unfortunately I have not personally had an opportunity to do that yet but I will take it up at the first opportunity.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So shall I.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marc Laionde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table in the House a report submitted by the advisory committee on the Canada Pension Plan concerning the absolute exclusion from the Canada Pension Plan for raising children.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform hon. members that today is the 33rd anniversary of the D-Day landing in Normandy. Thirty-three years ago today men of Canada joined with their British and United States allies to breach the wall of darkness and oppression which for four long years had lain like a millstone on France and the low countries. It was D-Day for freedom, the start of the northwest European campaign which culminated, 11 months later, in the complete surrender of the enemies of freedom.
The cost in lives was high. On D-Day alone, Canada suffered almost a thousand casualties, of whom 340 were killed or died of wounds. The men who fell on the beaches and in the bitter bridgehead battles are buried in Beny-sur-Mer Canadian War Cemetery and today officials, both miliary and civilian, from our Canadian Embassy in Paris have laid wreaths at that site in memory of those courageous soldiers. Those wreaths were placed there today in the name of all Canadians,
Anniversary of D-Day Landing a significant reminder to the free world that Canada, and every province in Canada, played a major role in obtaining the way of life we enjoy today.
June 6, 1944 is an important day in the history of our country as a nation-the D-Day landing in Normany-and if we still believe in Canada as we did when that belief called for sacrifice, we will again commit ourselves to the task at hand, to preserve the integrity of Canada as a nation from sea to sea.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, with all members of this House who are veterans of the Second World War, I want to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs to mention the anniversary which is celebrated in memory of millions of Canadians and which will remain for all of us, I would say, one of the most shining memories of our lives.

If I make a personal reflection at this point, Mr. Speaker, I recall being a prisoner of war in Germany following the Dieppe raid, and I am sure that those of us who had access to clandestine radio at that time had no greater surge of hope than the June 6 landing. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that by that time the western nations had had four years of very bitter experience and despair in World War II, but then we had this glorious day, June 6.
I had been an ocular witness on many of the beaches where colleagues of other regiments landed, some to give up their lives, others to be wounded, but all as Canadians fighting for the protection of Canada against disintegration from outside. That generation knew what was going to happen to Canada if the enemy prevailed. To repeat what the minister has said, millions of Canadians were enrolled in Canada's armed forces during World War II. Thousands upon thousands died and many more thousands were wounded. This country went through a great sacrifice in order to take one more step in the welding of a nation. We have no intention of seeing that welded nation dismembered at any time by anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic Party believe it is highly appropriate that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) has made the statement which he just delivered to the House on this thirty-third anniversary of the D-Day landing at Normandy. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has given us his recollections of the day from a vantage point which we appreciate and respect. I recall that it was a very solemn day here in this House of Commons. We had a statement from the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, of what was developing. I also recall for a portion of that day we gathered as members across in Room 16 to listen to a radio broadcast from London which included a message from His Majesty King George VI. We were aware of the great significance of that day.

June 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions
I find that on that day it fell to me, as it has on a number of occasions, to speak on behalf of our party. I used words on June 6, 1944, that I can use again and perhaps keep it very brief. This was my concluding sentence:
We associate ourselves not only with what has been said but with the spirit which rightly pervades the House at this historic moment.
Sir, 33 years later we associate ourselves with what has been said by the Minister of Veterans Affairs and by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and we join with members in a determination to preserve the integrity of Canada as a nation from sea to sea.
[ Translation]


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I want to join with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in commemorating the 33r<l anniversary of that famous battle. I never served in the army, but some of my relatives came back from that battle, having lost some of their limbs. They related to us the famous battle of Normandy. I believe it is a duty for all Canadians to remember each year those soldiers who, I hope and I am convinced, fought for a good cause when they responded to the S.O.S. of the people of Europe.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,712, 1,749, 1,862, 1,909, 2,423, 2,427, 2,447, 2,530 and 2,536.


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of the Solicitor General have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Yes. (a)(i) The ministry was responsible for a Summer Student Employment and Activities Programme across Canada in 1976, made possible through Manpower and Immigration's Summer Student Employment and Activities Programme (SSEAP). Activities in this programme included regular patrol duties with the R.C.M.P. and a variety of surveys, research projects, and community liaison projects, (ii) 208 Students were given direct summer employment. The breakdown by Agency was: R.C.M.P., 55; C.P.S., 56; N.P.S., 66; N.P.B., 5; Secretariat, 26. All of the students (except those in the R.C.M.P.) were paid on the basis of years of education successfully completed. The pay scale ranged from $3.10 per hour for qualifying university year, Technological College, C.E.G.E.P. to $6.60

per hour for students who had successfully completed eight years university. The R.C.M.P. students were paid a flat rate of $4.99 per hour in accordance with the R.C.M.P. acts and regulations. The average total salary (including 4 per cent vacation pay) for the students employed in the Ministry during the summer period was $2,974.04. (iii) The total cost of the programme, including salary, travel costs, and administrative costs was $700,000. (b) (i-iii) As part of the ministry's summer programme outlined above, 18 students were employed in the province of New Brunswick. This number is included in the total of 208 above. The projects in New Brunswick did not form a programme of their own; they were part of the overall Canada program. Costs are included in the costs of (a) above. Of the 18 students in New Brunswick, seven were employed with the R.C.M.P., two with C.P.S., two with N.P.S., and seven with the Ministry Secretariat.


Mr. Crosbie: 1.	Has the government received any monies from Mr. John C. Doyle of Canadian Javelin Limited in connection with an action taken against him by the government for arrears of taxes and in connection with a judgement of Mr. Justice Hugh Gibson in the Exchequer Court of Canada and, if not, what is the amount now owing under the judgement for arrears of taxes, penalties and interest?
2.	On what date was the judgement of Mr. Justice Gibson delivered?
3.	Did Mr. Doyle appeal the judgement of Mr. Justice Gibson and, if so, on what date?
4.	Has the appeal been heard by the appeal court and, if not (a) for what reason (b) what is its present status (c) will it be set down for a hearing and, if so, before what appeal court?
5.	Has the government a lien registered against all shareholdings of Mr. Doyle in Canadian Javelin Limited and an attachment registered against Canadian Javelin Limited for any monies that might be due and owing by Canadian Javelin Limited to Mr. Doyle?
6.	Is the government aware that Canadian Javelin Limited is making payments to a subsidiary in the Bahamas, Javelin Export Limited, so that the said subsidiary can pay consultants salary and expenses to Mr. Doyle and, if so, what action is the government taking to stop payment of such monies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. There were two judgments delivered by Mr. Justice Gibson involving income tax assessments concerning Mr. John C. Doyle. These judgments were not rendered following an action taken by the government for arrears of taxes but as a result of appeals by the taxpayer from income tax assessments. The government of Canada has not received any monies from Mr. John C. Doyle as a result of these judgments relating to these appeals from assessments. However, prior to these judgments of Mr. Justice Gibson, action was taken which secured the Crown's claim against Mr. Doyle. It should be noted as a result of a decline in the market value of the security held, the Crown's claim is now only partly secured. The amount of income tax and interest owing as of December 31, 1976 in relation to the judgments of Mr. Justice Gibson was approximately $3,483,412.
2.	Both judgments of Mr. Justice Gibson were delivered on June 29, 1970.
3.	Mr. Doyle appealed both judgments of Mr. Justice Gibson on October 15, 1970.
June 6, 1977

4.	The appeals from these two judgments have not yet been heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. One of these appeals was set down for the winter session of the Supreme Court of Canada but an application was made by the appellant and agreed to by the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice to the removal of this case from the winter session, provided that it be reinscribed again for the spring term of the Supreme Court of Canada. This was the only occasion where consent to an adjournment was given by the government of Canada. The other appeal will be heard as soon as possible, but not before the Fall session. It was delayed by consideration of a procedural question as to whether this appeal can be dealt with before another case respecting the same taxation year is heard and decided by the Federal Court. The latter case is one of seven appeals involving John C. Doyle and Javelin Foundries and Machine Works Limited which are presently before the Federal Court. Extensive discussions have been had since the institution of these appeals with regard to their disposition and the payment of the tax claimed to be owing by both taxpayers. All of these cases are to be brought forward to be disposed of by the Court as quickly as possible.
5.	1,009,526 shares of Canadian Javelin Limited have been attached by way of a seizure on the books of the transfer agents. In addition, a Writ of Extent was issued out of the Exchequer Court on July 8, 1963 for the sum of $3,410,130.90. Other action has been taken, but this must remain confidential under the provisions of section 241 of the Income Tax Act.
6.	The government is aware that certain payments have been made by Canadian Javelin Limited to a subsidiary in the Bahamas, Javelin Export Limited. Because of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, a more specific reply cannot be given to this question. This matter is being actively considered by officials of both the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice.


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What medical facilities are present in each maximum, medium and minimum security prison?
2.	Do prisons and penitentiaries give physical examinations when admitting prisoners and, if so, how many prisons and penitentiaries?


Francis Fox: 1. In maximum and medium institutions, Health Care Centres are staffed on a 24 hour basis by Health Care Officers. Physicians are available on a full-time or contractual basis and visit two to five times per week, depending on need, and are on call at all other times for emergencies. In minimum institutions arrangements vary depending on size and location. For example: Forestry camps are equipped with first aid room and equipment. During regular hours the attending physician usually visits once a week or the inmates go to outside clinics, hospitals or physician's office for treatment. In emergency situations and during silent hours, inmates go to outside clinics, local hospitals or
Order Paper Questions
physician's office for treatment. Farm Annexes: During regular hours the Health Care Officers from the parent institution visit and look after minor needs or refer the inmate to the parent institution for care by the staff or contract physician. In emergency situations and during the silent hours, the parent institution provides the services.
2. Yes. Regulations provide for every male and female inmate to be given a preliminary medical and dental examination within 24 hours of his initial reception in a penitentiary and a complete medical examination within seven days. Physical examinations are given to male inmates on entering the penitentiary system at the Regional Reception Centres in: Pacific Region (British Columbia Penitentiary); Ontario Region (Kingston Penitentiary); Quebec Region (Archam-bault Institution). In the Prairie and Atlantic Regions, the physical examinations are performed at the receiving institution as designated by the National Parole Service. Physical examinations are given to female inmates at the Prison for Women, Kingston, Ontario.


Miss Campbell: 1.	For the year 1976, what amount was spent by the government to assist the seiners of the Bay of Fundy?
2.	What assistance was provided by the government to the Bay of Fundy Herring Co-operative to buy and sell Fish to the Polish Fishing fleet?
3.	Did the government make any payments to any Canadians for the buying and selling of Fish to the Polish Fishing fleet?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1. No direct assistance was paid to the Bay of Fundy seiner fishermen for herring caught in 1976.
2.	Two fishermen and one consultant under contract assisted the Co-operative not only to sell fish to the Polish fishing fleet but assisted the Co-operative in its entire operation. They also helped the department in the development and implementation of the new management regime. The total cost was $80,000.
3.	No.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme (a) Non-medical use of drugs (b) Health Activities (c) Community Agencies under the Department of National Health and Welfare?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


Marc Lalonde: 1 and 2. Please refer to the reply to Question No. 1,713 answered on May 10, 1977, Hansard 120, page 5462.

June 6, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Marshall: 1.	What additional staff was hired and what was the cost to operate the Student Summer Employment Programme-Public Service Employment under the Public Service Commission?
2.	Are any other programmes available for students under the Department?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. The Public Service Commission administers the Post-Secondary Student Recruitment Programme (previously known as COSEP*). For the 1977 recruitment programme, 1.7 additional man-years were staffed by the Public Service Commission. The total cost for conducting this summer employment programme is six man-years (including the above mentioned 1.7 man-years) and
7,000	non-salary dollars (including publicity, printing of application forms and necessary staffing documents).
2. None.
* COSEP (Career Oriented Summer Employment Programme).


Mr. Alexander: 1.	By province and territory, how many students were hired, or will be hired, to act as customs officials at border crossing points this summer?
2.	How many are related to fulltime customs employees, either as a son or daughter, niece or nephew, cousin or in-law?


Hon.   Monique@: 1.
	Number
Province	of Students
Nova Scotia	12
New Brunswick	27
Newfoundland	2
Quebec	87
Ontario	256
Manitoba	26
Saskatchewan	9
Alberta	27
British Columbia	106
Yukon Territory	4
2. Statistics not available. Students are not asked to provide this information, nor is it contained in their Public Service Application for Employment form.


Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Will coal from the Minto-Chipman area be used at CFB Gagetown and (a) if so, how far are the coal fields from Gagetown (b) if not, how far from Gagetown is the next available source?
2.	Are the boilers at CFB Gagetown specially designed to use Minto-Chipman coal?


Barnett Jerome Danson: 1.
No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Sydney Cape Breton Area- approx 450 miles.
2. No.


Mr. Whiteway: 1.	How much did the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation at Transcona, pay in property taxes, or as a grant-in-lieu-of-taxes in (a) 1975 (b) 1976?
2.	For the same years, what was the cost for utilities for the Transcona plant?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation paid the following property taxes as grants in lieu of taxes:
May 1, 1974 to May 1, 1975 to April 30, 1975 April 30, 1976
Property taxes	$105,927.00	$123,974.00Business Tax	41,160.00	41,160.00
2. In the same period the utility costs were as follows:
Sewer and Water Hydro Natural Gas
May 1, 1974 to April 30, 1975 $37,370.00
81.764.00
16.954.00
May 1, 1975 to April 30, 1976 $ 52,809.65 100,326.90 26,501.20

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to questions Nos. 29, 30, 41, 44 and a few others too numerous to mention on the same subject. I hesitate to rise on this because I have done so before on approximately half a dozen occasions without any success in finding out why these answers are not forthcoming. The questions have been on the order paper since the first day of this session, and they were on the order paper in the last two or three months of the last session. All of them concern flights by cabinet ministers on government-owned aircraft, the cost thereof, where the aircraft went and the purpose of the flight, whether it was government business, personal or of a political nature.
Even though the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is absent, I feel this is a legitimate question to raise because I have raised it many times before in his presence and have received no response. Without referring to the matter of privilege, which was deferred until tomorrow, I would like to refer to the article entitled "The Unhappy Landing of Otto Lang" which appeared in the June 4, 1977 edition of the Canadian which quoted the Minister of Transport as saying that he would continue to use government aircraft whenever he wanted and that he had used government aircraft since the
June 6, 1977

time he gave the answer to the House that he had spent three-quarters of a million dollars on his own flights. Therefore, if he is being so forthright in admitting the cost of his own department and his use of aircraft, and since he is the minister responsible for all ministers who use these aircraft for flights of a personal nature, then I think he should be just as open and just as free in giving information to the House about the Minister of Agriculture, (Mr. Whelan), for example, who has made 32 flights, and maybe more, on government aircraft for private visits with members of his family at the expense of taxpayers.
In conclusion, having raised this matter on a number of occasions, rather than being told these things are going to be answered soon, some time or probably never, I think the parliamentary secretary should now have the decency to rise and tell this House when we are going to receive answers to questions which have been outstanding for over a year.


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



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-7, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, just before the noon adjournment, I was speaking about some of the comments made by the parliamentary secretary and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) regarding the plans, thoughts and philosophy behind Bill C-7, the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act. The minister pointed out earlier that this bill is really a culmination of several studies within the department. It flows from the original government harbours and piers act, which was fundamentally the bill back in 1895 and was revised in 1937. Obviously, there is some necessity to give some legislative framework to the order in council which has gathered the administration of small craft harbours under the Department of Fisheries and the Environment from the two previous departments which looked after it, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport.
The parliamentary secretary used the word "rationalization" rather freely. This is one of the areas of real concern to those of us from coast areas which have small craft harbours in their constituencies. Many of us have heard before the phrase "rationalization of rail services". We all know that the
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
potential rail line abandonments in smaller places in the west and in the east have caused a good deal of concern in the rural or smaller areas of the country. Prior to that we had a rationalization of postal services under the then postmaster general, Mr. Kierans. All across the country from coast to coast under the logic of a cold efficiency and obviously, I guess, a dollar economy of rationalization, small post offices in the rural areas were wound down and closed out.
While I admit freely that this may be more efficient- although now in view of some of the activities of the Post Office Department we do wonder about that-what you can never put on an economic chart, Mr. Speaker, is the social distress that closure of a small post office in a rural area creates when a common meeting place, a place where you see your friends when you get your mail at a certain time, is eliminated. A little part of the heart and soul of that community is eliminated with it and you have a conflict going on, a paradox. The new social order gives lip service, anyway, to trying to broaden the urban base but, especially among the young people of this land, there is a very definite migration from the urban areas to rural areas. In terms of lifestyle, getting back to the land and to nature, you do not only have to eat granola in the morning, wheat germ in the afternoon and celery sticks at night-time to appreciate that there is inherent in an awful lot of Canadians a desire to move out of the concrete jungles and get back close to the land. Yet, when you get close to the land, you have a problem with post offices and in many areas of the country-and the Hall Commission reported on this not too long ago-you have a little problem with rail lines which have a potential to give rapid transit to people, let alone goods, wheat and raw resources, that no other mode of transport possesses.
So we come to this bill and we hit the word "rationalization" with reference to small craft harbours. Mr. Speaker, my riding in large measure runs along the Bay of Fundy in Nova Scotia. We all know that the Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world, which makes maintenance of wharves and piers that much more difficult. Members are surely by now aware of fantastic power potential there is in the Bay of Fundy tides. We are still talking about a review of the review of the review of the task force as to whether there is to be a Fundy tidal power project. This is a renewable resource, a free resource, and we still have not got too far off dead centre on it. But that potential power, especially in the storms, creates fantastic havoc with the facilities in these small ports.
Thus, I can see the reason why there has to be some reorganization in the administration of small craft harbours to involve, now, the recreational boater, which was certainly not a feature back in 1895. It was not valid, perhaps, in 1937. But I do caution those who will be implementing this Act not to use just the cold broad yardstick of efficiency and economy in deciding where facilities are to be maintained and/or built anew because we all know in Nova Scotia that under a policy of benign neglect fewer and fewer villages along the shore have any wharf facilities.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Again, from the standpoint of economics and cold efficiency officials, albeit sincerely, can say: Well, Mr. Nowlan or Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith, you really cannot support a wharf or a pier there because the landed value of fish does not justify that type of support. Of course, it is easy to say that after three or four years of benign neglect when the facilities are in such a state of decay as to involve in many cases the erection of a brand new wharf. As I said earlier, the Bay of Fundy has the most difficult waters that the minister has to worry about in terms of tides which are over 50 feet high and a coastline which really does not give any protection from the northeast or northwest gales so the cost of building the facilities is rather heavy in terms of the landed value of fish. But the removal of those facilities-and this is an old story in my part of the country as I am sure it is in that of the parliamentary secretary and of the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne)-it is a little more important than the closing of, say, a Post Office which destroyed the social heart of a community. Once the wharf facilities go, even if they are not all fishermen in the village, you are taking away really the last economic justification for that community.
1 could take you along the shore today, Mr. Speaker, and show you pictures of how it used to be and you would be amazed and horrified at the way in which inshore facilities along the shore of the Bay of Fundy have really gone downhill. Now, I have to compliment some officials. Just before the transfer of Fisheries from the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport, there was a very enlightened official in the Department of Fisheries or the Department of Public Works in Halifax and through his efforts and mine, we were finally able to organize an integrated approach to some of the facilities along the Bay of Fundy shore. With regard to the need for public involvement the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) mentioned the necessity for an annual report so that we would know how this Act is being implemented.
The Act gives tremendous power to the minister to make discretionary decisions as to where a wharf is to be maintained, where fees are to be charged, where the wharfinger is going to be, and so on. Many people in this House probably don't even know what a wharfinger is-likely they think it is some bird which travels from north to south in the winter and from south to the north in the summer. Sometimes. Mr, Speaker, some people on the shore would like to see the wharfinger as elusive as a bird which migrates from season to season, because if the wharfinger isn't there to assess fees then that's a little easier on them from time to time. But in this Act we are giving the minister a power to determine the life of an awful lot of small communities in this country.
I would hope that rationalization is not carried to extreme because if it is carried to extreme, Mr. Speaker, we are going to see even more small communities closed out, people forced away from their livelihood, forced away from their historic life pattern; the sequence is there sociologically as one of the reasons social welfare rolls and social assistance payments have increased. You get an outflow from the small communi-

ties and often that outflow has only one way to go-it is drawn to the magnet of the urban area, often creating more urban and social decay which increases the rolls. It is a bad pendulum. So, I hope there will be a little more explanation, once this measure gets to committee, as to how the minister intends to interpret the legislation. This, of course, is something my hon. friend talked about this morning. How is the minister going to interpret, for example, this word "rationalization" which in theory sounds so fine. I certainly recognize there has to be some type of rationalization and readministration of the various departments from a practical point of view. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. FeBlanc) is bringing the legislation up to date. But, certainly, rationalization should not be the only test when you are dealing with the livelihood of so many communities across the land.
There is another matter which I hope the committee will consider. But before I leave the subject of rationalization, let me say that it is because of that suggestions were made here earlier this morning about public involvement, perhaps even before rationalization occurs, so that the communities will know where they stand in the pecking order of priority or survival, or priority in the maintenance of the facility, and so they will have some input.
You do not want to alienate the person you are trying to help by letting him learn from the newspaper or hear over the radio that the facility in his community is doomed and there is no hope of repair. That is the type of alienation that has been going on. I do not say it is any great plot. More often it is a case of omission. Certainly, if you are dealing with the fundamental lifeline of so many of these small areas, or even areas which are symbolic of a lifeline in the past, those small communities need a better deal and need to know where they fit under the planner's pen. That can come only with public involvement. Members of parliament and officials should have the guts, for lack of a better word, to meet with those who will be affected and to discuss the problems with them before a decision is made.
I was going to digress just now by recounting a situation in my own riding where, because of the courage of one of the officials of the Department of Public Works and the assistance of the boards of trade, the public was involved in what was called the Bay of Fundy harbour tour in which all communities were visited by the various officials, so that at long last the Minister of Transport (Mr. Fang) could not say it was the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, nor the Department of Public Works say that they would like to take care of it but it was under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport.
We were able to bring them all together and, after a whole day of preparation, we went across 60 miles of the coastline into all the areas, even some areas where we all knew there was no hope for fundamental assistance because the tides had wreaked such damage. A public meeting was held involving spokesmen from all the communities-one of the hottest meet-
June 6, 1977

ings I have ever had the pleasure to attend-and I give full marks to some officials who had the intestinal fortitude to expose themselves to the public in that way.
That was two or three years ago, but as a result of the meeting and the tour we were able for the first time to get some decision so that at least five Fundy areas were selected and funds were allocated to them so that work could be done, in some cases fundamental repairs and in other cases a better maintenance job for the existing facility to protect it. But even with that effort made two to three years ago there have been at least three other small ports in my area that have lost their wharfs, and in one case in Harbourville the department says it will cost over $1 million to put a similar facility in place because not only the wharf but the breakwater has gone.
I am prepared to admit-the officials do not have to tell me-that in many of the cases you cannot justify the expense by the landed value of fish. I say there has to be something more than the landed value of fish when you try to assess the life of a small community. I hope we will be able to explore this matter in committee. I do not know whether there is sufficient power under the bill before us, but I believe there is power for the minister to become involved jointly with the province in enterprises where not just the landed value of fish will determine where a facility goes. I hope a joint program can be established with the province to integrate the landed value of fish and other considerations in that community.
I admit that many inshore communities are not as vibrant today as they were years ago. We have just extended our shore line by 200 miles, and fish is a renewable resource. Let me say to hon. members that if they do not eat fish, they should start doing so because it not only gives you brains but it gives you protein. It is a lot better to eat fish from the sea than to eat fish from our polluted rivers inland. But that is a digression. I can see a situation where it would be in the interests of the federal government to contribute to a program linked and merged with recreation, tourism and highways. In several areas in my constituency the road into the community is dependent upon the maintenance of the breakwater, because when the breakwater goes, the road goes.
That has already occurred in some parts of my area. Yet you get the department of highways saying, "Good gracious, we cannot maintain the road because we have lost the breakwater, and that is a federal responsibility". The federal people responsible for the breakwater will listen to the complaints and say, "we cannot rebuild the road because that is a provincial responsibility". The upshot is that regardless of whose responsibility it is, the reality is that the persons in the community do not have a road.
I hope that with the powers under the bill, and using a little imagination, an intergrated approach can be developed, merging the fish function with recreation, tourism and highways. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether you have been privileged to drive along the shoreline in my constituency, but if you have you will have seen that there is quite a difference between a fishing community with an even small wharf facility, with
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
recreation boats and a few trawlers, and another small community farther down the shore where you do not even have to look to see whether they have a wharf because you can tell by looking at the state of the houses and the fact that the one store they have is closed to know that it does not have a wharf. So I hope there will be some discussion of that matter in committee.
There is one further matter regarding the allocation of funds that I would like to mention. I am not sure how much time I have left, and I know that our time is restricted. I say this in an inquisitive way and I hope that we will have an explanation of this in committee. When you speak about rationalization and the life of communities along the shore, whether it is on the east coast or the west coast, I would like to know what formula will be used for the allocation of funds, and I hope the minister can explain it in more detail.
Some hon. members who have been here longer than I have always been suspicious about how funds are allocated. Is it really the landed value of fish that determines it, or is it sometimes the landed value of votes? I think that in the past, to be fair, the landed value of votes was a much more realistic factor than the landed value of fish. But if you could carry both, if you had both fish and votes, you were guaranteed your wharf facility. To be fair, I think that fortunately this was more the case in bygone days.
Now, in Nova Scotia, different zones and regions are allocated different funds. There are budgets for certain zones. You try to work with that budget to do something within your area. But then there are larger zones. I do not know how many hon. members appreciate the fantastic value of fish in Nova Scotia. We hear about Newfoundland all the time, and about British Columbia and their romantic salmon, which certainly catches the imagination more than the basic Atlantic fish that we catch in Nova Scotia. A couple of years ago I was surprised to hear that in 1971 the report of the department of fisheries for Nova Scotia stated that Nova Scotia had a higher landed value of fish than the province of British Columbia. Taking all the Atlantic provinces together, the landed value of fish far outranks that of British Columbia.
For a couple of years Nova Scotia was the leader in the land in that respect. It was ahead of British Columbia. It is not number 1; it is usually number 2. I am talking here about $60 million plus, compared with $58 million for British Columbia. So we have a fantastic potential value for the economy. It is also part of the export trade. But I will not belabour that. Two years ago I was very interested in trying to get funds for the restoration, maintenance and erection of wharf facilities in my area, and I found that department officials would admit privately, and show me on charts, that we were not getting our fair share in terms of the landed value of fish anywhere in Nova Scotia. That was in 1971-72 and 1973-74.
1 want to put this on the record in the hope that the minister will have a chance to review this matter and give us a more detailed explanation in committee. I would like to know what the formula is. I have before me figures regarding allocation of funds for harbour development programs. These figures are for

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours three base years, 1973-74, 1974-75 and 1975-76. They are for the maritimes as a group.
In 1973-74 we got $3.2 million. In 1974-75 the amount went up to $10.2 million. Then, under the general restraint program of last year, it went down to $7 million. Those figures are for the maritimes generally. In Nova Scotia, in 1973-74, the amount was $1.6 million. In 1974-75 it was $5.8 million, and in 1975-76 it went down to $4.6 million. The amount was reduced in 1975-76. We all know what an absolute reduction means in this kind of inflation. Hon. members can imagine the adverse affect there is when in these times of inflation figures are reduced. We are not getting as much as our dollar used to buy, so there is almost a double-whammy effect. I put figures for Nova Scotia on the record to segregate it from the maritime region because of the value of fish to Nova Scotia, let alone to Atlantic Canada as a whole-and Atlantic Canada far outranks B.C.
The only province which had an increased allotment in those three base years was Quebec. In 1973-74, the amount for Quebec was $800,000. In 1974-75 it was $4.3 million, and when every other province or region got less in 1975-76 because of restraint, Quebec's allotment increased to $10 million. In Quebec there was a steady rise and a graphic jump. The amount was doubled from the last base year.
I would like to know what the minister says about this. He will have a chance in committee. Perhaps the amounts increased so significantly because there were not many facilities in Quebec before these three base years. I do not know, but in terms of the landed value of fish, which is supposed to determine the allocation of funds, I hope the minister will give us some explanation with regard to Nova Scotia and the maritimes where the landed value has gone up. In those areas the allocation of funds for wharf facilities went down, and the only area in which the allocation went up consistently for those three base years was the province of Quebec. I want to see how that relates to an increase or decrease in the landed value of fish so that I can get some idea of the consistency or equity in this important policy of allocation of funds.
I admit that in any program there has to be flexibility, reflecting the definite and distinct regions of this land. Certain regions demand almost different policies from time to time. The Bay of Fundy, with its peculiar hard shoreline and high tides, is one of the most expensive places at which to maintain any wharf facility. There is no protection from either the sea or the rise and fall of the tides. Even B.C. does not have the tides we have. Thus, different policies will have to apply under an over-all umbrella. However, to be flexible you have to be fair or you might build up alienation.
The allocation of funds must be dependent upon rationalization, but we must make sure that rationalization does not become elimination, and we must make sure the flexibility in a program is also fair so that there is an opportunity for some of the most independent people in the world to maintain the existence they choose to maintain. That existence gives them a

certain amount of internal freedom which, frankly, has my respect. It is a standard of independence which I think many Canadians might like to have.
I was glad to participate in this part of the debate on Bill C-7. I am looking forward to this bill getting into committee and hearing the minister explain some of the matters I have mentioned. Because the value of other things has gone up, perhaps the value of the inshore fishery in my area is not as high as it once was. In my old constituency of Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings which I had the privilege to represent, the county of Digby was one of the most prolific areas for fish in Nova Scotia, and there are still very meaningful communities there which depend upon fishing.
Extending our shoreline to the 200-mile limit helps deep sea trawlers, but with proper administration of wharf facilities and proper policies from the Department of Fisheries we could see a restoration of the inshore fishery. It may not be as big as the offshore fishery, but there is a place for it. It would be like an ostrich putting its head in the sand, if a renewable resource which contributes vitally to the economy of many small areas was forgotten. It would be unfortunate if we did not have the capacity to help those areas. I pray that we will have the capacity to develop constructive policies which will maintain them.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate, not that I am a man of loquacity or one who hastens to get a chance to talk, but I have never noticed that too much attention has been paid in this chamber or, indeed, in the country to the people engaged in the fishing industry. I therefore think it is worthwhile that we are concentrating, through Bill C-7, on the problems of a group of people who in the last decade or two have had extremely difficult situations with which to cope.
Problems have been brought on because of actions or nonactions of our government, because of intrusions as a result of the activities of other countries, and at times, it would appear, from the very forces of nature itself. This group of people, the fishermen of Canada, have had a very difficult time in the last 15 or 20 years. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has spoken about a number of matters and I did not find anything in what he said with which I disagree. He used the expression "benign neglect", and as I move about the coast of my province-I do not have to travel very far to get to the coast of Prince Edward Island; it is not an enormous journey- I see the very thing to which my hon. friend has referred, a benign neglect. However, in the case of P.E.I., as I hope I can demonstrate in a few minutes, the neglect has been something more than benign. It has been a planned neglect, and it has brought about a very regrettable situation which stems from an agreement between the provincial government and the dominion government.
Although the hon. member for Annapolis Valley boasted a bit about his province, he was quite right in referring to the seriousness of the loss of a community sense of identity. We have overorganized, integrated our schools and brought about
June 6, 1977

large units of administration. We have done the same thing with churches. We have tried to rationalize everything into bigger units, worshipping stupidly and foolishly at the temple of largeness and forgetting that you do not have to be big to be great or to be good. I think that in Atlantic Canada, where in a very real sense this country began, the decline of the community, the loss of its schools, the loss of the community hall, the loss of fishing centres and all these matters have done things to our way of life which have not been improvements but, indeed, have been quite the opposite.
Down in eastern Canada, where the fisheries industry used to be king, to have it declining and shrinking is something that everybody, whether engaged directly in the fishing industry or not, should be deeply concerned about. We have lost that sense of common interest and have become depersonalized. That is not good for a society like ours which should underscore the closeness of the relationships between people.
I thought of this as I compared my residence in Ottawa with my residence in the little fishing centre in the very beautiful seaport of Victoria, Prince Edward Island. Some months ago my home in Ottawa was burglarized, quite extensively for an impecunious person like myself, and no one saw what happened. In my little home in Victoria, if I sometimes inadvertently leave a light on in the attic or the basement, my 95-year old neighbour will let me know right away. This is the kind of concern that I cherish. But in my street in Ottawa, just the summer before last, someone looted one of the houses, taking away all the furniture in a big truck. No one knew about it, because there is no sense of community, no personal contact. That is the kind of thing which made the little community so important: it was centred on the church, the school, the town hall, the wharf and places where the community got together. We have lost that.
I agree with my colleague that in recent years it has been difficult to get to a centre of authority in terms of harbours. If you approach the Department of Transport you are told that the Department of Public Works has jurisdiction over certain areas, and then you find that in matters pertaining to small harbours it is the Department of Fisheries that has authority. I think the hon. member for Annapolis Valley was correct in saying that the people who work in the departments are conscientious. I do not think that most public servants are bad or stupid; I think the majority are pretty good folk, trying to do the job as best they can. There is always a little bit of runaround, however.
I have been concerned about a particular matter for some months and have come to the conclusion that every time I write a letter about it to the Department of Transport a copy will be sent to the Department of Public Works and to the Department of Fisheries. In that way they will all hear the same story at the same time-and so far they are all performing with the same lack of activity. In relating the ancient Fishing industry to tourism, a fairly modern industry, this bill has recognized a development. We have had the story of Nova
Fishing and Recreational Harbours Scotia, and I should like to say a word or two now about Prince Edward Island, another important fishing centre. My hon. and reverend colleague, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), planned to take part in this debate, but we decided that the chamber could probably tolerate only one Prince Edward Islander at one sitting. What I say today in general terms expresses the concern which he shares. Of course, I will not be able to express myself in the ecclesiastical language he could use, being, as Anthony said, "a plain, blunt man".
Mr. Speaker, I do not like to read things into the record, and very seldom do so, but I should like to refer to the annual report of the Department of Fisheries for 1976 which begins as follows:
The fiscal year 1975/76 could have best been described as a year of retrenchment for the Canadian fishery, a year when government bought time for the industry while it carried out an in-depth study of its complexities in an attempt to determine the reasons for its lack of stability and ability to sustain itself as a viable part of our Canadian economy. Meanwhile, fish stocks continued their decline, management procrastinated and the foreign fleets continued their systematic harvest offshore. At this time we are still making polite gestures at the ongoing Law of the Sea Conference, the U.S. government now having declared their intentions to establish a 200 mile limit. Surely, if for no other reason than the fact that our neighbours have beat us to it we will follow suit.
If I may interpolate, that is very prophetic and timely, as meetings are now going on. It continues:
On the provincial scene, with our 1976 fishing year about to begin, we are told that 80 per cent of the Gulf redfish quota has been taken by those who should be fishing offshore, and the gulf cod fishery doomed to a similar fate unless some positive steps to curtail these fisheries are taken. Gulf based fisheries which rely heavily on the greater portion of these quotas will have to settle for what is left and undoubtedly will have a lean year in '76.
Obviously, our ability to manage our fishery considering the interests of those Canadian fishermen who totally depend on the Gulf of St. Lawrence has much to be desired. There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who rely on this fishery that while we are aware of the need for a 200 mile economic zone and what it may do for the Canadian fishery, we are more aware of the need for some intelligent management of our fishery here in the Gulf.
I could talk about the problems of a Fish not mentioned by the preceding speaker, the mackerel. It may not have flesh the colour of the salmon, but it is one of the finest, most delectable Fish we have in this country. I should like to commend the minister for a program he began-though I fear he may have dropped it-to promote across the country that important, highly nutritive and tasty fish, the mackerel. It is a terrible situation when we find that mackerel in our supermarkets comes from Norway, Japan, Portugal or Spain, and often it can be taken in the Atlantic Ocean. I have been horrified when I have bought Fish which I thought was packed in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia and then found it labelled, in small print, "Product of Japan". When I check with fishermen in my own area I am told that in a given year they throw out a couple of thousand pounds of mackerel because there is no market for it.
It is time the country was educated on the nutritive value of fish, and it is time the fish plants were furnished with the best equipment available so that they can compete in the marketplace. We must also learn not to discard portions of the Fish and, instead, to put them to use in making fertilizer and other ingredients important to agriculture.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
The Canadian fisheries industry needs to be upgraded. There is tremendous scope for leadership here by the minister. I do not think we have a bad minister at present. Last week a member from Newfoundland was almost embarrassed: he said the minister was the best ever. Then he remembered there had been quite a few Liberal ministers, and he said he was one of the best. I think the minister is capable of doing a good job because he has the basic interest and has the capacity to reorganize this long-ignored industry.
I should like, now, to say something about a situation which has developed in Prince Edward Island and which in my judgment is wrong constitutionally and in my conviction is wrong in the interests of the fishing industry. The government of Prince Edward Island and the government of the dominion of Canada have made an agreement, under the wing of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, whereby only some of the ports of Prince Edward Island are to be maintained while the rest fall into decay and decrepitude, as was mentioned by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley.
As I read the British North America Act-and I read it only a few years after I learned to read the Bible-section 91 gives the government of the dominion responsibility for certain specific areas of jurisdiction, beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island, navigation and shipping; and, under No. 12 of section 91, sea coast and inland fisheries. There is not a port in Prince Edward Island for which the government has not responsibility under the basic, written portion of our constitution. Any agreement whereby the province takes over the maintenance of only 15 or 20 harbours and ports is an affront to the constitution and dereliction of responsibility to the fishing industry. The agreement has not worked well.
One of the most important ports in Prince Edward Island is in the Prince Edward Island national park, a place so beautiful that it receives perhaps one million visitors a year, though the population of the entire province is but 112,000 persons. Sitting in the midst of that park is an active fishing port, a port from which tourists embark on deep sea fishing and have the joy of hauling in the beautiful mackerel, cod, and if they are lucky enough, haddock. But we cannot get improvements made in Cove Head because we are told, "It is not a designated port. It is just too bad. It can go hang." Its pier is crumbled. It is allowed to go neglected and its fishermen can be inhibited from fishing because "we don't care how it looks to the tourists. We are not going to jazz it up with a nice paint job because it isn't a designated port."
Another beautiful port on Prince Edward Island's south shore is Victoria, from where my late father used to sail out in sailing ships. It is the port from which he left to join the Royal Canadian Navy in the first war to join that great aggregation of fighting strength called the "Tin Port Navy". For years we have had tourists coming from all over this continent and Europe to see that beautiful place. But today no substantial ship can enter Victoria harbour, the port which has been used over 200 years, because it is not dredged. To make sure

nobody comes in, they turned out one of the range lights. Therefore you cannot make it in. You might make it halfway in but, as any seaman knows, half safe is not safe at all. Again, Victoria does not rate for improvement because it has not been selected as a designated port.
I would say to the minister, if he were here, and to his parliamentary secretary, if I could find him, that the department is derelict in its duty by hiding behind the agreement the province made with the dominion government. It is responsible for the maintenance of that harbour, and its responsibility is no less now than it was when the fathers of confederation laid it down. I say, further, that here we see an example of neglect, made possible by a cozy arrangement which has been deleterious to our people. This is no time for the government of Canada to be narrowing its interests in the ports of Canada. With our fisheries assailed from without and undermined from within, it is up to the dominion government to take positive steps to strengthen the ports, not to weaken them; to encourage our fishermen, not to discourage them. These people have sustained far too many reverses already.
I think in my 20 years in this House the best parliamentary question I ever heard was asked by a member from Newfoundland no longer with us, Mr. Peddle. One day he stood and asked the minister of fisheries of the day, also no longer with us, if it was the government's policy to let the Russians take one-half of our cod, and the seals eat the other. Of course, to a question like that no minister can reply satisfactorily, and Jack Davis was wise enough not to try. But the question typified the troubles through which this particular sector of society is passing. They are engaged in seasonal activity. Lobstermen on Prince Edward Island, in some parts this year worked a short season. They lost a week at the beginning owing to ice conditions. They had difficulty establishing claims for unemployment insurance because the season was so short.
How can you criticize a man for not working all year, if the government says he can only fish for a number of weeks? If the fishermen are not beset by government regulations, they are beset by problems of mercury and heaven knows what else which prevent their taking the harvest of the sea. I hope we will look carefully at this bill and determine its degree of usefulness and how much help it will give to an industry too long neglected, much overburdened but still an ancient and important sector of our community, namely, our Canadian fishery.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) portrayed in graphic terms the plight of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada. The plight of fishermen of his constituency is also the plight of fishermen all over Atlantic Canada. What he said about Atlantic fishermen and the port of Victoria could be applied with equal force to other Atlantic fishermen and other ports.
The government has made proposals to our fishermen, proposals which will not work. Let me allude, for example, to the matter of centralization raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough. It was suggested that instead of our people having one port in every village or town, there should be one port for
June 6, 1977

each ten or 20 communities on the coastline. That proposal was socially unacceptable. Nevertheless, the Department of Fisheries in the past ten years has been instrumental in implementing this proposal as part of the policy of the government. What has been the result? One finds, for example, that large ships cannot enter Victoria Harbour because it has been neglected. The government has not said it will abandon the port. It denies any such suggestion, but its design is insidious. I want people in the Ottawa offices of the department to know they are causing unnecessary hardship for our fishermen along the coasts of Canada.
Let me tell the House of the effect of certain regulations. 1 am thinking of certain economic opportunities relating to fish landings. Mr. Speaker, in one instance the department recently recommended that no DREE grant be given to a certain area because no fish were landed in that particular area. Technically, the ministry was right: fish were not landed there. Why? The reason was there was no processor to receive them. But fishermen brought in the fish which were sold as salt or smoked fish. When someone wanted to enlarge the operation to process the fish the fishermen had brought in for themselves, it was held that no fish were landed in that area, and therefore the Department of Fisheries recommended that no DREE grant should be made available.
Mr. Speaker, fish processing facilities have been established near that point along our coast. By virtue of the regulations, without any consideration whatsoever for the health of the consumer of that product, the ceiling was too low, the vats were too shallow, and they were not properly vented. One processor after another spent his means improving his facilities, only to find that a further regulation made him still inoperable. He could not continue to function. The regulations which came out of Ottawa with regard to the fishing and processing industry have been utterly and completely without any awareness of the facts of life along our shores.
In one harbour in my constituency in the last three years there were three prospective plans for the improvement of that harbour by construction of a breakwater. One was totally unacceptable to the fishermen, one would have been of moderate help to the fishermen, and one would have made a beautiful harbour out of that location. The one that was totally unacceptable was not built. The one that was partially acceptable was built. Fishermen are still suffering, while expecting protection from the construction of that combination pier-breakwater.
I submit there is little justification for the present allocation of public funds as it relates to the maintenance, replacement and improvement of fishing harbour facilities along our coasts. The bill before us offers very little hope that there will be any particular change.
I would first like to deal with the appointment of the wharfinger as mentioned in clause 4. The collection of wharfage fees from fishermen and small boat owners has been the subject of very serious contention. It has been a point of
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
conflict between fishermen and the department for quite some time. So that it will sound more authentic, I wish to quote the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) as he spoke in the fisheries committee on February 28, 1975:
-on the west coast of British Columbia we have different sorts of harbour facilities. Some have wharfage managers, some have not. Although these wharves are built by the federal government through federal funds, because of the fact that some of these wharves are isolated and are only used at certain times of the year, we do not put someone on them.
I will not bore the House by reading a quarter of a page of a committee report, but the hon. member went on to say that the wharfage fees are collected in some ports on the coast of British Columbia, not collected in others, and that it is a discriminatory policy as far as the government of Canada is concerned. It must be authentic, because the hon. member for Comox-Alberni does not belong to an opposition party. I wish to quote from the proceedings of the Fisheries committee of March 4, 1975. In recognition of the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, the minister, in the introductory remarks to his estimates, said:
I believe the hon. member for Comox-Alberni referred to the discrepancy of wharfinger and harbour fees collected from some fishermen and not from others.
I should explain that the new act relating to the development and use of fishing harbours and marine facilities is in the course of preparation by the small craft harbours branch of the fisheries and marine service.
That was the promise of the minister. The minister, prior to the 1974 election, promised the House that wharfinger fees would be levied and assessed on a basis which was fair to all users of all port facilities. He promised he would put an end to the argument by the fishermen that if they docked at port A the wharfinger caught them; if they docked at port B, the wharfinger did not catch them; and that fisherman X never paid wharfage fees no matter where he docked. That may sound difficult to believe. However, in answer to a question by myself on November 17, 1976, among the facts given to me was the statement that 1,128 facilities have no wharfingers. That means that in 1,128 ports along the east coast of Canada no wharfage fee is collected from those who use the facilities. From the answer of the minister I find it extremely difficult to understand how a government can impose charges on some who use the facilities, and totally ignore the rest. It is not fair.
The question was also asked as to how a wharfinger is paid. For the information of those who may not know, the first $100 which the man collects is his. he keeps 90 per cent of the next $300, 50 per cent of the next $300, 25 per cent of the next $1,800, 15 per cent of the next $13,500 and 5 per cent of the remainder. This means that of the first $2,500 collected, the wharfinger keeps $970. From that point on there is very little incentive for him to do any further work. This seems to be the pattern of work performed by wharfingers. They collect a little and they quit shortly thereafter. I abhor this system of charges. We have had the word of the minister that this will be corrected. We presently have a bill before us in which no correction is made. It is discrimination in a vile form.
I ask that the parliamentary secretary inform the minister in the strongest possible words that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and members from the east coast of Canada ask that

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
this discrimination come to a halt forthwith, without any excuses whatsoever. It has been said that those presently employed by the department have so many duties that they cannot collect wharfage fees. If that is the case, add someone to the staff or add a little extra duty to those already there. However, let us not continue this discriminatory structure in perpetuity against anyone in Canada.
I am also concerned by the fact that this bill suggests there shall be an assessment of harbours. I presume that means a classification of harbours that will be done by members of the department. If it is deemed to be unimportant, what happens to that harbour? The measurement is to be assessed by the measurement of fish landings. In that case, there are many ports on which we will never spend another dime. The fishermen in the seining fleets may never land a fish in the port which they call home. The seining fleet will deliver its large catch to concentrated areas for processing, and return home. They will not land at the port from which they operate. Therefore, if we assess some of our ports on that basis, they will disappear.
As for the lobster fishing industry, lobsters are deemed to be landed when they are brought ashore and put in the pound. There are a dozen lobster pounds along the shores of the Atlantic Provinces which would have provided proper measurement for making a large expenditure. However, the lobster fisherman would be given no protection, no improvement of his facilities, if the lobsters are recorded as landed when inspected by the department's inspectors. This is no guide. These coastal fishermen are not equipped to travel 10, 15, 20 miles along the coast to fish lobsters or any other kind of fish. They live in an area with which they are familiar and which they are capable of fishing, and that is the area which must have the port facilities to accommodate their fishing fleet. A harbour cannot be assessed by virtue of fish landings; that is not an accurate measurement in any way, shape or form.
A schedule of harbours is to be promulgated by regulation. Fishermen are not competent to keep up with regulations as they are changed or replaced by new ones. Will the Department of Fisheries undertake, for instance, to submit to every licensed fisherman along the coast each regulation with respect to harbours which he uses in advance of its being enforced so that these fishermen have the chance to ask their lawyer to read it? Because I cannot read some of these regulations, and I do not think some fishermen can read or understand them either. Or is it the case that we are going to continue to operate ports and our fishing industry by regulation emanating from Ottawa or some other cavernous place where regulations are made by someone who has no knowledge of the industry and their legal effect on the industry?
There are certain aspects of the bill regarding which the Minister of Fisheries, and provincial departments, can co-operate; but in this bill I detect another attempt not to co-operate with the provinces in regard to fishing harbour facilities but, rather, to transfer the national expense of such facilities to a

provincial treasurer. This is not what Ottawa should be all about. The idea suggests to me that if the department does not want to fix up a port-perhaps tourism is a little side issue here-it will make a deal, say, with the province of New Brunswick, or with an individual, or with a corporation. It is the government of Canada's responsibility to provide these facilities for the use of the public, not to avoid providing facilities required by the public or to transfer the expense of such facilities to a provincial treasurer. I think this is what is implied in clause 5-that the government may make a deal with a person, a corporation or a province-and I deplore that. It is definitely in keeping with the way the department has been operating over the past few years, when there has been great neglect. If the government can transfer this responsibility, they may also transfer the blame for this neglect.
I suppose it has always been the right of the government of Canada, under the law, to lease a harbour or part of a harbour, but I would feel very much happier with this bill if in clause 8 the government would undertake to have consultations with people living in the area of the harbour who have used it traditionally for any purpose. But there is no obligation under this bill upon the government to consult the public prior to the leasing of a harbour to an individual or corporation. I think this presents a danger to the area I come from. I would ask the government to reconsider this provision to the extent that this can be done only after proper public hearings are held in the area concerned-not in the ivory towers in Ottawa.
Clause 9(b) gives me great cause for concern. 1 am as concerned about the environment as any member of this House, but I am more concerned at the fact that there are already three other pieces of legislation under the direction of the minister governing the people of Canada in respect to pollution of waters and lands. We have legislation concerning inland waters pollution, coastal waters pollution and offshore waters pollution. We now have clause 9(b) which is another piece of legislation giving control over the environment. The provinces have regulations. The municipalities have regulations. The federal government has a multitude of acts overlapping one with another, of which the general public, and certainly the fishermen, have no adequate knowledge. On top of all this, the government now proposes clause 9(b) further to control the environment. I say it is superfluous in view of all the other legislation having to do with the environment which is presently in place.
Let us put these things under one canopy, Mr. Speaker. Let us not have them spread around. We do have spreaders for certain items used on the farm, and it looks to me as if one of those must have passed through the Department of the Environment when the department was framing control of the environment legislation, because they have sure spread it all over the statutes of this country to an extent that nobody could be expected totally to understand. If offences are created by this legislation, a schedule of penalties should be appended to the act. We are going to be pretty much subject to regulation, with the exception of one offence involving a very minor fine.
June 6, 1977

There is also one other very harsh provision in this bill. There is no question that if a corporation commits an offence under the legislation, it should be punished. But under clause 21 a member of a firm may be penalized whether or not his employer is charged with certain offences. Under certain conditions this is acceptable, but this looks like a basket clause to me. It lays down no guidelines as to when a corporation is responsible; it leaves the responsibility with the person himself, and the opportunity is there for the department to pick on a person rather than on a corporation.
My I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five 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 and private bills. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) on a point of order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, you will recall the question, as to the possible interpretation of the special motion on extended hours of sitting, particularly with regard to what the regime would be on allotted days. I suggest, and I believe I have the approval of hon. members, that we interpret the motion to mean that the House will sit at two o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays when such days are allotted days. If it is necessary to have a House order to that effect, then I suggest we should have it.
[DOT] (noo)


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we can agree that the words of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) could constitute the House order, if that is agreeable to all members. That is the essence of the agreement we have dealt with. As I understand it, on allotted days the House will sit at two o'clock in the afternoon, unless it is a day when the House normally commences at eleven o'clock, that is, Friday; and under the order which is presently on the order paper we would finish at the normal time as a result of a combination of what the President of the Privy Council has said and the existing order as amended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I add a few more words, I hope 1 do not extend the ambiguity. What the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has now proposed as an interpretation of the special order of May 30 corresponds precisely to what we agreed to when we met in the minister's office some time prior to May 30. I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that perhaps we could now have a House order that that motion of May 30 is to be interpreted as indicated by the President of the Privy Council: in other words, we meet on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, when it is an allotted day, from two o'clock to six o'clock, we have the ten o'clock "late show" at six o'clock, and then we meet from eight o'clock to ten o'clock, and go home.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours [Translation]


Mr. Bechard:: I do not rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, but on a separate one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It would be better to clarify the first point of order.

Am I correct in understanding that when the House is sitting on an allotted day the normal hours of sitting will be from two o'clock until six o'clock, with the adjournment motion from six o'clock until 6.30, and then from eight o'clock until ten o'clock on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Vous avez raison.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In order that this may be clear to all members, on allotted days the House will start sitting at normal hours. The hours of sitting will be from two o'clock to six o'clock, and eight o'clock to ten o'clock, with the adjournment motion taking place from six o'clock until 6.30 on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. May it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) again on a point of order.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, as was pointed out to the House a few moments ago, today is the 33rd anniversary of the landing of Canadians in Normandy. As hon. members ought to know, and if they do not they will momentarily, the annual meeting of the Canada-France Parliamentary Association is held in Canada this week and tonight at 7.15 p.m., as a tribute to Canadian soldiers who went to Europe to defend our liberties, French officials will lay a wreath at the cenotaph. I should like therefore that there be as many members as possible. So I invite them to attend that short ceremony, if they can, which the Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) will also attend.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members do appreciate the information being given to them by the hon. member. Of course, this is not a point of order, but nevertheless I hope that as many members as possible will respond to that invitation.
6338

June 6, 1977
Retirement Benefits



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been disposition to allow notices of motions Nos. 16, 17 and 26 to stand at the request of the government and to debate Notice of Motion No. 30 in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker).


Ralph Goodale: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House agreed that we stand, at the request of the government, notices of motions Nos. 16, 17 and 26 and proceed to the consideration of motion No. 30 in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act to provide for the reduction of the "Magic 85" formula to 70 and the indexing of the new formula to the cost of living.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure, and some apprehension, that I bring my motion to this House today under private members' hour. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act to provide for the reduction of the "Magic 85" formula to 70 and the indexing of the new formula to the cost of living.
I am proposing this motion in order to establish a more equitable escalation formula for armed forces and RCMP personnel pensions. Requests for such action have persisted since Bill C-220, some three years ago, created the anomaly between public service pensions and those paid to ex-militia and RCMP. The redress which was proposed for the original anomaly affected a mere 4 per cent of the pensioners. This redress, the "Magic 85" formula, has since been under constant attack by those who find themselves, through a combination of rank structure and index formula, left holding the short end of the stick.
The nature of the comment and criticism indicates that there is a lot of misunderstanding regarding the situation. It is not really the formula which prevents a retired serviceman from having his pension indexed as soon as he retires, but the rule discriminates as among retirees within the forces. The terms of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act itself provide for the indexation of all pensions at age 60, with certain exceptions, one of these being the "85" rule. The structure of the armed forces is what ultimately causes the discrimination. Canadian forces members generally retire between the ages of 44 and 55, as opposed to public servants who generally retire between the ages of 55 and 65. The "Magic 85" formula affects the Royal Canadian Navy the most. Petty

officers are not permitted to serve for more than 25 years, so there is no way that a retired petty officer can get that increase before the age of 60.
I would point out that one other thing equally distasteful is that compulsory retirement age for corporals in the armed forces is 45. A corporal of that age will presumably have about 25 years of service; but he, too, will have to wait until the age of 60 to get the increment. However, if you are a lieutenant or a captain, the age rises to 47. If you are a major, it is 49. If you are a lieutenant-colonel, it is 51. If you are a colonel, it is 55. If you have served to the age of 55, you have a very good chance of having 30 years, service and you can immediately qualify for pension.
Understandably, Canadian forces annuitants claim that they should receive escalation immediately when they retire. They are forced to retire in the interest of maintaining an armed force which is also a fighting force. Established arguments for early retirement are applicable especially in the armed forces. Early retirement allows an employee suffering from ill health in his final years of service to retire in decent circumstances before normal retirement age, while sparing the employer the costs and inconveniences of such personal misfortunes as low productivity, high absenteeism, double-manning to overcome delays and disruptions in operations, and so on.
Another element of unfairness is that most of those who retire at age 55 or more will have a correspondingly larger pension than those who retire earlier. A person who retired on an unindexed pension will, when he reaches age 60, begin to receive a pension which compensates him for the increases in the cost of living between the date he retired and the date he reached 60. His pension will have been indexed on paper from the time he retired, and when he reaches 60 his pension will increase by whatever percentage the cost of living increased in the intervening years.
But to sustain any standard of living they would have to endeavour to continue in the work force until age 55 at least. Surely people who are forced to retire have the right to have their pensions protected. The rest of us who are working get increases every year, we bargain for them or we shop around until we get a job in which we can get a better rate of pay. People who are retired do not always have the choice. Ex-servicemen have found that employers are not at all appreciative of the varied training and skills that a service person may have acquired. They often do not get to the interview stage, with their qualifications.
The government has deemed that the need for an extra pension is not as acute for those in the age 45-55 group. That may be valid for regular civil servants. Although they are allowed to retire at age 55, not many do so. People in the armed forces, as I have pointed out, have no choice. Moreover, inflation rates have cut the real value of pensions considerably, and will continue to do so. In this day and age, when government resigns itself to the fact that we have 944,000 unemployed, and openly admits that the figure will go up in the near
June 6, 1977

future, it is socially irresponsible to thrust retired servicemen into the labour market, thereby creating greater competition for existing positions which are at a premium.
The standard argument used when refusing pension increases is the cost factor. Closely analysed, the figures show that there is a margin for accommodation of indexed pensions for them. The government pension plan is a combination of employer-employee contributions coming close to 20 per cent of the payroll. Very few private plans have anything like this rate of contribution. Half of the private plans existing in Canada have no contribution by the employee at all, and the contribution of the employer is comparable to that made by the government of Canada.
While higher rates of inflation build up pressure for the inclusion of indexing provisions in pension plans, it can also provide higher pension fund earnings which may be used to compensate for the depreciation of retirement benefits. The fact that interest yields tend to move in the same direction, and at more or less the same pace as the general price level, does indicate that the net cost of introducing indexation provisions in pension plans, or inflation-induced improvements in basic benefits, need not be as high as one might at first surmise.
Generous plans are not the exclusive enclave of the public employee, either. One major private employer provides pensions of 2 per cent for each year of service. This is multiplied by the average salary received during the best five of the last ten years of employment. Its plan allows early retirement with full benefits as early as age 50 as long as the employee's combined age and years of service are equal to 75. It also provides for an automatic cost of living indexation up to 10 per cent a year, and for further indexation beyond that percentage at the employer's discretion. What is more, Mr. Speaker, the employee makes absolutely no contribution toward the financing of the plan, so that pension costs are assumed in full by the employer. What can, and should, be done is to transfer some funds, by an act of parliament, from the Canadian superannuation fund to the supplementary retirement benefits account. Alternatively, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act could be amended to provide for the payment of indexed pensions. Furthermore, 1 believe this action should be taken without delay.
The Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association have already indicated that were it not for the government controls program it would have asked for indexation to begin the year after retirement, regardless of age or number of years served. Even this government cannot be contemplating keeping the controls on forever. I would hope the government would agree with this motion, but in anticipation that hon. members on the other side will not agree but intend to talk it out, I trust we shall be able to pursue our discussion for the full hour of private members' business even though some seven minutes were taken up at the beginning with points of order.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, the motion under discussion this evening concerns a broadening of the provisions of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act as they apply to former members of the Canadian Forces and the
Retirement Benefits
Royal Canadian Mounted Police. However, before proceeding to discuss this issue I think it might be helpful to the House if I were to recount some of the history of this legislation and explain why the existing provisions read as they do. The Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was introduced in March, 1970, to provide pension increases to persons receiving pensions or allowances under some 16 acts ranging from the Public Service Superannuation Act, the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, the Civil Service Widows Annuities Act, to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act. It also provides pension increases for benefits paid under some ten sets of regulations made pursuant to some of the acts I have just mentioned.
This legislation was not the first pension increase legislation. The Public Service Pension Adjustment Act had been enacted by Parliament in 1959 in recognition of the difficulties faced by retired persons in face of the declining purchasing power of their pensions. Under that act, supplements to pensions of up to 32 per cent were made in the cases of those who retired before January 1, 1953, subject to the limitation that the pension of a former contributor could not be increased beyond $3,000 and beyond $1,500 in the case of a widow. Maximum supplements were limited to $640 and $320 respectively. The percentage adjustments were made on a series of sliding scales which depended on the date of retirement and the pension formula applicable to the pensioner. The actual adjustment was related to one-half of the increase in the cost of living since the years over which the average salary used in the pension formula was calculated.
One distinction to be drawn between the earlier legislation and the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act is that the former provided for a single increase whereas the latter provided for continuing and cumulative increases as the cost of living rose. Another important distinction lay in the manner of financing these benefit increases. For many years prior to 1970, the government had been considering the possibility of increasing pensions in relation to changes in the cost of living after retirement, but did not feel justified in doing so solely at the expense of the taxpayers.
The present act was finally introduced only after the government decided to propose, after consultation with the unions, that the cost of pension increases for present and future pensioners was to be shared between the government and active contributors under those pension plans. The contribution-benefit relationship for public service employees was proposed by the advisory committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act and was subsequently endorsed by the national joint council of the public service of Canada. The way in which those proposals were extended to the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was developed in consultation with the Department of National Defence and the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
These pension increases were to be financed by contributions of one-half of 1 per cent of salary by the present members of these groups. This cost-sharing approach was the government's justification for the introduction of pension escalation on a
80016 -6IV2

June 6, 1977
Retirement Benefits
continuing basis which it had been requested to introduce for several years. It was recognized that on what now appear to be conservative assumptions the contribution rates for this group might prove to be inadequate by 1976 and other means of financing would have to be developed.
In the case of the pensions paid in respect of former members of parliament, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police it was impossible to finance these increases with this total contribution of 1 per cent after the first two years unless the age of commencement of escalation were delayed to age 60, if the former member was not disabled. Accordingly, the original Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act provided that escalation of pensions for those groups would only commence at age 60 unless the pensioners were disabled earlier. It was this factor which was responsible for that feature of the law which was generally supported at first but has been the subject of requests for change.
On the introduction of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act, immediate increases were paid in April, 1970, in all cases where the person in respect of whom the basic pension was paid had ceased to be employed or serve in office before January 1, 1970, provided the former member was disabled, deceased, over age 60 or in receipt of an actuarially reduced annuity prior to age 60. The maximum increase of 42 per cent was paid to those who had ceased to be employed or hold office in 1952 or earlier. The minimum increase of 2 per cent was paid to those who had ceased to serve in 1969. Provision was made for future increases of up to 2 per cent each succeeding January 1, on the basis then provided in the Canada Pension Plan. This act was deliberately worded so that there would not be an automatic change in this 2 per cent ceiling if the Canada Pension Plan ceiling was to be subsequently raised.
The 2 per cent ceiling in the annual increase in the original Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was the same as the ceiling under the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act when indexing was introduced. While that ceiling was accepted initially as a reasonable one to apply, the removal of the same ceiling on the cost of living increases in benefits under the Old Age Security Act and the decision of the Quebec government to raise the ceiling under the Quebec Pension Plan from 2 per cent to 3 per cent effective January 1, 1973, led to many requests in parliament and elsewhere for a removal of the ceiling under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act or that it be raised at least to the level of 3 per cent as was provided under the Quebec Pension Plan.
These requests were considered by the government with the result that the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was amended with effect from January 1, 1974, to provide for an escalation feature that more closely reflects the real changes in the consumer price index commencing with the change in the period on which the pension increase to be paid in 1973 would normally have been based. In making these amendments, the government recognized the continuance of the principle of

maintaining the cost-shared basis of the fund established under this act from which the pension increases are paid and the need to ensure the fund's continuing viability. A contribution rate of one-half of 1 per cent by public service employees and by the government was estimated to be adequate for at least seven years to provide the increases for former public service employees on pension. As I said earlier, in order that the same method of financing could be applied to members of parliament, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, it was found to be necessary to limit the age of commencement of escalation to 60 unless the former member in each category was disabled to the extent of being "incapable of pursuing regularly any substantially gainful occupation." The same limiting provision applied to escalation of benefits generally under all the other plans involved, except in two relatively infrequent instances under the Public Service Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act where the pensioner was receiving an actuarially reduced pension payable from age 50 at the earliest. It was agreed that it was equitable to escalate these reduced pensions before age 60 and not to escalate the full pensions of others who had the advantage of drawing those larger pensions, often for many years before the reduced ones became payable.
The fact that members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could retire on a fully-earned pension before age 50 also put those who do so at a considerable financial advantage over other public service employees who, when the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was passed, were unable to retire before age 60 on a fully-earned pension. This was another argument which supported the deferment of escalation of military and Royal Canadian Mounted Police pensions to age 60 in the interests of generally equal treatment of all groups under the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act. Moreover, many of those who had gone on pension from these forces before age 60 were employed elsewhere. So it was held to be inappropriate to ask present members to pay more for increases in pensions being paid to those under age 60, who were often in receipt of combined income from pension and salary greater than the pay of those present members. Although it was considered, there was no desire at the time to introduce a means test approach to identify those pensioners most needing increases because of lack of other income.
The position of long-service public service employees relative to members of the Canadian forces, however, was improved as a result of the new benefits made available on early retirement under the Public Service Superannuation Act which was amended by part VII of the Government Organization Act of 1970. These provide that a public service employee may retire on a fully-earned pension from ages 55 to 59 if he has 30 or more years of pensionable service or if he is involuntarily retired at those ages after ten or more years of employment in the public service, and the Treasury Board waives the reduction of up to 25 per cent in the pension which would otherwise be made.
June 6, 1977

It was immediately apparent that because of this earlier commencement of public service pensions and escalation of these benefits under the Public Service Superannuation Act, the other plans required re-examination. As a result, a method whereby the normal escalation age below 60 could be lowered for pensioners under plans other than the Public Service Superannuation Act was sought. Various alternatives for achieving this end were considered, bearing in mind the cost to the government and to the active members of these plans. Accordingly, when the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was amended in 1973, it provided for immediate escalation for armed forces or RCMP pensioners who met the following combination of age and service. From thence comes the "Magic 85" formula referred to by the hon. member, 55 years with 30 years of service; 56 with 29 years of service, and so forth, up to an age of 60 with any number of years of service. Immediate escalation for those who were disabled and for those receiving survivor benefits continued.
Mr. Speaker, the question of removing the age and service qualifications for the receipt of escalation payments has been raised in the House on a number of occasions since these provisions came into effect. Hansard will indicate that in reply to such questions, answers have been given to the effect that the government could not see its way clear to changing the basis on which the benefits for retired members of the armed forces and the RCMP were escalated. Assurance has been given that consideration would be given to the matter, and I repeat that assurance at this time. Members are aware of the fact that comprehensive studies of pensions have been initiated by the government and are now under way. Firstly, there is a comprehensive review of all aspects of the government's pension policy and the pension situation in the private sector which is being carried out jointly by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Finance. Secondly, the government has engaged an outside actuarial study of the pension issues of the plans covering its employees. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) has explained in this House, the results of these studies will assist the government in determining what the various alternatives respecting the pension plans will be.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that although the alternatives suggested by the hon. member appear, on their face, to be acceptable and palatable, I suggest he should perhaps await the studies that are being carried out before recommending that this particular action be taken.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) in introducing the motion before us today. I likewise listened with a great deal of interest to the historical summary just given to us by the hon. member for Essex-Kent (Mr. Daudlin). I am delighted that my friend, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, has put himself, by the statements he has made today, on the side of the escalation of pensions; and I take it from the position stated by the hon. member for Essex-Kent that he is on that side as well.
Retirement Benefits
As everyone knows, this is an issue which is of concern to some sections of the community, and it is good to know that spokesmen for the major parties in this House believe that the escalation of pensions after retirement is a justifiable and desirable practice. I feel very strongly that a pension is not a pension unless it is escalated to enable the pensioner at least to keep up with the cost of living. Actually, I think pensions should be escalated to enable pensioners to keep up with the increase in the gross national product or, in effect, the rise in the cost of living.
I listened very carefully to the history outlined by the hon. member for Kent-Essex, and I have no quarrel with it, I am speaking as one who First raised the question of doing something about the pensions of retired civil servants back in 1944, and it was with great pleasure 25 years later that I heard the then president of the treasury board, the hon. member for Westmount (Mr. Drury), announce that that decision in favour of escalation had been reached.
The hon. member across the way is quite correct in saying that originally the age limit of 60 was put into the legislation for those not covered automatically. In other words, since for most public servants 60 was the retirement age, it did not have to be specified for public servants generally, but it did have to be specified for members of the armed forces, RCMP personnel, members of parliament and others. But as time went on, members of the armed forces and of the RCMP felt that because of the nature of their employment, namely, that early retirement is forced on them, it was not fair to delay escalation in their case to age 60. A little later came the instance when public servants were given the right to retire at age 55 and draw full pension and immediate escalation provided that at age 55 they had 30 years service, 56 and 29 and so on, and then, of course, that was given to the members of the armed forces and of the RCMP.
The difficulty, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, is that the terms of service-the years during which members of the armed forces work-are such that in a great many cases it just is not possible to reach that requirement of 55 years of age or over and 30 years of service. I understand the popular reference to this as an 85 formula. That is hardly its exact meaning because it is no use being 54 years of age and having 31 years of service. You have to be 55 years of age or over to get the escalation at all.
It is also quite correct that this has been dealt with a great deal since escalation was put into effect. The last time it was examined in close detail by members of the House of Commons or by members of a committee was in the latter part of 1956 when we had a bill before what was then a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on employer-employee relations. On that occasion the officers of the Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association appeared before us, as did the members of the Federal Superannuates National Association, pressing this point, and quite frankly I thought we were going to get a modification of it and

June 6, 1977
Retirement Benefits
that at least the requirement that those two things add up to 85 would be reduced to 80 or 75 or even 70.
Even though the hon. member for Kent-Essex can argue that there has been some parallelism produced in that the same rule applies to members of the armed forces as applies to senior public servants, it is the old story of one horse and one rabbit, or the rich and poor both having the right to sleep under the bridge. There is such a difference in the terms of employment that it does not turn out to be as equal as the hon. member suggests. Therefore I think what is asked for in this motion should receive favourable and active consideration.
I believe that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces Long Service Pensioners Association are to be complimented on saying that they will settle for something less than they originally requested. Originally their request was that escalation begin the year following retirement, no matter what the age, but they are taking the position now that at least a formula which adds up to something below 85-80, 75 or 70, which was what was discussed when the committee dealt with this in December of 1976-is a responsible and reasonable proposal.
Because we are in private members' hour when time is of the essence, I must not carry on. I saw two or three others wanting to get to their feet. I hope they will all be on the same side and that they will be brief. Escalation of pensions is a good idea, and the thing to do by way of resolving the issue out in the country these days is not to take it away from those who have it but to see that it is extended to everyone, and that being the case I think we should take this step of improving the escalation of the pensions of those in the armed forces and in the RCMP.
I was glad to note the reference several times by the last speaker to the fact that this is a shared cost proposition and that the money which goes into the fund out of which escalation is paid is contributed 50-50 by the employees and the government. I would just like to emphasize that the government in that case is making that payment as an employer, not as the government, which I suggest makes quite a difference.
Sir, I stand, as I have for these many years, a strong supporter of the idea that people in retirement should have their incomes maintained at a level which enables them to keep up with the cost of living, or better still, to keep up with the standard of living, and I think we owe this to those in the RCMP and the Canadian Armed Forces whom we call on to retire early. Therefore, I am in full support of the motion which is now before the House.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, Canadian Armed Forces pensioners are protesting waits of up to 15 years for their first pension payments. Under the current system, forces employees must retire in their forties if they have served 20 to 25 years.
Eligibility for pension payment is decided in the same way as in the public service. Retired persons must wait until their age plus their years of service equal an arbitrarily chosen figure of 85. Canada's 50,000 retired servicemen want that

arbitrary figure lowered to 70 so retired personnel can use the retirement fund when it is most needed, soon after leaving the forces. Retired servicemen must often take lower paying jobs after leaving the forces in early middle age, at a time when their children often are about to enter university.
Mr. Frank McNeil, the national director of the Canadian Forces Long Service Pensioners Association, has stated that each year $130 million is paid in forces pensions, that lowering the age of eligibility for pension payments would cost an additional $8 million per year, and that this could be taken from the $210 million earned annually by the fund in interest. It would not cost taxpayers a cent, so I fully and wholeheartedly support the motion moved by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), which is as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act to provide for the reduction of the "Magic 85" formula to 70 and the indexing of the new formula to the cost of living.
I suggest that we close the debate at this time, let this motion be considered by the government, and that the government take immediate action to change the formula from 85 to 70.


Mr, Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak for a few minutes on this motion. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) for bringing it forward.
I represent a large number of military people, many of whom have reached pensionable age and some of whom have been retired for varying lengths of time. Some have made representations to me on the very point the hon. member opposite raises. I would guess that most members of the House are supportive of doing this when it can be afforded and at the time that the survey which is under way is in and analyzed. Certainly my first step was to try to understand the rather complex question of pensions as they apply to employees of the Department of National Defence as well as to public servants. The pensions are calculated on a quite complex formula. I spent some time reviewing the situation and I should like to offer a few comments on it.
As a general rule when I speak in the House I use only limited notes, but in this case, like the hon. member who proposed the motion, I should like to follow my notes very carefully. Even after investigating this quite thoroughly I find it a rather complex subject which requires a great deal of attention to detail.
My colleague, the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dau-dlin), has gone over the background of the present indexing arrangements very extensively and has outlined the format for members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, that is, the so-called "85 formula". The formula is now calculated with reference to the consumer price index.
June 6, 1977

Pension Index 1976
The pension index for a given year is equal to the average of the consumer price index over the period from October to September of the previous year. For example, the pension index for 1977 equals the average of the consumer price index from October, 1975, to September, 1976.
The total increase paid over and above an individual's basic pension in a given year is determined by the ratio of the benefit index for that year to the benefit index for his/her year of retirement. For example, the increase payable in 1977 to a person retired in 1972 equals the basic pension multiplied by the benefit index for 1977 divided by the benefit index for 1972.
When the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act was introduced in 1970, the benefit index was set at 100 for that year and the benefit indices for previous years back to 1952 were determined accordingly. At that time the benefit indices for subsequent years could not be more than 2 per cent greater than the benefit index of the previous year. However, effective January, 1974, this ceiling was removed. The benefit indices for the years 1971, 1972 and 1973 were re-calculated to take this change into account, so that in 1974 persons who retired in 1973 or earlier received a pension increase in line with the rise in the consumer price index since their year of retirement.
The benefit index for 1977 is, I understand, 158.02, so that, for example, in 1977, a person who retired in 1970 when the benefit index was 100, would receive an increase of 58 per cent.
In the fashion I have outlined above, then pensions payable under legislation to which the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act applies are already escalated to equal the increase in the cost of living. The motion under discussion would therefore only have the effect of applying full indexing of the pensions of former members of the armed forces, Royal Canadian Mount-
Retirement Benefits
ed Police and, in fact, members of parliament, at an earlier date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the issue; that is what the motion is about.


Mr. Milne:: That is exactly what I said. For example, an individual who retires from the armed forces at age 45 with 25 years service, presently must wait until age 60 to receive pension escalation, although at age 60 the increase paid takes into account all of the increases granted since his/her year of retirement. I think that is a rather important point which was not emphasized in the comments of either of the two members of the opposition who spoke. Under the proposal before us, the pension increases would be payable in January of the year immediately following retirement.
I do not propose to go over all of the arguments pro and con that have been raised in connection with this issue, or indeed many that I have researched myself. I would, however, like to speak about the Financial implications of an extension of the pension increases payable under the present legislation.
One needs only to look at the annual reports on the administration of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act since 1970 to see that the amounts involved in paying for full pension escalation are sizeable. For example, in the three fiscal years since full indexing was introduced, the pension increases payable under the act have been as follows: 1974-75= $58,878,000;	1975-76=590,768,000;	1976-77=$131,000,000
approximately.
I am sure other members of the House have had representations from many constituents and organizations about the level of government spending. While we all support this motion I do not think the financial implications can be totally overlooked when related to government expenditure of that magnitude.
Although I do not have any over-all estimates of the cost implications of the proposal before us at this time, I can present a single example of the cost involved in this motion. Let us take the case of the 45-year old serviceman with 25 years' service who retires on a $7,000 pension. If we assume a 5 per cent rate of inflation between his year of retirement and the year he reaches age 60, the granting of a full indexing immediately would mean additional payments between ages 45 and 60 of about $46,000, or 6.57 times the basic pension.
As illustrated then, the potential cost of instituting the proposed change would be significant. A further indication of the cost of pension escalation can readily be seen if one refers to the last page of the "Basic Facts" paper tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) on October 18, 1976. That page outlines the projected cost of the public service plan, and it can be seen that based on certain economic assumptions the cost of pension escalation will eventually equal the cost of the basic plan itself.
In drawing these points to the attention of the House I would not want it to be construed that I think most members do not support the intent of the motion, but I think it is fair to ask that we look at the cost as well. I am sure all members

June 6, 1977
Retirement Benefits
agree that the whole question of pensions has become an issue in the past year. Many people write to us with a point of view that is perhaps not based totally on fact regarding public service pensions and pensions for members of the armed forces.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a valid point when he said we should consider this subject objectively. He suggested that before anyone says that current pension benefits should be reduced we should review pension benefits made available to the public service and armed services. Indeed most people from my riding who have written to me about the cost of indexing seem worried about the open ended nature of these commitments. They fear that future costs may be so high as to create financial difficulties for the federal treasury, and pension benefits could be much higher than those the private sector could provide. Surely there should be some relationship between pension plans which can and should be provided by the private sector and the public sector.
The coupling of indexing with the early retirement provisions of the public service plan, not to mention the even earlier retirement provisions of the armed forces and Royal Canadian Mounted Police plans, has led to widespread criticism being levelled against the pension plans of federal employees, to the effect that "fat" and "exorbitant" pensions generally place those employees in a privileged position relative to other Canadians, at the expense of taxpayers. I was glad to see that in response to these criticisms the President of the Treasury Board prepared certain information.
I was one of the members who asked the minister to compile certain factual information on pension plans and made it available to all members of parliament so that we could render some mature judgment on the validity of the charges which had been made, instead of agreeing or disagreeing without information to temper our judgment.
I think the paper "Basic Facts" concerning pension plans helped to set the record straight. Though that paper was tabled, the debate on the question of pensions has continued and various groups in the community have levelled charges and made counter charges. As the paper pointed out, federal public servants have made consistently high employee contributions over the years. I think hon. members ought to remember this and comment on it more often. The plan was begun many years ago and the paper emphasized the actuarial soundness of the plan. That document also commented on a number of developments which would give the government the opportunity to reassess public service pension plan benefits and financial provisions in the near future. While referring specifically to the pension plan for public servants, needless to say any reassessment would also involve the pension plan for members of the armed forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The first development concerns the current work in progress within the Treasury Board secretariat to establish a compre-

hensive framework within which the total compensation paid to federal employees can be measured with greater accuracy and related more systematically to total compensation rates in other sectors of the economy. This is important. I certainly do not support the argument that public servants should be paid less than their counterparts in the private sector. Surely the same responsibilities should be rewarded with the same pay, no matter if the work is done in the public or private sector. The new framework is designed to facilitate Treasury Board's continuing efforts to ensure that all elements of compensation for federal employees, including pension entitlement, are maintained in an equitable relationship with compensation levels in comparable areas of the private and public sectors.
A second development will be the next actuarial valuations of the public service, armed forces and Mounted Police pension plans scheduled to be conducted over the next two years. These valuations will assess, among other things, the financial impact on pension accounts and the implications for the future of the recent experience of high inflation. This is a key point, because our high inflation rates have made people concerned about the indexing cost of pensions. They would also provide the government with reliable information on which to base a reconsideration of any aspects of its pension policies for its employees which may be required. Indeed, I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate these questions in the House and to make representations to the governement on this issue which is of interest to many Canadians.
A third development concerns the government's general study of the pension situation of all Canadians. As reported last fall by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), officials of the Departments of National Health and Welfare, Finance and Insurance, with the co-operation of interested federal departments and agencies, including the Treasury Board secretariat, have been laying the technical groundwork for this study by carrying out basic research, studying and analysing statistical and other information, and assembling the suggestions and comments of interested individuals and organizations. The review, I understand, will include comparisons of the features of retirement plans in the private and public sectors.
As the President of the Treasury Board mentioned, the government is well aware that pension policy for the public service cannot be considered in isolation from the pension situation of other Canadians, or without reference to the needs and capacities of other sectors of the economy. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised a good point when he said that the result of this may be a review of where the private sector stands in providing adequate pensions to its employees. That question may be even more important than the analysis of pensions in the public sector.
A further major development was the announcement on March 14 this year by the President of the Treasury Board in an address to the Canadian Pension Conference, a reading of which I commend to hon. members, of the appointment of an outside consulting firm to conduct an independent study of the
June 6, 1977

public service pension program. In announcing the study the minister mentioned a number of questions about pensions which had been brought to his attention. They were: what are the net costs associated with indexing pensions to the cost of living? Do they vary between the federal public sector and the private sector and, if so, why? Second, what roles have interest earnings and other pension investment returns played in the financing of pensions in the public and private sectors? Do these roles vary and, if so, why; and what are the implications of these variations?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Question.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, surely members of parliament are entitled to use all their time to make their remarks, if they so choose. Outside professionals are saying more frequently that indexing costs are influenced less by inflation rates than by inflation-interest-wage differentials. Is this a valid conclusion and, if so, what differentials are likely to prevail in the years ahead?
In conclusion, though I support the motion, I do not think we should act on it until the studies I mentioned have been completed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, on two grounds. First, his time has expired. Second, the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point order. As I recall, we were six minutes late in getting started.


An hon. Member:: Seven minutes.


Walter David Baker: The point of order raised by the government House leader are into the time available for private members' hour, reducing it by either six or seven minutes. Perhaps Your Honour could take this lost time into consideration.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recalls the remarks of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) and also the point of order which took seven or eight minutes to consider. I agree that it was raised after the beginning of private members' hour and therefore took up part of the time allotted for the consideration of private members' business. But hon. members know that the point was raised after the announcement of the beginning of private members' hour.
If the point of order had been raised before the Chair announced the beginning of private members' hour, I do not know what the Chair's decision would be. Perhaps on another occasion such a point of order will be raised before the beginning of private members' hour. Of course points of order may be raised at anytime during private members' hour, and their consideration takes up some of the time available for private members' business. We have to consider points of order
Adjournment Debate
as they arise. This particular point of order was raised after the hour started.
Standing Order 15 provides for a one-hour period for the consideration of private members' business.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to return to the matter I raised on May 26 with the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). As I understand it, the minister is out of the country at the moment. I believe he is in Africa. That will give him time to reflect on the answer he gave the other day. I regard this a very serious matter, as I am sure whoever will be responding for the government also does.
It came to my attention a couple of weeks ago that, along with other aspects of federal policy which may be continuing or exacerbating regional disparity, particularly in the Atlantic region, the purchasing or procurement policies of the Department of Supply and Services seemed to have particular significance. I raise this because recently we received figures on two aspects of the Department of Supply and Services, their procurement policy with respect to science and engineering, and with regard to commercial supply.
With regard to commercial supply in 1976-1977, the year that has just concluded, there was a purchasing power of 6.3 per cent from a total budget of $1,009,486,000. This 6.3 per cent represented purchases made in the Atlantic region. That was a reduction from 7.9 per cent in the previous year,
1975-	76, both in terms of over-all expenditures and absolute reduction $66,584,000 to something like $64,227,000 in 197677. That is a serious decline from 7.9 per cent to 6.3 per cent when you realize that the population in the Atlantic provinces is roughly 9.5 per cent of the national population.
When you look at the other area, that of science and engineering, the total is much larger, $1,862,722,000. We discover there is a shocking situation. There has been a decline because of the increase in the budget in that area in proportionate terms from 4.1 per cent in 1975-76 to 2 per cent in
1976-	77, and an absolute decline from $41,305,000 to $37,563,000.
When you look at the fact that only 2 per cent of purchasing under science and engineering is directed to the Atlantic
6346

June 6, 1977
Adjournment Debate
provinces you realize that we are in a very serious situation. On a proportionate basis the Atlantic provinces are not receiving their fair share of federal contracts through the Department of Supply and Services.
More important, the direction with respect to purchasing seems to be creating greater hardship and reducing, both on an absolute basis and in absolute terms, the amount of money expended in the Atlantic provinces, this at a time when we have the highest unemployment ever in the Atlantic provinces.
I was shocked by this revelation. Added to that shock was the answer I received from the Minister of Supply and Services. He said that his department was not responsible for the industrial base within the various regions of our country. Further, in response to my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the minister said that "it was a matter of not indulging in discriminatory policies towards any area, but rather to help businessmen in remote areas of the country to do business with us".
It seems that the minister is virtually unaware both of the impact of his department's billion dollar expenditures in terms of exacerbating the problems of regional economies across the country and, equally serious, he is not aware of even the Prime Minister's own dictum and instruction, because in reply to a supplementary from me the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said he could assure me that it was made a matter of policy some years ago that, so far as possible, the department would ensure that regional considerations and the concern for greater equalization were taken into account in the purchasing done by the department.
Where is the recognition on the part of the minister? I know he has difficulty sometimes facing up to reality. He admitted as much in his terse note before he left the country in regard to another incident which I will not refer to in this question period. If the Prime Minister has issued to the minister- indeed, to all members of the cabinet-the instruction that he has a basic responsibility with respect to the impact on regional economies of a department which enters into billions of dollars worth of contracts, why does he say his department is not responsible, that this policy does not take any cognizance whatever of regional variations in the country? In fact he says it is not a matter of indulging in discriminatory policies.
Would the minister suggest that the recent innovation by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in his latest budget in regard to the variable tax rate, which rises to 10 per cent for the Atlantic provinces, is a form of this regional discrimination in which the government should not engage? Would he suggest with respect to the attempt to vary freight rates across the country in order to make various producers equally competitive that this is a form of discrimination in which the government should not engage? Would he suggest that the millions of dollars worth of tariffs which have been imposed over the years is a form of discrimination which should not be pursued?
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House recognize the fact that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure, as much as possible, that it takes overt and effective action to offset the various regional problems

which we in this country face. For the minister to accept no responsibility and to ignore the declining interest in this department-in fact an overt attack on a regional economy such as that in the Atlantic provinces-through a declining budget commitment, is simply unacceptable. I hope that the minister or his parliamentary secretary will give us some effective answer and some redress on this matter.


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to respond to questions posed on May 26 by the hon. members for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) and Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) concerning the distribution of DSS contracts in Atlantic and western Canada.
First, I would like to point out that it is not the government's policy to allocate contracts for federal government requirements on the basis of the distribution of the Canadian population. Such a policy would be neither reasonable nor practical, as it is based on the assumption that the structure of economic activity is the same throughout the country. Our aim, as indicated by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) on May 26, is to ensure that all Canadian businessmen who wish to do so have an equal opportunity to compete for federal government contracts. The minister has already described the work being done to inform suppliers of how to do business with government in order to increase the volume of contracts going into the industrial base in both the Atlantic and Pacific regions.
Within the government's over-all policy of competitive bidding, it is DSS's policy to employ a regional preference policy for local requirements where possible and practical. That is to say, we purchase federal government needs for goods from sources of supply close to the point of use when reasonable competition can be obtained among local suppliers. This policy, plus the general practice of acquiring goods and services on a competitive basis, has resulted in a considerable number of contracts being placed in Atlantic and western Canada. In fact our analysis shows that the federal government buys substantially more in Atlantic and western Canada than it consumes in those areas.
The hon. member has noted a sharp decline year over year in certain of our regional statistics. He will understand that a substantial part of our business relates to the acquisition of large value capital equipment which is bought infrequently. Consequently the value of business placed can fluctuate widely from one year to the next. A case in point would be the "R" class icebreaker which was contracted for in British Columbia last year. This one contract amounted to $108 million. Naturally the annual contracting values will decrease significantly in the year following such an acquisition.
I am sure hon. members will recognize that the total benefits accruing to any given region are not reflected in DSS's own contracting statistics. For example, the foreign prime contractors for large equipment purchases for the Department of National Defence are required to place business in Canada, as a result of contract conditions negotiated by DSS. Two
June 6, 1977

contracts were recently placed as a result of such arrangements with firms in Amherst and Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, for requirements potentially totalling $13.5 million.
We share hon. members' concern about increasing the amount of contracting done in Atlantic and western Canada. We intend to continue to work to increase this level of business, while continuing to recognize our over-all responsibility to spend the taxpayers' money in a judicious, fair, and reasonable manner. Members must, however, realize, as we now do, the real constraints we face in achieving this objective. The Department of Supply and Services buys a large amount of goods and related services. However, the economies of the west and the Atlantic region do not always produce the type of goods we are asked to buy. In a few cases we may be able to integrate our purchasing with the industrial development plans of the regions. In most cases, however, we will have to continue to rely on existing facilities to meet our needs.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO PURSUE CASE AGAINST JOHN DOYLE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) a question about a case of gross negligence, wanton and wilful misconduct in the administration of the laws of this country, which had to do with the Department of National Revenue. It was a situation where a taxpayer, one John C. Doyle, was re-assessed for taxes in 1950 and 1954. It was 27 years ago in one case, and 24 years ago in the other. They were eventually brought before the Income Tax Appeal Board and were lost there. They were appealled to the Exchequer Court of Canada and lost there in 1970. There was another appeal entered in October, 1970, and these two cases are still unheard as I speak in this Chamber now.
On February 8 I tabled a question here about the same matter, and it is still unanswered. I wrote the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) and the Minister of Justice on March 23, and I got no response from them. I finally spoke in the House on this matter on April 21. On April 22, I wrote to both ministers and sent them a copy of my speech. I still have had no response from them. I asked the question again on May 4 in the House, and I spoke on May 5 in the House concerning this.
The Minister of Justice has made some extraordinary excuses. In answer to my question on May 4 he said that these appeals were proceeding at a pace the rules of the court allowed, and seemed to suggest that it was somehow the fault of the Supreme Court of Canada that this matter had not been concluded; whereas it is the negligence of the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue which permitted this thing to drag on as it has.
In the debate on the Judges Act on May 5, the Minister of Justice suggested that I should accept his statements, that there was no negligence on the part of the minister or his officials in this 27 year fiasco. Having said that once, he expected me to accept his statement instead of challenging it.
Adjournment Debate
That is a new principle of parliamentary immunity, Mr. Speaker, that if a minister says there has been no negligence on the part of a minister or any of his officials, that must be accepted and no one dare challenge that statement. Of course that is quite untrue.
If the minister says he is now instructing his officials to proceed with all deliberate speed and haste to have the appeals heard, I would accept his word; but when he says there has been no negligence, I do not accept that statement. In my opinion there has been gross negligence and misconduct in this matter for the last 27 years. How could appeals involving millions of dollars in public funds be left to lie fallow for several years without any action by the department, not to mention the fact that the department consented when the appellant asked for the matter to be postponed last year?
I have still no answer to my question of February 8, although the minister wrote me on May 13, gave me the information and said it would soon be tabled. It has not been tabled as yet. I do not know what is happening. I do not know whether someone is preventing this information from being tabled.


Mike Landers: On a point of order, I believe the answer was tabled today, according to my information.


John Carnell Crosbie: Even if the answer was tabled today, it certainly took a long time to have it tabled. I am glad it has been tabled. If it was tabled today, I say "hear, hear". I have received no copy of it as yet.
It is agreed by the Crown that on these judgments there was owing in interest and taxes as of December 31, 1976, $3,483,412. The Crown states that it has attached 1,009,562 shares of John C. Doyle in Canadian Javelin Ltd. on the books of the transfer agents, and that it did this some years ago. In the intervening period these shares have declined in value to $1.50, if they are worth anything. Thus the Crown is not adequately secured, if indeed this attachment has any validity.
On July 8, 1963, a writ of extent was issued on Canadian Javelin Ltd., directing them not to pay over any moneys to John C. Doyle which were allegedly owed by Canadian Javelin, Ltd. We know that for ten years Canadian Javelin Limited was allowed to ignore that writ of extent and that, by their own admission, they paid out $525,065 to John C. Doyle in complete disregard of that writ of extent, and the Crown did nothing about this.
We know further that Mr. Doyle set up a company in Nassau called Javelin Export Limited, a Nassau company, and that this company contracted with Canadian Javelin for his services, and that in 1974, by the company's admission, $100,600 was paid to Javelin .Export which paid it to Doyle, and that in 1975 $118,750 was paid by Canadian Javelin to Javelin Export who paid it to Doyle in defiance of the writ of extent. The Crown has done nothing about this, either. Everywhere you look, it is negligence.
We know that John Doyle has been a fugitive from justice in the United States since 1965. We know he was allowed to
8001 6-6214

June 6, 1977
Adjournment Debate
leave Canada about two years ago. He is in Panama now, and it is unlikely he will be back here because there are a number of criminal charges to be faced if he returns, both in connection with fraud in Newfoundland and in connection with "wash trading" in Canada-over 400 charges.
The government knows all about this and about what has been going on in connection with these companies for years, yet it has taken no action to prevent him voting the shares it says it has attached. If it has attached these shares, how is it that Mr. Doyle has been allowed to vote them at meetings of Javelin and retain control of the company through his 18.4 per cent interest? There is more here, Mr. Speaker, than meets the eye, much more. I have never heard of any such tender treatment given to a taxpayer in Canada before. The ordinary law-abiding taxpayers do not get this kind of treatment.
One of my own acquaintances, at this very moment in British Columbia, is being harassed and dragooned for $23,000 by the Department of National Revenue, the officials of which say he cannot enter an appeal until he first pays them the cash they say he owes. Yet a man with the reputation of John C. Doyle, owing sums of this magnitude, has been allowed to go year after year without putting up adequate security, without paying his taxes, without paying interest, and was allowed to leave the country with his debt not properly secured. Before we are finished, Mr. Speaker, we shall discover this is the grossest maladministration of the revenue law.
I must say this for the present Minister of Justice. He has given me some information and some co-operation. From the Minister of National Revenue I have received no co-operation. I wrote asking her what cases from her department were pending before the Supreme Court. She did not give me the information I was seeking. There are ten cases pending. I want to know from what years they date. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. The taxpayers of Canada demand equal, impartial treatment, and the proper administration of the law. I want to see those appeals brought before the court and heard. I want to see these irregularities corrected, and 1 am calling upon the minister to do this.
Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, in his question the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) what action he and his colleagues were taking to collect millions of dollars of income tax interest for the taxation years 1950 and 1954 owing by one John C. Doyle, and whether there had been an appeal pending before the Supreme Court of Canada for the last seven years without any action being taken by the government to pursue it.
With regard to the first part of the question, 1,009,526 shares of Canadian Javelin Limited have been attached by way of a seizure on the books of the transfer agents. In addition, a writ of extent was issued out of the Exchequer Court on July 8, 1963, for the sum of $3,410,130.90. Some other action has been taken and other measures are contemplated, but they are of a confidential nature.

With regard to the second part of his question, I must state that there are two appeals pending before the Supreme Court of Canada since 1970 which have not been heard. One of the appeals was inscribed for the winter session of the Supreme Court of Canada, but an application was made and agreed to by the Department of National Revenue and the Department of Justice for the removal of this case from the winter session provided that it be reinscribed again for the spring session of the Supreme Court of Canada. This case was accordingly reinscribed for the spring session in the Supreme Court of Canada and, because of its place in the Supreme Court of Canada list, this appeal will likely be heard in October, 1977.
The second appeal involves a complex procedural question as to whether this appeal can be heard by the Supreme Court prior to another case respecting the same assessment being dealt with by the Federal Court. Both the appeal before the Supreme Court and the case before the Federal Court will be dealt with as quickly as possible.


COMMONWEALTH GAMES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO AVOID AFRICAN BOYCOTT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, for many months I have been urging the government to take every step possible to ensure the success of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978. We are all worried about national unity today. I can tell you what would be a magnificent boost for unity-both in Canada and the Commonwealth-and that would be the complete participation by every Commonwealth nation. In other words, no African boycott.
The fact that the possibility of an African boycott is on the agenda of the Commonwealth conference next week is proof that the Canadian government has so far failed to resolve this matter. And the government has failed because it has not exerted enough muscle. It has been too timid. It has not been tough enough with either New Zealand or the African states.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the problem revolves around New Zealand's sporting links with South Africa. In the view of the black African states it is not good enough for New Zealand to have severed official sporting links with South Africa because of its apartheid policies. The black states want New Zealand to ban teams even from unofficial sports contests in South Africa.
For its part, New Zealand's Prime Minister, Mr. Muldoon, said recently that the Commonwealth Games are "not sufficiently important" for New Zealand to stop its teams. That was when the Canadian government should have made it abundantly clear that it would not tolerate such a cavalier attitude by a sister country. The games are an essential instrument in the development of relations between every member of the Commonwealth. The government took this snubbing by New Zealand because it did not have the courage to fight for our rights. It relied on the customary mode of quiet diplomacy when it should have acted to urge New Zealand to wake up.
June 6, 1977

Similarly what is the Canadian government doing to put some pressure on the African nations? What right do they have to penalize Canada because of the obfuscations of New Zealand? Canada's record on race relations is one we can be and are proud of. This country has helped black African nations politically and economically to attain their independence and maturity.
And speaking of economic help, how can the African states call for Canada's help in improving the health of developing nations through such instruments as the just-concluded North-South Conference in Paris if, at the same time, they hurt us economically?
It is time the African nations also woke up and realized that we live in an interdependent world. Pulling out of the 1978 games and hurting Canada is not a very good way to develop public opinion in Canada concerning the needs of the developing countries.
So, Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of hard-headed attitudes at the root of the Commonwealth Games problem. And the Canadian government has taken too soft a stand.
Edmonton has done a superlative job in preparing the facilities, which are acknowledged to be the finest ever built for the Commonwealth Games. Good management by the Edmonton organizers has kept the planning on budget and ahead of schedule.
The total cost of this great effort is under $50 million, including capital and operating costs, a truly remarkable achievement when we consider $1,416 billion spent on the 1976 Montreal Olympics. We are preparing for 24,000 visitors from around the world who will be in Edmonton for each of the ten days, August 3-12, 1978. They will all receive a royal welcome. The members of the news media will total more than 1,300.
All of this is more than just a great community effort of 3,000 volunteers brought together by a great Edmonton team headed by Dr. Maury Van Vliet. It is a vital national event, and it cannot be allowed to fail or be crippled by an African boycott.
I want a response from the government tonight that will tell me more than just the amount of federal money contributed. I want to know how a boycott can be avoided, since efforts have so far failed. The Commonwealth conference appears to be the last hope. If that conference is not successful, Canada ought to bring the issue to the United Nations, for the issue is not the politics of sports; the issue is the development of good relations in a global community. That is an issue for all nations and all colours of people, and Canada can no longer remain silent.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question which the hon. member has raised is a very difficult one which has concerned the government for many months. The government is committed to the success of the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, both as a sporting event and as a symbol of what the Commonwealth means as a harmonious association of peoples. We are, therefore, concerned that there
Fishing and Recreational Harbours be representation from all parts of the Commonwealth; indeed we are concerned that lack of such representation would be a severe blow to the fabric of the Commonwealth.
We have been working closely with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth and with other Commonwealth countries to bring about a successful resolution of the points at issue between New Zealand and the African members of the Commonwealth. We believe there is a good chance that the issue can be settled at the heads of government meeting in London, and we are working to set the stage for a constructive discussion of the issue at that time. We believe that it is possible for a compromise to be achieved on the basis of the opposition of all Commonwealth members to the system of apartheid.
What we envisage is a statement by all heads of government reaffirming their opposition to the practice of apartheid in sport and to contacts with South Africa by Commonwealth sports bodies and individuals. The Secretary General has been charged with finding a suitable formula for discussion, and the exact content of the statement will no doubt be a matter for debate among heads of government.

Mr. Speaker, I understand of course that the hon. member is interested in this problem since he comes from a constituency in Edmonton, but he should understand that in three minutes it is impossible to give the answers to all the points that this very complex problem might raise and I am sorry not to be able to give him a more complete answer, but the discussions are still going on and it would be presumptuous to give more complete answers at this moment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-7, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recrea-
[Stage Direction]
June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
tional harbours in Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I earlier mentioned my concern about wharfage. In the interim I have had an opportunity to look into the subject a little deeper, and there are some matters I should like to put on the record.
The first is an exchange between myself and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) which took place at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on May 30, 1975, when I put the following question:
... let us resolve this wharfage business. Let us wipe it out and start over ...
And the minister replied:
I will say amen to that.
Every member present at that committee meeting was under the impression that the minister had given his approval to the principle of eliminating wharfage as a fee against fishermen and other boat owners.
On May 27, 1975, a group of fishermen from the Fundy coast of New Brunswick appeared before the committee and the subject of wharfage came up again. I questioned Mr. Andrew Matthews, who was appearing for the second time, as follows:


Fred Alward McCain: When you were here before the subject of wharfage was brought up. Has this problem been corrected for you?


Mr. A. Matthews:: No, it has not. People are still getting wharfage bills and summonses. There are some fees and they will not give them foreign clearance.
MR. McCain: What is your principal complaint about this wharfage?


Walter Franklyn Matthews: I cannot see that it is any good. It is this way: we will go into the wharf and tie up. I have a 42 foot boat and my neighbour has a 40 foot boat. I will have to pay wharfage and he will go scot-free but we are both taking up the same space at the wharf. If it is compulsory for one man to pay wharfage, regardless of the size of his boat it should be compulsory for everyone.
The subject was also raised in committee on March 13, 1975, by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), when he put the following question:
I have a second question, Mr. Chairman. Has your department made any investigation into the charging of fees for the use of federal small-craft harbours when there is no wharfman on duty due to the size of the wharf?


Gérald Laniel: Mr. Reid, that is yours.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Chairman, in the new act which we hope to introduce very shortly, we have examined this whole area of user charges and the wharfinger system. We hope to be able to introduce a system of fees whereby a fisherman, or even the recreational boating public using federal facilities, will pay one fee a year which will give them the opportunity to dock at federal government facilities, so that it will no longer be the duty of the wharfinger to collect the fees from people as they are docking at federal government facilities.
Perhaps it would be wrong of me to ask if the Minister of Fisheries has any idea of the number of boats that go in and out of certain of those small craft facilities in a day, or a week, or even a season.
Is the government prepared to pay to the person responsible for collecting wharfage a proper amount of money, and so induce him to exercise surveillance over the port or harbour throughout the year, in order to assure its equitable use? Or, is it the government's policy to continue the patronage system, of

appointing friends to collect money from those from whom they wish to collect? I raise one more question.
The question I placed on the order paper on November 17 asked if there is a standard wharfage structure in eastern Canada. I was always under the impression eastern Canada included the five eastern provinces, in all of which there are opportunities for fishing and fish industries. If there is a wharfage structure in the province of Quebec, it is not listed in the answer. If fees were collected, they were not listed. If there is a charge system in the Quebec area of eastern Canada, that is not listed. I presume all this may be due to an oversight. But if it was not an oversight, I want the government to explain why my question was not answered adequately.
In the main, the present wharfage system is obnoxious and improperly managed. I see no indication in this bill that this will change. Apparently it will be perpetuated. That will be a perpetuation of wrong-doing.
Virtually the longest clause of Bill C-7 deals with the government's regulation making powers. It permits the government to make regulations with respect to the classification of harbours, payment of wharfage fees, penalties, and pollution. Subparagraph (d) of Clause 9 says that the Governor in Council may make regulations "not inconsistent with any other act of parliament or regulations made thereunder, for the control of pollution at any scheduled harbour."
There are already three acts in place on the statute books concerning small harbour facilities. Now a fourth statute is to be added. That this bill does not specify more clearly the minister's responsibility concerning non-fishing boats, pleasure craft and other boats is improper. It gives the harbour authorities no authority to reserve particular fishing facility for fishing boats. It will not resolve fishermen's complaints that pleasure craft using a harbour interfere with the fishermen's use of the harbour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue if he has unanimous consent. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I appreciate the generosity of hon. members. It is imperative to maintain small pleasure craft harbours along the coast. It is also imperative for the government to consider the tourist oriented potential of these harbours, a potential relating to the arrival and departure of small boats. Consequently proper facilities should be provided.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to discuss Bill C-7 respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada. I do not intend to linger on that legislation, except to say that it is somewhat late this year. Indeed, it
June 6, 1977

will no doubt be difficult if not impossible to benefit from this legislation this year, because the summer season has already begun. In spite of that fact, I must say that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) will give rise to many hopes with that bill, since it will enable individuals and corporations to take advantage of the financial and technical assistance of the department.
In my constituency, Marina regionale de Rimouski Inc. have been trying for several years to obtain assistance to build a marina in the port of Rimouski on a location recognized as being propitious to such an operation while not hindering any traffic of heavy tonnage. Environment Canada did receive a report from that organization requesting financial assistance to carry out its project. It now has 90 members waiting for the assistance of the federal department in this project.
Rimouski has a strategic position: it is located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, 180 miles east of Quebec City and 345 miles northeast of Montreal. The average width of the river within the quadrilateral formed by Rivifire-du-Loup and Matane on the south shore and Godbout and Tadoussac on the north shore, of which Rimouski is the centre on the south shore, is about 30 to 40 miles. With the variety of services it provides, Rimouski could easily become the main centre for sailing and recreational activities in the eastern part of Quebec, an important halt for tourists coming from the Saguenay area, Quebec City, Montreal, the Richelieu Valley and the United States, and an open gate on ocean navigation for travellers heading for the Gaspe Peninsula, Anticosti Island and the Magdalen Islands. Rimouski is proud of the stretch of water it offers and conscious of its exceptional position as we can see by the number of boat owners, maritime and nautical sport clubs as well as the number of oceanologic institutions it harbours.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out in passing all the bodies interested in the development of Rimouski harbour. The town of Rimouski has its own school of maritime navigation affiliated with the college course of the education department. It also owns an oceanographic research centre affiliated with the University of Quebec at Rimouski; the group GIROQ, a provincial body for oceanographic research; a squadron of the Canadian Power Squadrons made up of 40 members, which for several years has been giving courses in maritime navigation and nautical safety; a sailing club of 125 members whose aim is to promote sailing and teach its technique. The sailing club is also greatly responsible for the only off-shore sailing regatta in the province of Quebec; this regatta is supported by the Federation de la voile du Quebec and the winner is awarded the Lieutenant-Governor's trophy. Rimouski also has a 100-member scuba-diving club and 10 boats from 20 to 45 feet long, a nautical club with 300 members and 100 yachts 12 to 20 feet long.
Mr. Speaker, 1 do not know if you are aware of that, but a few years ago, the highway department built a road that stretches about three miles along the shore of the St. Lawrence
Fishing and Recreational Harbours River. A retaining wall was also erected. Unfortunately that wall has the effect of breaking the waves which now causes a lot of damage to pleasure boats and even bigger ships during storms. I would also like to mention damages caused in recent years since the construction of the retaining wall. Damages have been caused to boats and their owners since 1972, the year when the retaining wall of Highway 132 was built. This list is not exhaustive and is only given to indicate the urgency of the situation: a 30-foot whaler sank; a visitor boat from the United States a 35-foot sloop, and a 40-foot school-ship from Montreal were damaged. More than twenty ships of all sizes, local and visitor, suffered various damages.
The summer of 1974 was particularly fertile in unfortunate events: one wrist fractured, one rudder broken, two stem galleries wrung, one chain plate torn off with part of the deck, one stay tightener twisted and one mast broken in three parts. Unfortunately, to this list we should add long hours of watching, smashed fences, gunwale rails ripped off and countless damages to fibre-glass hulls or painted surfaces.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons and many more to which we will come back during another debate, we believe it is at least abnormal if not unjust that Rimouski could not benefit from the necessary facilities to protect small crafts and visiting boats. Rimouski residents can only offer the federal harbour in Rimouski East to local sportsmen for the protection of their craft. Moreover, this relative security is granted to them only through simple and gracious permission of port authorities and it can be removed at any time because it is not part of a contractual negotiation as such. Although partial, the protection owners enjoyed before was acceptable. As I said earlier, the construction of a retaining wall is required for Highway 132 in front of the Rimouski-East wharf, and it has transformed this relative security into a real danger. This retaining wall is in fact dangerous and bounces the waves formed by the north and northeast winds directly back into the harbour where the boats are berthed. Those waves, with the Bernouilli phenomenon caused by the bottleneck shape of the wharf, are quite amplified and cause really disastrous and highly dangerous situations, especially since the foreign visitor, knowing nothing of the above mentioned phenomenon, is deluded by the apparent security of this haven.
This situation is not extraordinary, as it could be easily believed, and it is not necessarily accompanying unusually bad weather. Every time the wind blows from the north-northeast or east, and that the tide is rising, the worst can be expected and the worst usually happens. When referring to serious works in meteorology for the Rimouski area concerning prevalent winds for normal navigation, and reading in regard the data of the 1975 tide tables, if we synthetize those parameters even summarily, there is no point in mentioning the apprehension felt by vacationers concerning the opening of the next navigation season. If we add to all this the narrowness of this harbour where over 39 local boats were berthing last year, most of them in double, this year there will be some 15 additional boats. The situation is not only dangerous but catastrophic and it becomes intolerable.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
As long as the present harbour is not extended and protected by at least one north-south breakwater on the east side, it will remain illusory to develop navigational tourism on the St. Lawrence and farther east all around the Gaspe Peninsula. As long as visitors will not be protected, it will always be a bit ridiculous to organize, at the regional level, off-shore boat races which would supposedly be of international levels. Yet it is the status which can be expected for the lieutenant-governor classic. The success met by this competition in the last few years as to the number of participants is yet quite surprising if we consider there are no appropriate shelters and no services. That surprise could some day change into concern and lead to tragedy should there be an overly great number of competitors.
The economic input brought about by such a touristic attraction as those annual races could never be hoped to have some importance without the minimum requirement of building the breakwater previously referred to. Any event of this kind in our area will be doomed to failure and disappearance purely and simply more or less shortly. Mr. Speaker, in eastern Quebec as anywhere else in the country, summer is very short, and the department's efforts to develop tourism, promote with all Quebecers the taste for outdoor life and develop environmental resources will never be qualified as excessive.
The St. Lawrence is a prime ecological resource and the importance of rationally operating that unique stretch of water to the benefit of all citizens in the province without any distinction could never be overemphasized. The development of a recreational harbour in our area would have the immediate effect of extending by at least two months the sailing season on the St. Lawrence and, consequently, allowing more people to enjoy the healthy pleasures provided by a rationally and democratically operated ecological site. The tourist orientation of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe area was stigmatized on more than one occasion in past years; the host of various reports and studies on this conclude in the same affirmative sense. The positive steps taken by the department to make that important economic activity viable will always be favourably viewed by the whole population.
The trends that are growing each year within the Quebec community will in the next decade give the Department of Tourism increased significance. The higher average purchasing power, the ever stronger appeal of outdoor life and sports, the increase in leisure time will soon turn Quebec into a pivotal table for Canadian and world tourism as long as we take the time to develop properly the strategic tourist sites. Mr. Speaker, no one can deny the obvious attraction the Gaspe Peninsula and the Iles-de-la-Madeleine have for Quebec, Canadian and international tourism, especially since the recent creation of provincial and federal parks, and we do not think it is being bold to say that that trend will increase over the years.
The Anticosti Island recently acquired by the department will only confirm that trend and further stress the need for the strategic development of recreational harbours on the shores of the St. Lawrence above those attraction centres. So it becomes quite obvious that a service city like Rimouski becomes a new neuralgic stop over on the route of sailing tourists when one

recognizes the enormous distances involved in such trips. So we want to point out the urgency of proceedings with the preliminary works and the construction of the breakwater this very year, another step in the progress of this country. So Mr. Speaker, I think it is urgent that the department get on with the job and meet the wish of a very important group in the Rimouski area.
Quebec certainly looks like a late starter in this area, with barely 25 to 30 marinas, compared-I am not saying this out of jealousy-with the more than 2000 which Ontario has, at least 500 of which have been built with the financial assistance of the federal government. I think it would be very wise, if not fair, for the department to do something for the isolated groups who have spent over 10 years trying to obtain the financial backing they need to carry out their marina projects.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the minister who introduced this bill will advise all parties interested in this marina project for the metropolitan city of the Gaspe region and that he will give a favourable reply to this group of Quebec taxpayers. I hope the minister will listen favourably to the wishes of all those who have been seeking for many years the building of a marina in Rimouski. I also hope this bill will make it possible, as I was saying a while ago, for the brave people of the lower St. Lawrence region to benefit from Bill C-7.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate, particularly since Bill C-7 meets, in general philosophical terms, with the approval and has the consent of our party and the opposition generally. Discouraging, however, is the fact that the minister himself is not as keen as we are in advancing this bill through this stage of discussion in the House and he is conspicuous by his absence tonight. This is something we do not greet with as much enthusiasm as we do some provisions in the bill.
We have to be delighted that it is now the intention, as the minister said in his opening remarks, to amalgamate the many sections of departments and agencies which were formerly responsible for small harbours and recreational facilities on lakes, oceans and rivers, which now fall under the purview of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, this was not always so. When one used to apply under this act either for assistance to construct small harbours or facilities on shores, or one attempted to make deals or enter into agreements with individuals, municipalities or provinces, by the time the department acknowledged the request, the responsibility for small harbours had been shifted to some other department. The Department of Transport has several times had responsibility for this particular marine activity. Ministers of Public Works have had responsibility on several occasions, and then sometime in 1973 responsibility was shifted to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment.
June 6, 1977

We are all a little worried over one clause in the bill which provides:
Nothing in this Act applies to or affects
(a)	any harbour, works or property under the jurisdiction of the National Harbours Board or of any harbour Commission established under any Act of Parliament;
We know what the distinction is. These are main port facilities on both coasts which are managed by special commissions or regional agencies. The clause continues:
(b)	any harbour, wharf, pier or breakwater under the control and management of any member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada other than the Minister;-
Now we are getting confused. How many other agencies are still putting their fingers in the pie? Is this really an amalgamation, or will the whole question be referred to other ministers? Are there other jurisdictions? In this regard the bill leaves us in the dark.
Then finally the clause provides:
(c)	Any of the powers or duties of the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works under any other Act of Parliament or regulations made pursuant thereto.
The minister tells us that small recreational and fishing harbours now come under one jurisdiction, and in the same breath he tells us through this bill that the Department of Public Works, the Department of Transport, and a whole series of other departments may also have jurisdiction; that this legislation, which is to be identified as the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, may not be under his jurisdiction at all as we move along and try to identify the various parts of the legislation. This leaves me, my colleagues and, I am sure, all Canadians confused as to who has responsibility in this area.
We are also confused over the fact that the minister has identified his new responsibility as having within its jurisdiction at the present time some 2,300 facilities. I would like to point out that 1,500 of those are fishing harbours and 800 are recreational facilities or installations. That does not take into account the hundreds of applications the minister and his department have received to install new facilities in some critical areas on both coasts and in inland water systems as well. What confuses us about this whole business is that we do not find any reference to the minister's new responsibilities in the estimates. He will be spending $35 million this year. That is all we see in the estimates. Having regard to the magnitude of this department and its responsibilities, we find this figure inadequate and not at all in tune with what the minister has identified his responsibilities to be.
Having regard to the most critical nature of this matter on both coasts, one wonders whether there is any way that the minister can address himself to the real need of inland water systems, one of which I will be making particular reference to in my remarks later on. There are many recreational facilities which receive no federal subsidies, and in fact there has been no federal involvement in them at all. We have known these
Fishing and Recreational Harbours facilities to be productive. They generate income in the national and regional interests. One wonders where the government's priorities are. We have to compare the $35 million which was channelled into a most critical area, fisheries, with the money which is spent on Mirabel every year. We saw fit to subsidize the installation at Mirabel by $45 million in one year. No revenue will be generated out of that white elephant. It will take away from some other airdrome which has served us well thus far.
We can also refer to the $500 million which is being put into the CBC every year. Instead of unifying our country and achieving a form of recognition of the difficulties in various regions, we have compounded the misunderstanding with the horrendous bumblings which this institution has perpetrated on Canadians over the last few years.
What about vital industries like fisheries and tourism? Tourism in some provinces is number one. How can we justify spending a mere $35 million? These comparisons have to be made because $35 million is not a very big amount in modern context. What is $35 million in comparison to the Canadian National Railways subsidy of $200 million a year, $500 million to the CBC, and $45 million to Mirabel?
This bill does not offer any comfort to our constituents on the west coast who have recently suffered a phasing out of a transportation subsidy which served 100 communities along the waterways of the west coast. My colleagues and my friends should be able to think back and realize that was a very critical issue in the House of Commons, and still is. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) announced the subsidy and claimed the support of his west coast colleagues on that side of the House. He said that they all had input into this new policy which was called user-pay, and they were serving the best interests of their constituents. One of his friends immediately rectified that by saying he had nothing to do with this monster and wanted to disassociate himself from the minister's comments. That was said in the House publicly. Then there was the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) who could not master the emotional fitness required to carry out the threat which she issued to the Minister of Transport, namely, that she would resign from the ministry and from the House if this whole question were not reconsidered.
This bill holds out very little comfort to those people. These people will be faced with not being able to go fishing or not being able to take their friends fishing. They will also be faced with a serious situation as to the movement of vital commodities to their shores. I am referring to the small communities on the coast of British Columbia.
I would like to make reference to the situation in my own constituency. In the mid-sixties Williston Lake was created as a result of the construction of the Bennett Dam in central and northern British Columbia. We have a situation now where we have an inland water system which encompasses 680 square miles of water and 1,000 miles of shoreline. There are several native communities which were completely isolated from the mainstream of life by that new water system. These people

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours used to communicate with the outside world along rivers or roads. Several native communities were totally dislocated and had to be moved when the lake was formed.
It was the wisdom of the department responsible for those particular people to move them close to civilization. When they discovered they could not cope with this new-found society, they moved back into the bush. The type of craft they were using to communicate with the outside world in order to get their mail, bread, butter, salt and sugar, were little canoes and boats. Then they found the little canoes and boats, which they had traditionally used, were no good for this lake which formed, if the wind was right, 20 foot waves. It was an ocean to them. There was no one who offered them any help in acquiring the skills necessary to traverse these waters or in acquiring equipment necessary to traverse these waters. Thus they are totally isolated from the mainstream of life.
The Minister of Transport tells us it is to be user-pay, and if they want to get sugar from across the lake they can buy themselves a $40,000 or a $50,000 ship, hire themselves a crew, and see what they can come up with. At the present time I do not know of any single installation in respect to a harbour, wharf, pier, breakwater, slipway, marina or any part thereof on this lake. There are a number of private installations which would have to be brought in by industry, and they would have their normal access to resources cut off and impaired. They had to adopt a whole new system. They used to be truck loggers, and now they take their logs, pile them on the ice in the winter time and, when the ice melts, the logs sink into the water. They had to buy big ships of an ocean-going type to move their goods and raw materials around this waterway. There was no assistance from anyone. The federal government, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) knew they had to buy their own boats. All of a sudden, communities around these lakes were totally isolated, yet no one offered any assistance.
There are other areas in which the Minister of Fisheries should have been involved in this whole mess, as some people call it, in central British Columbia. There were no environmental studies of the sort we talk of now in relation to pipelines and projects such as the James Bay project even though the ministry claims responsibility over several acts, including the legislation designed to protect the environment, notably the Navigable Waters Act. However, from recent inquiries directed to the department I learned that when the minister is asked to make comments or pass judgment, he may express his views with regard to any of these developments such as the Peace River power development, but there is no need for him to issue a licence, and he has no power to hold up such projects if they are discovered to be harmful to the environment. This is critical.
The dam project on the Peace River, as we now know, has changed the temperature in central British Columbia and in some of the northern regions by as much as five degrees. The temperature has moderated to that extend. On the surface one

might think that the people living in the northern areas would greet this change with some enthusiasm. After all, it gets pretty cold up there-40 below in some places. But that is not the whole story. Humidity was also affected. And while we shall not know what the situation really is for another 25 years-officials to whom we have spoken say, "Well, the weather has been bad everywhere; this alteration in the level of humidity will also have repercussions in the region."
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what it has done to the farmers. The fact that temperatures are not as cold as they were does not affect them greatly, but it does bother them in the summertime because the humidity detracts from the fast ripening of No. 1 wheat in a region which was a choice area for growing this commodity. Since the lake was created the farmers have yet to raise a decent crop, and many of them are saying that the dam may well be responsible.
Then there are the loggers who, in the middle of November, build their roads into the bush and carry on activities in readiness for their main work which takes place in the winter time. The area is not very accessible in the summer by virtue of its swampy nature. They, too, found there was increased snowfall and insufficient frost in the ground to enable their heavy equipment to be moved in the normal way. They are still improvising and wondering how they will be able to adjust to these new conditions. I am not saying this is all negative. I am pointing out that some of these things were not considered before this project was undertaken, and that the Minister of Fisheries had some responsibility for expressing a judgment with regard to such a massive intervention but failed to take steps to protect the interests of a greater variety of people than those whose interests were considered by the provincial government.
This bill enables the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces and with individuals. I should like to ask him what agreements have been considered with the province of British Columbia in connection with Williston Lake. Certainly, the province is responsible for building this hydro project and I suppose it should have some responsibility for ensuring that the people whose lives have been disturbed, the people who have been isolated, the people whose freedom has been interfered with by this scheme, should at least be given some compensation in the area of transport and so on.
The Findlay River is one of the prime tourist areas in my country. Thousands of people go up that beautiful canyon to find enjoyment and fulfilment during the summer in pursuit of their favourite sport. There are two native communities there. First there is the community of Fort Ware, formerly totally self-sufficient. Today, not only can they not get up the river, because at most times the river is flooded and choked with debris, but they cannot even get access to the lake. They have talked to British Columbia Hydro but there is no comfort there.
The forestry service, which is interested in the lake, has undertaken to do what it can to clear the debris from the waterway but no substantial help is in sight, certainly not from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
June 6, 1977

(Mr. Allmand), who surely should have something to say about the alienation of this particular community and the way in which its traditional rights and lifestyle have been affected.
Then there is the community of Inginika, the one actually displaced by the lake. These people found it impossible to cope with the pressures of the society into which they were moved. They moved back into their old area and are now completely isolated without the equipment or the means of carrying on their old activities. Every year, in the middle of winter as food runs out and fresh vegetables are not obtainable, I find myself making appeals to emergency organizations to fly in vital commodities to keep some of those people alive. Usually it is too late, malnutrition among the children having already taken its toll.
It is absolutely incredible that we should get this kind of document before us without any indication as to the means by which the minister intends to find the money to carry out his mandate. Of course there has been no lack of representation from the people affected by this lake. I have a letter here sent in response to an application originating from a group in Saint John called the River Rats. These people are carrying on a recreational endeavour along the great mountain rivers of the interior. They were affected, along with all the others. They wrote to the minister and asked him whether it would be possible for him to help them to carry on their activities. They wanted to build themselves the kind of equipment which could be used to go out on the lake. There are fish in the lake, and there is even a potential for commercial fisheries that some of the native people could carry on there.
On August 29, 1975, the response from the minister's department read as follows:
Our potential allotments for the next two years are fully assigned already and the funds for the ensuing years are under heavy demand as well. Thus, there is very little likelihood that we would be able to support the construction of several launching ramps in the Peace River in the next few years.
In view of your apparent willingness to proceed on your own with minor assistance only-
This is typical. When there is an application from the kind of people I represent, the government is always backing it up with either a solution or a suggestion as to where some of this money should come from, or else it says, "Look, if you give us 50 cents, we will gladly do another 50 cents worth of work and we will make the facility available not just to serve our own selfish interests but for the public in general."
The letter goes on to read:
-I suggest that you examine the opportunities available to you through the Local Initiatives Program-
I wonder if that is not one of the agencies to which the bill makes reference under paragraph (b) which states:
. .. any member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada-
I say so because the minister has hidden behind LIP on many occasions in the House when we have asked questions about these facilities. He has said that maybe if there is all this unemployment they can apply through LIP and that that
Fishing and Recreational Harbours would be one of the areas in which the government could help. Needless to say that would not be one of the areas for which he is responsible.
The letter goes on to read:
You can determine your chances of assistance by contacting the representative in your closest Canada Manpower Office.
Here is the critical sentence. He is very generous and charitable when he says:
I would be prepared to endorse your application. The deadline for replying is September 12th but I would urge you to apply as soon as possible.
How generous of the minister to say that he would endorse the LIP application because he knows best what the local priorities are. I asked him what his priorities are with regard to small harbours and recreational facilities. I found this rather comical, and followed it up. I explained to his officials precisely what I am saying here tonight.
Here we have a complete new waterway, a giant inland ocean totally alien to the environment of the area, and there is no federal involvement or assistance to establish any kind of facility. Experts from the outside will have to build it for us because we do not know how to cope with a water system of that type. So an official in the minister's department told me the following in his letter, which is a couple of pages longer but says as much:
The demand on our small craft harbours funds has been extremely heavy lately necessitating that we put up for consideration only those projects which show the greatest potential for service to the general boating public. Our funding for the next five years will support only about one quarter of the requests which we have on file to date.
The minister is now responsible for 2,500 facilities. He is four years behind in processing the applications he has, and there is nothing in the budget that would support him in his new responsibility of looking after wharfs, piers, waterways and harbours, particularly on some of the inland waterways. The estimates are totally inadequate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He can continue, nevertheless, with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Frank Oberle: Who said no?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be willing to wait another five or ten minutes to give my colleague an opportunity to complete his remarks. It is regrettable that members opposite will not extend that courtesy to my colleague. His speech was dead on.


Simma Holt: If he cannot say it in 40 minutes, he should not say it at all.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member is wrong on two counts; first, he did not have 40 minutes.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Marc Lalonde: You are losing your time-the clock is turning.


Frank Oberle: Em ashamed you come from British Columbia.


Marc Lalonde: You have already lost three minutes.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: This government introduced the legislation on December 10. I think that that is indicative of the priority the government gives to this legislation. The legislation was introduced in December and the government waited through January, February, March, April, May, and now four days into June.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Can you count to two?


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If the hon. member could count half as well as he pretends he can, we would have a lot more than $35 million for the harbours of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Right on!


An hon. Member:: He should talk; he has one of the maritime constituencies.


Simma Holt: And you wonder why the legislation does not go through parliament!


Fred Alward McCain: They don't put gags on us here.


Simma Holt: That's the trouble.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members are reminded that they should address the Chair.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: We passed Bill C-37 in one day. Members on this side of the House are prepared to support good legislation, but we are elected to scrutinize the legislation presented to the House and I will not forfeit that right for any member of the government. If you insist on bringing in legislation such as this, then you better not expect to get it passed in one day. If it were half as important as you think or postulate it is, you would not have waited six months to put it back on the order paper, so do not stand up in your self-righteousness-


Simma Holt: I did not stand up; I am sitting.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: That is the problem with you. You very seldom stand up in the Chamber and say anything. You Liberal backbenchers speak from your seats. Stand up in your places and explain to the people of Canada why there is only $35 million for the small craft harbours in this country.


Frank Oberle: You cannot serve your constituency if you hang on to the coattails of the six million dollar man.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Again I must remind hon. gentlemen that if they wish to take part in the debate they should rise in their places and be recognized,

either on points of order or points of privilege, but at present I have recognized the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway).


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) again debating from his chair, again debating from his seat.
Bill C-7 deals with the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada. At present the legislative authority for the administration of our small craft harbours is provided by the Government Harbours and Piers Act and its accompanying wharf regulations, as well as orders in council drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937. I think this is the proper time to have the government bring in some revision.
The present law certainly does not address itself to present day administrative needs of fishermen and recreational boaters, and it does not provide for the development of harbours. It was in June of 1937 that the responsibility for the administration of small craft harbours was transferred to the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Public Works, and the minister's authority has suffered over the years because the administration has been under orders in council.
In the minister's speech on this matter back in December of last year he pointed out that there are some 2,300 government facilities which are affected by this legislation and which come under the definition of small craft harbours. Fifteen hundred of these are primarily used to service fishermen, and some 800 are for recreation. I have already pointed out that the budget this year for capital costs to repair and to construct new docks for boats, whether they be recreational or used for fishing, is $35 million. This is obviously grossly inadequate.
Let us consider Lake Winnipeg. I have spoken about Lake Winnipeg in this Chamber many times. It is the largest inland fresh water body which is totally within Canada. I was about to say it has a thriving fishing industry. It was thriving until the government opposite got hold of it. I wish the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Guay) were in his place because I am going to talk about something very near and dear to his heart, that famous processing plant located in the wheat fields of his riding. I will get to that in a minute. However, the docks and the maintenance of dock facilities on Lake Winnipeg have deteriorated.


Frank Oberle: There's the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The minister has just arrived. I will get to the FFMC in a minute.


Marc Lalonde: Hurry up.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The entire budget of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), who is responsible for fisheries, this year is $261.016 million. Let us compare for a moment the total budget of the minister-particularly the $35 million directed toward the construction and maintenance of docks- with the budget of, for instance, the CBC.
June 6, 1977

The subsidies Canadian taxpayers pay to the CBC amount to $416 million.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: A very valid comparison.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: To subsidize this year's operating expenses of the National Art Centre will cost $8 million. Most of my constituents will never in their lifetime see the Art Centre, let alone ever be able to see a round of productions. I am not arguing, as hon. members opposite who have some great fears might, against arts and culture in this country. 1 am categorically saying that the government has its priorities all screwed up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: One of the government's priorities is to spend half a billion dollars in Mirabel. It is not quite the disaster we feared. It is not doing too badly. In the last fiscal year Mirabel lost only $46 million. That was not quite as bad as hon. members on this side had anticipated.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That must have disappointed you.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The hon. member from New Brunswick ought to have been with me last week with the Transport Committee-


Maurice Adrian Dionne: New Brunswick was well represented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Come the next election-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: You'll not be back.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If hon. members opposite and ministers on the Treasury Benches are so certain I will not be back, why do they not issue a writ?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member get back to the bill under discussion.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, as I develop my point you will clearly see that the attitude of hon. members opposite is a reflection of their inability to understand my argument.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You are the only one who understands it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Selkirk has the floor.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: It is interesting that the hon. minister opposite interjects before I develop my argument. He is characteristic of small fish which bite before the hook is even baited. My friend from New Brunswick left because he could not stand the heat of my argument.


Fred Alward McCain: The Mickey Mouse from Miramichi.
Fishing and Recreational Flarbours


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I was talking about capital expenditures for small craft harbours. The attitude opposite is to laugh this matter off. To them it is not a serious matter. They spend countless millions of dollars on everything else but not on things which are valuable to people who want a return on dollars invested. The Minister of National Health and Welfare cannot control his laughter. That is the attitude of the government which is being displayed tonight. Let us compare the $35 million I have spoken about with the expenditures of the National Capital Commission, of $53 million. I could go on and compare this pittance, this tokenism of this government for small craft harbours, with other expenditures.


An hon. Member:: Give us the punch line.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: If the hon. member wants the punch line, perhaps the government should issue a writ. The Canadian people would issue the punch line.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is not what Gallup says.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I am coming to the part which might be of interest to the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). I have already mentioned that the condition of the docks and the piers on Lake Winnipeg is deplorable, and that is part of his responsibility.
Lake Winnipeg is now going to be administered under this legislation, Bill C-7. Lake Winnipeg accounts for one third of the total production of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and in order for that production to get to where it was before this government got hold of FFMC, back up to 70 million pounds or 75 million pounds-we are now harvesting only 30 million pounds from the lake-


An hon. Member:: This sounds like a fish story.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: -we need to maintain our harbours and docks in good repair. I will give the hon. member a good fish story.
Historically the dock at Selkirk, which is located on the Red River some 12 miles from the lower end of Lake Winnipeg, always had a fish plant. It has always been the centre for the processing of fish from the lake. The fishermen would pick up their supplies there and go back up the lake for another trip. This government, through political expediency rather than sound judgment, has robbed Selkirk of its historical and geographic advantage in the FFMC.
These political vandals have plundered the birthright of the town of Selkirk. What did they offer in its place? Instead of offering a fish plant, improved docking facilities, new piers, and the kind of vital industry that has made the town viable, they offered a federal maximum security penitentiary. They took the fish plant from Selkirk, and where did they put it, Mr. Speaker? I grew up on the south shore of Nova Scotia and I know that in the Maritimes a fish plant is put by the harbour where the boats can dock, unload the fish, process it and send

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
it off to market. But on the advice of the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) from St. Boniface this fish plant for Selkirk was built right smack in the middle of a wheat field, ten miles from the nearest water as the crow flies-a monstrosity which has lost money in every year of its operation.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to say to the hon. member that not only did I get the fresh fish plant but I got the Royal Canadian Mint and a tax centre. There will be other things to come, and I hope people will support a good member who will probably get a lot more done than the people in his party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. minister that this is not a point of order but rather a point of debate.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The minister takes credit for the FFMC. As far as the mint is concerned, I suppose he and Jim Richardson will fight about-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member will refer to members of the House by riding and not by name.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Of course everybody will recognize the former minister of national defence, who resigned because of differences with the government and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), and I shall so refer to him.
The Minister of State (Multiculturalism) wants the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba to know he has taken credit for that monstrous-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will be proud if you tell them. I hope you have the guts to tell them.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, that is one thing the minister does not have. I have the guts to get up in the House of Commons and make my position very clear.
I cannot help but comment in passing that some months ago the Prime Minister said he intended to strengthen multiculturalism. I should like the minister to explain how his appointment is in any way compatible with that stated objective.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to ask the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) if he and his leader are in favour of multiculturalism.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, now the minister has got his role straight. I have been waiting for three years for him to ask questions so that I may give him some answers. If he would not get so excited and would listen to members on this side of the House he would get a lot of answers-more answers than he could dream up questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: The seals are yapping in the back.


Simma Holt: That side has nothing to yap about over there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Standing Order 12(3) reads as follows:
When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt him, except to raise a point of order.
I suggest that members look at the Standing Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, perhaps hon. members opposite, including the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) would address themselves to the question of how the administration of this act can be compatible with the user-pay principle espoused by the Minister of Transport. Certainly the fishermen on Lake Winnipeg should not have to bear the capital cost of maintaining the docks and piers which have been allowed to deteriorate because of this government's lack of recognition of the priority of this area. The government has allocated $35 million for capital construction, most of which has gone to the coast rather than to service inland small harbours. That is something upon which hon. members opposite and even the minister should reflect.
I have one serious misgiving about this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that concerns the power given to the minister to institute regulations by order in council from time to time. We should take careful note of this because the regulations are very wide. On page 4 of the bill under the heading "Regulations" the following appears:
9. The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a)	prescribing schedules naming the delimiting or describing the fishing or recreational harbours that are under the control and administration of the Minister for the purposes of this Act;
(b)	for the maintenance of order and the safety of persons and property at any scheduled harbour;
(c)	not inconsistent with any other Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, for the control of mooring, berthing, loading and discharging of vessels at any scheduled harbour;
(</) not inconsistent with any other Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, for the control of pollution at any scheduled harbour;
(e) prescribing standards for the accommodation and services provided or to be provided at any scheduled harbour;
(/) prescribing charges for the use of any scheduled harbour;
(g) prescribing the duties or functions of persons appointed or designated under this or any other Act of Parliament-
I shall skip to the final clause which is a sort of basket clause and reads as follows:
(/?) generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act.
I have some fears that the fishermen, particularly those on Lake Winnipeg and all those covered by FFMC, are going to be burdened with officials and bureaucrats who will descend on them with more regulations than could be memorized or understood by a Philadelphia lawyer. If those officials, bureaucrats and civil servants learn that a poor fisherman, or even someone who owns a recreational boat, is in violation of any of these regulations which are made by order in council rather than by act of parliament, he could be fined a maximum of $50. To hon. members opposite and bureaucrats in Ottawa $50
June 6, 1977

may not seem like much money, but it is a great deal of money to the fishermen of Gimli, Riverton, Arnes, and Camp Borden in the Winnipeg Beach area. This provision is significant to fishermen who seek to earn their living in the area. They must use an FFMC centralized processing plant located in the middle of wheat fields, in the riding of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.
On top of the demoralizing effect of the quota system operating with respect to Lake Winnipeg, and the host of regulations almost too great to enumerate, there looms over the heads of our fishermen the prospect of regulation upon regulation dreamed up by bureaucrats. These regulations would not be passed by parliament, where members could debate, scrutinize, and possibly amend them. No, they will be made by bureaucrats, and fishermen will be bound by them. These regulations will be imposed on the fishermen fishing on Lake Winnipeg; they will be imposed on those operating small recreational boats, on those who want to do a little sailing in order to forget the provincial government's high taxation policies.


Frank Oberle: They want to get away from it all, especially from the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


Dean Waldon Whiteway: As my colleague says, they want to get away from it all. I know ministers must be granted certain powers. We do not require ministers to use up the valuable time of the House of Commons in order to introduce regulations governing small craft harbours in Canada. However, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 is open ended. It is a no holds barred, a "no recourse for people" piece of legislation which offends my concept of democratic procedure and representative government.
Some hon. members opposite say that the member for Selkirk, myself, has not the ability to represent the people of Selkirk. Of course as a member of parliament I am fair game; I always like a good debate in the House of Commons. Seriously, it is my right and responsibility to represent to the best of my ability my constituents and to give voice to their hopes, dreams, and anxieties. The hon. member for St. Boniface is under exactly the same obligation, which he discharges conscientiously, as I know. I cannot neglect my right and responsibility. Although in principle and for the most part I accept this legislation, I must point out with the greatest of reluctance that the basket clause, the all-encompassing provision of the bill which allows the minister to bring in regulations by order in council, to bring in regulations which could change the very nature of the act, is not acceptable. A regulation can be as binding as an act of parliament.
There is a host of bureaucrats who day after day, in their ivory towers in Ottawa and Hull, draft regulation on regulation; some are reasonable and logical; some are not. But all can affect the fishermen who use the docks, piers, wharves and facilities of Lake Winnipeg. To those fishermen some of those regulations are an imposition by an awkward government. In the view of fishermen, many regulations are not intended to
Fishing and Recreational Harbours help fishermen and the people of Manitoba who seek to eke out a living with fishing. They see these regulations as part of the centralized process, which includes the fish processing facility located in the middle of a wheat field in the riding of the hon. member for St. Boniface.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. The hon. member may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Had the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker,
I do not often debate questions concerning harbours; however, having read this dictatorial piece of legislation I enter this debate without hesitation. I just returned to Ottawa, after touring the maritimes with the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. The committee listened to the problems of the good people of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. I witnessed the standing committee going through the charade and farce of listening to the problems of the people of an area. Members of the CTC were also in the maritimes, holding hearings with regard to port and harbour problems.
Almost every day, as the committee listened to the people of the maritimes talking about their problems, you could pick up a newspaper and read about the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) having made a policy announcement concerning transportation. And all this time at the expense of the taxpayers of Canada, the committee was travelling around that part of the country trying to give the impression it was listening, studying briefs, and paying attention, in order to make a report. We read in the newspapers about the Liberal government's policies, while stupid committees travel around the country and listen to people talk about their problems concerning wharves and roads. They can't get a potato bin in New Brunswick, but the government is willing to spend millions of dollars for stupid air terminals in Quebec, and this sort of thing.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member says, Oh! You are a real Grit. You aren't fooling me, and I told them at these committee hearings-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member return to the subject matter of Bill C-7.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will return to Bill C-7. I point out that legislative authority for administration of small craft harbours is provided by the Government Harbours and Piers Act, its accompanying government wharves regulations and various orders in council. Because it was drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937, the act does not focus on the present day administrative needs of fishermen and recreational boaters,

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
and does not include provisions for the development of those harbours.
Further, when program and administrative responsibilities for these harbours were transferred to the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Public Works and the Ministry of Transport in June, 1973, it was done by order in council. When the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications visited the maritimes recently, we read almost every day in the newspapers about some government policy pronouncement concerning this field. The Department of Fisheries claims that the minister suffers because his authority over small craft harbours has been derived from an order in council rather than a legislative enactment. For example, one transport official on the west coast refused to acknowledge the transfer and refused to send his files to fisheries until September, 1976.
The budget of the small craft harbours branch in fisheries is $35 million for the fiscal year 1976/77. Most of the money is used for repair and modernization of the government fishing and recreation wharves on the east and west coasts. There are approximately 2,300 government wharves, with twice as many fishing as recreational wharves, covered by the branch. These facilities are valued at three quarters of a billion dollars.
One of the major criticisms of the bill is the widespread powers being granted to the minister in Clauses 5 and 8. Clause 5 reads:
The Minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, construction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this Act applies.
Clause 8 reads:
The Minister may, subject to the regulations,
(a)	lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person;
(b)	grant a licence to any person for the use of any scheduled harbour or any
part thereof; and
(c)	enter into an agreement with the government of any province or any
agency thereof for the occupancy and use of any scheduled harbour or any
part thereof.
According to the branch, Bill C-7 is wide enough for the minister to do it alone or in concert with the provinces and the municipalities. This is especially true in the area of recreation where existing legislation is not clear. Bill C-7 seems to allow the minister to build recreational harbours or wharves wherever he chooses, regardless of provincial or municipal desires, at a time when that party has been advocating greater provincial responsibility and rights. This bill goes against that sentiment. Therefore we urge that it be amended so that the minister will have to work in concert with the provinces.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. member's colleagues, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), make such an issue in this House about reading speeches, I suggest that if the hon. member is going to read his speech he at least read it in a manner that is not a mumble.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As a minimum, the minister should be forced to announce his intentions concerning recreational harbours. The government has been becoming more and more involved in the financing and construction of these harbours. Recreational harbours have been increasing while fishing harbours, for example government wharves, have been decreasing in numbers. As a result one might ask whether recreation will supersede fishing in importance in the Small Craft Harbours Branch. To further emphasize this point, if you have a government wharf that is in need of repair in your constituency, that might be pointed out as a glaring example of government disregard for our fishermen.
Since Bill C-7 is partly concerned with financing recreational harbours, one might question one aspect of the government's marina assistance program which was established to encourage the construction of new marinas by local municipalities and private developers.


Simma Holt: Are you talking in your sleep?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The federal government pays for the construction of a breakwater and for dredging while the municipality and/or developer pays the other costs, plus upkeep. Government participation is limited to 50 per cent of the total cost. However, despite paying up to 50 per cent of the project, the government receives no future compensation for its contribution. Why should the government help private developers line their pockets with taxpayers' money? Does the government at least ensure that the marina will be open and available to all boaters at reasonable cost?
The branch would like to abandon or destroy about one half of its fishing and recreational wharves because they are either not being used or they are in utter disrepair. For fishing, it would like to have an area served by one central government facility. Since many of the government fishing wharves are essential to the livelihood of many small fishing communities, will the minister announce his intentions regarding the future of government fishing wharves so that the affected communities can react?


Simma Holt: Which official language are you using? We cannot tell from here because we cannot hear you.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Tune in. Don't show your ignorance. You made your point. I have a bit of a cold. I have a husky throat. If you ever get to speak with a husky throat, I will shout you down good and clear.
There are presently wharfage charges on the books. However, as there are only about 200 wharfingers to collect these charges, out of the 2,300 government facilities, most fishermen have become used to paying nothing for the use of these wharves. Under Bill C-7 the government plans to appoint zone managers to look after these government facilities and it plans to institute a licensing program for the use of these facilities. The plan now being discussed would require a fisherman to purchase a licence based on the length of his vessel, $1 per foot. This would be an annual licence and it would allow the fisherman to use any government facility. Fisheries expects
June 6, 1977

opposition to this proposal because, as said before, most fishermen have not been paying a docking fee.
The general intent of the bill should probably be supported, but there are many areas for questions.
This bill, on the surface, would appear to be nothing more than a housekeeping bill, a bill which transfers from the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) administrative responsibility to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment. However, upon close examination 1 cannot help noting that this bill adds still further financial burdens to an already over-burdened fishing industry. 1 understand-and I am supported by the minister's statement of this morning-that legislative authority for administration of our small craft harbours was provided by the Government Harbours and Piers Act and its accompanying wharf regulations, as well as various orders in council. Because it was drafted in 1895 and revised in 1937, the act does not focus on the present-day administrative needs of fishermen and recreational boaters and does not include provision for the development of these harbours.
It is interesting to note that when programs and administrative responsibilities for these harbours were transferred to the Department of Fisheries from the Department of Public Works and the Minister of Transport in June, 1973, the transfer was brought about by order in council. Obviously, our fisheries interests have suffered because the minister's authority over small craft harbours has been derived from an order in council rather than from a legislative enactment.
I am informed, as I pointed out earlier, that some of the Transport officials have refused to comply with the order and were late in filing with the minister.
It can readily be seen from the wording of the bill that the minister has been granted wide powers, and although we are not opposing this legislation, we would be remiss in our duty if we failed to register our concern over the wording of some parts of this bill. For example, the budget for small craft harbours this year is in the order of $35 million. Some of this money will be used for repair and modernization of government fishing wharves on the east coast.
As the minister has stated, there are some 2,300 government facilities covered under the small craft harbours legislation. Of these, approximately 1,500 are used for fishing and some 800 for recreation. From the figures we can readily see the number of people who are affected by this legislation, yet the minister gave no indication either in his remarks this morning or in the bill as to the government's intentions with regard to increased sums of money to be made available for needed improvement of the many facilities which this bill places under his care.
If we look at the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, we find that the total budgetary amount for the fisheries and marine program under the heading of "Environment" comes to $261,016,000. There are many comparisons that can be made with that figure and the amounts allocated to other government departments: namely, the CBC, $416 million; Atomic Energy of Canada, a department which we are
Fishing and Recreational Harbours hearing quite a bit about these days, $97 million; the National Capital Commission, $53 million; the National Arts Centre, $8 million. We spent something like $50 million on erecting the building, and now it cannot operate without a subsidy of $8 million just so people can see the show.
I believe the minister is working hard. He is making an honest effort. He is trying. I believe he is hoping for a better future for our fishermen. I give him credit for that. However, many of the people in the area covered by this legislation have survived for many years on hope. But that hope, I say to the minister sincerely, is now turning to despair. At the present time, on the Atlantic coast there are approximately 39,000 fishermen of whom only about 3,000 are on the offshore fleet. The rest are all inshore fishermen, dependent on small craft harbours as a base for landing their craft. They hope to have security for their ships and fishing equipment when high winds and heavy seas force them from the fishing banks.
Under this bill, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) is given a sacred trust. He is being given a responsibility to ensure that adequate facilities will be provided for the safety, lives and equipment of some 36,000 inshore fishermen in Atlantic Canada alone. Since fishing markets are mostly external to Canada, it is essential, indeed, vital that this nation keep its fishing industry as efficient as any in the world. Up to this point I have been speaking only of the inshore fleet. However, our offshore fleet also requires consideration by this government.
At the present time, some 12 companies, owning approximately 50 plants, of which some 25 are served by the offshore fleet, account for approximately 80 per cent of Canada's fresh and frozen groundfish production and about 45 per cent of the total fishing production of Atlantic Canada. This fleet is struggling today. The captains are struggling to find the large volumes of raw materials required for 12 months of operation on a mass production basis. What does this bill do for them? If they increase their costs, it will knock Canada out of the highly competitive world markets it presently enjoys as a seafood supplier. Both our inshore and offshore fleets are vitally important to the Canadian economy. However, I say to this House that our only chance to exploit the fisheries resources to the extremities of our 20Cbmile zone and beyond this area is with a modern, efficient fleet working on a 12-month basis.
We have the expertise; we have the know-how in Atlantic and Pacific Canada. We need only a management team interested in the recovery and harvesting control of our resource to give Atlantic Canada a restored and thriving fishing industry. As the resource recovered, we could triple our present volume without adding appreciably to the number of ships in operation today, thereby assuring steady employment for our fishermen and plant workers.
Here I mention a very important adjunct to the fishing industry, our plant workers. Shore plant workers in our east coast fishing plants are facing economic hardship today due to

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours the mismanagement of our fisheries resources by this government over the past ten years. Recently, a weekly newspaper printed a cheque stub from the pay cheque of an average wage earner in an east coast plant. The cheque stub showed 34.25 hours worked at regular time, S3.90 per hour, and 12 hours of Saturday overtime at $5.85 per hour. The gross earnings were $207.53, while the net earnings were $171.43. Even you, Mr. Speaker, might say that is not bad for a week's work. However, you would be adopting the wrong premise because the figures I have just quoted cover a two-week work period. It works out to $85.71 per week. Out of this amount, he or she has to pay the rent, or mortgage, food, fuel oil, clothing, electricity, operate a car tc and from work, plus gas and all the rest of a family's expenses. This, I say, is about average for plant workers as a whole.
This is a dismal record even in the Atlantic provinces. As I said earlier, during my trip with the transport committee the shabby way these people are treated by the government was confirmed, not only in the fishing industry but also the potato industry.
When there are no fish to process, the work force is sent home as the employees are paid only for the hours worked. The Anti-Inflation Board obviously did not take that factor into consideration when it made decisions about wage levels. The Minister of Fisheries and his officials obviously did not take it into consideration when they established fisheries quotas for 1976 and 1977, quotas which force the fisherman to limit his fishing activities, quotas which force him to spread out his fishing effort over a longer term. This action will in the long run spread out the economic and social hardship for shore workers over a longer period.
Recently the Minister of Fisheries was asked a question in the House about discussions he was having with the industry concerning quotas. He replied that he was hopeful that he could spread the quotas for the next year over a 12-month period. That, I know, was not an intentional statement by the minister. It could not have been. It shows a gross lack of knowledge of what happens when you encourage men who want to go to sea, men who want to work to the best of their capability to catch the biggest catch available to them, telling them to spread out their capability, spreading out the fishing quotas so that they will only land smaller quotas per trip. Think of what this is doing to the shore plant worker. I just gave a classic example of what is happening at present and has been happening throughout 1976, yet this year they are not promised more of the same, but even a little less of the same. The minister is, in effect, saying that $85.71 a week is enough for a shore worker. Surely we can do better than that.
We are establishing a 200-mile limit, hopefully for the benefit of Canadians and not entirely for the benefit of foreign nationals. Hopefully, it will be for the benefit of shore plant workers in Atlantic and Pacific Canada. However, this is the ultimate result of the minister's action when he says we will spread out quotas. He is simply spreading out inefficiency. It is not encouraging initiative. It does not encourage people who are ambitious and want to work. This is making it more

difficult for our people, both ashore and afloat, to earn an honest living. The fishing industry of Canada obviously requires a higher profile. It needs a spending priority equal to or higher than that of the CBC, since the fishing industry directly and indirectly affects the livelihood of so many Canadians. Unfortunately, Bill C-7 gives little or no recognition to the validity of many of the points I have raised. It does, however, grant the minister wide powers.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It is 10.30 tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. Under previous arrangements the House sits until 10.30, the late show being from six to 6.30.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Carry on reading.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As 1 was saying, this bill does grant the minister wide powers, far too many powers.
Clauses 5(1) reads as follows:
The minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, con-truction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this act applies.
Clause 8 provides:
The minister may, subject to the regulations,
(a)	lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person,
(b)	grant a licence to any person for the use of any scheduled habour or any
part thereof, and
(c)	enter into any agreement with the government of any province or any
agency thereof for the occupancy or use of any scheduled harbour or any part
thereof.
Knowing the character of the minister, and knowing the character of various members on this side of the House-one of whom, I believe, will be the minister of fisheries after the next election-I am sure these wide powers will not be abused. However, this does not mean they should remain on the books. 1 was always of the opinion, for example, that our harbours belonged to the public. I cannot understand how any minister could believe he had the right to lease harbours or any part of a harbour to one person. Surely, limits should be set on the application of Clause 8 when the measure is sent to committee.
Under this bill, the minister can build recreational harbours wherever he chooses, without regard for provincial or municipal desires. What has happened to the view that the provinces should be consulted on matters which affect their interests? I say to the minister most sincerely that lack of consultation over fisheries matters with provincial ministers is a major criticism of him, and that it is advanced not only by Conservative provincial ministers but by Liberal provincial ministers as well. The government is becoming increasingly involved in the building of recreational harbours. It has taken the path of shared-cost programs with the provinces; it pays up to 50 per cent of the cost, but only for breakwaters and dredging.
June 6, 1977

Provincial and municipal governments pay the other costs, as well as the cost of annual upkeep.
Unfortunately, the number of recreational harbours is increasing while the number of government fishing wharves is decreasing. I am not opposed to recreational harbours being established, since they are beneficial to the tourist industry, to visiting yachtsmen when they come to Canada from the United States or other countries. However, I submit they should not be built at the expense of our fishermen or of our fishing industry which is presently being denied adequate facilities in many parts of Canada.
In any town there is a desperate need for further docking space for our scallop fleet. In Vogler's Cove, Nova Scotia, the inshore fleet requires another 60 feet added to the present wharf in order that the longliners may have adequate protection. There was a recent article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald under the heading "Smithville Fishermen Still Waiting For Wharf'. As I travelled with the Standing Committee on Transport an Communications last week, I found out about all the fishermen and the potato growers waiting for wharfs and potato sheds. They are still waiting today.
The article continued:
Four years after being promised a new wharf by the federal government to replace the existing decrepit structure which is the focal point of Fisheries activities in this small Atlantic coast port, fishermen are still forced to operate from the same primitive facility which has been in existence for many years.
"Any good storm or even a high tide could easily wash this wharf out tomorrow and then where would the fishermen tie up?"
A veteran fisherman of the area and an operator of a small handling plant by the wharf said:
"Conditions here are unbelievable. Several years ago one section of the docking facilities completely collapsed under the weight of a hundred lobster traps. Although recovered by their owners, the traps were damaged beyond all recognition."
The fisherman went on to say that instances like this have not been uncommon and, as a result, fishermen in the area were notified five years ago that a new wharf was on its way.
Prior to the five by-elections in Quebec, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) announced that another $231 million would be poured into the province of Quebec for more federal public buildings in Montreal on the leftover property at Mirabel. I notice the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) is smiling. He thinks it is a big joke. He should have been down there with this committee listening to the fishermen and the potato growers. Everything is a big joke for the Liberals. He should have come down there and explained Mirabel and the $231 million which is going into Quebec. He could have also explained that white elephant in Winnipeg, the $50 million hanger that is not required. He could have explained all the other boobs which his party has pulled off. I hope the minister will put this in his little black book when he starts his duties-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to go on record as saying that I am very pleased with the construction of the hangar at the Air Canada base in Winnipeg. The people of Winnipeg also wanted it. I
Fishing and Recreational Harbours am surprised to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) saying that it is a white elephant. He was the one who was pushing to get it, and now he is talking out of the other side of his mouth tonight.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. We have been sitting around today listening to a debate and making our contributions. Your Honour has pointed out on a number of occasions that these matters which have been raised, particularly by the minister responsible for multicultur-alism, are specious and facetious and are not points of order. If the minister insists on carrying on his irresponsible attitude by interrupting on spurious points of order, we are going to ask him a question during the question period.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest to the hon. member that he, now, is engaging in debate. That is not a point of order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The time allotted to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has expired. However, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I should like to point out that if the parliamentary secretary is rising to speak on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment he will close the debate.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) who, with his exciting and scintillating comments in the last few moments, has kept us all on the edges of our seats. But if we were on the edges of our seats on this side of the House, I cannot imagine how close to the edge of his seat the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) must have been on the other side since the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre so closely resembled the speech given by the hon. member for South Shore some months ago.


An hon. Member:: A summer rerun!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I should like to describe this bill as a housekeeping bill. It is an important bill, and there are controversial matters in it which I should think all hon. members would wish to discuss in committee. This can be done on the basis of the assurances which the Minister of Fisheries and Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) gave when he opened this debate several months ago-late last year, in fact.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that for the House to have 18 speakers on a bill passed in the late 1800's and amended to a moderate extent in 1937 and now, finally, being brought into order, stretching it out not only over a full day last December, but for a full day today, with twice as many speakers from the

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours official opposition as from the other parties, indicates the extent of some of the problems we face in the House of Commons these days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: We have heard from members today who have never before expressed themselves on small craft harbours and, frankly, I do not think they have ever stepped in a boat before. Today, they are experts. Some are experts and others simply espouse the words of other, thoughtful members among their colleagues who did make contributions earlier in the debate. Mr. Speaker, I am parliamentary secretary to a minister who is thoughtful, who works hard, and who has respect from both sides because of the way he discharges his responsibilities, which does not mean hon. members will not offer criticism, sometimes severe criticism, in areas of concern which relates to their own ridings. But I must say I find myself terribly disappointed when, after that kind of respect, members, for whatever reason get up and speak in such a silly manner with regard to legislation brought forward by the department. I am sorry, I cannot find words more honest than that.
For instance, 1 find the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) suggesting my minister is hiding behind the Local Initiatives Program. What absurdity! The fact is that during a period of restraint, when there is very heavy pressure on all branches of government to cut back on expenditure, or to hold the line-


A. Daniel McKenzie: You are spending $231 million in Quebec, don't forget.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I did not interrupt while the hon. member was reading another member's speech. I am making my own speech and I would appreciate it if the hon. member would not interject.
I find members like the member for Prince George-Peace River accusing my minister of hiding behind the Local Initiatives Program, when in fact he has fought hard to provide assistance to our fishermen in a time of restraint, even though it was not as much as he would like.
When in turn that minister is helped and, with the assistance of the parliamentary process, has made LIP work to the extent that an additional $5.5 million is going into small craft harbours, I find I am disappointed in the hon. member who, from my experience, is not widely experienced in this subject when he says something as silly as that. I do not want to be angry, but I have had to sit through this for a long time and I find the debate on a bill as fundamental and as basic as this one to be long. This is a measure of the seeming degradation our process faces today, because some of us on all sides realize that if we want parliament to survive, if we want the most free democracy in the world to continue and progress, we will all have to be a little more responsible in the process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Fleming.)


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to talk on a particular subject.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Tell us about unemployment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has the floor and I suggest we all listen to him.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I wish the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had been as original in his thoughts as he is now in his interjections. Various hon. members opposite have been critical of the amounts of money being spent on small craft harbours and have discussed this in the debate on the bill. In its responsibility for this program, the expenditures of the Department of Fisheries on small craft harbours varied from a low of about $8 million a year to a little over $13 million a year. The average annual expenditure for these years was $11,789,000. That is in sharp contrast to the expenditure levels in recent years. In 1973-74 the government spent over $22 million, in 1974-75 nearly $31 million, 1975-76 nearly $29 million, and this year we expect the total to be about $40 million. The money for this year includes special funding of $5 million for commitments under the Canada-Quebec agreement and $5 million for the federal labour intensive program. I believe that the record speaks for itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: We hear from particular members in the opposition about the concerns in their ridings. Surely that is their right and obligation as elected members. But 1 wish that collectively they would have some common sense, some priorities. I wish the official opposition could tell us how they would set their priorities. There are many demands for better facilities for small craft harbours, especially for our fishermen. But also I know from colleagues on my side and on the other side of the need for facilities for pleasure craft harbours. In my own province of Ontario I see immense pressure for better facilities with the growing number of pleasure craft, but I wish hon. members opposite would tell us what their priorities are. On each bill they rise in the House and demand heavy increases in expenditures, and yet they criticize us for government spending. They must make up their minds. They are speaking from both ends, and that is very difficult to do.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Who commanded Mirabel?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I do not think any of us were brought to life by the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, although it was better received last December when delivered by another hon. member. The hon. member for South Shore in his statement to the House last December said that under this bill the minister can build recreational harbours wherever he chooses without regard for provincial and municipal desires. In all fairness let me say that I believe the statement is misleading because Clause 5(2) of the bill makes clear that that is not the case. The earlier statement by my minister introducing Bill
June 6, 1977

C-7 also mentioned that recreational boating programs will emphasize joint planning and co-operation with the provinces.
Some hon. members opposite have expressed concern that expenditures on recreational harbours might be made at the expense of our fishermen. An examination of the record shows that since the transfer of responsibility for small craft harbours to the Department of Fisheries and the Environment, priority has consistently been given to commercial fisheries rather than to recreational boating in the way of wharves and facilities. This has been the policy of my minister, and when he led off this debate he made it clear that that will continue to be the emphasis. As his parliamentary secretary and as a member from Ontario I should say, however, that I am particularly aware of the concern of those hon. members who do not come from wealthy ridings and who are very concerned about the provision of facilities for pleasure craft harbours in Ontario and, to some degree, in B.C. as well.
My minister has made it clear that his priority must be operational harbours to assist Canadians in the fisheries business. Pleasure craft harbours are where a viable operation can be developed in the private sector. Pleasure craft harbours must also be encouraged. However, I do want to note that my minister and his officials are aware of the concern of hon. members who are worried about attention not being given to pleasure craft harbours, but again his emphasis must be where the greatest deprivation and the greatest need exists, and that is with our working fishermen.
One of the speakers earlier today expressed concern about just how figures are arrived at and what moneys are put toward the development of small craft harbours. I believe it was the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). I think he suggested that there might be-if not so much today, in yesteryear-favouritism according to votes and that this was based on the number of votes landed, as he put it. He said sometimes it was argued that it was based on the landed value of fish. I simply want to point out that the landed value of fish is only one of many factors considered in the allocation of funds. The department also considers the state and number of wharves in a particular area, the number and size of fishing vessels in that area, the harbours, the volume of landings and the potential for the future of the resource in each location.
Social and community factors are also given due consideration. It is not as easy or as simple as the hon. member would make it. I believe if we were to break it down according to members and political parties, we might be led to believe that the allocations are based on the number of votes garnered by opposition parties and not by us, because in fact some of the opposition parties do very well compared with our members in the maritime regions.
1 should also mention that our marina assistance policy is under review in light of Bill C-7, and we will be making some changes. The hon. member for South Shore asks why we should spend money on this type of project and receive no direct return from the developer on the federal contribution. The department is presently examining this matter and would welcome suggestions from the committee.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Several hon. members opposite have expressed concern that under this bill the government intends to appoint zone managers. Nowhere in the bill is there a reference to zone managers, nor do we presently have plans to establish this type of management. I am sure that hon. members can recall complaints about disarray, neglect and unsupervised wharves, and they will therefore agree that a modest degree of proper wharf supervision is essential. That is what this bill is all about. It would bring to order things which have grown to disorder over the years. This is what the bill proposes to introduce, and the minister looks forward to more discussion of it in detail in the committee.
There has been a misstatement of fact which should be corrected for the record. It relates to Clause 25(2) and a fine of S50. That is a maximum and not a minimum fine, as has been alleged by the hon. member for South Shore. Perhaps the wording of this clause is not too clear, with all respect to that hon. member, in which case we might consider an appropriate revision in committee.
I know that some hon. members on both sides of the House who have been concerned about this particular legislation are concerned that at this point in time when there is an awful lot of economic duress, especially in our maritime areas, and particularly on the east coast, that the introduction of a fee structure such as that proposed in this bill might be very unfair and detrimental to our fisheries workers. The minister has asked me to asssure those hon. members that he realizes this is a difficult time, and he assures them he will go very cautiously in this matter. He looks forward to hearing from them on this matter in the committee.
There are some other minor points which hon. members have raised and which will be discussed in the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. I am sorry if 1 was a little angry and strident at the beginning. I want to close by saying that there have been contributions from both sides of this House by thoughtful members who are knowledgeable about the problem. I am sure we will have the best possible legislation when it comes back to the House after going to the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Fleming) accept a question from the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse)?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Crouse:: The hon. parliamentary secretary referred to a comment I made when addressing the House on this bill on December 10 to the effect that the minister can build recreational harbours wherever he chooses, as being somewhat misleading. I should like to ask the hon. member if my interpretation of Clause 5(1) is incorrect. The clause reads as follows:
5. (1) The Minister may undertake projects for the acquisition, development, construction, improvement or repair of any scheduled harbour or any fishing or recreational harbour to which this Act applies.

June 6, 1977
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
It does not state that this will be done with the consent of the provinces. If I have misread the bill it was not my intention to mislead the House. I submit, however, that as long as the present wording stands that "The minister may undertake projects" for the construction of recreational harbours, etc., without saying that this must be following consultation with the provinces, then the bill gives the minister wide powers to build recreational harbours wherever he chooses. I should like the hon. parliamentary secretary to clarify that clause. It is one to which we on this side took exception in the belief that it granted wide powers to the minister.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my comments, as I understand it from our officials, other parts of the bill reassure that it will work on a co-operative basis. I want to assure the hon. member, because of his deep concern, that I will take the matter back to the department and see that they are either prepared to defend that clause as being fair and equitable or have it changed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the parliamentary secretary accept a question from the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain)?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in view of the vast amount of evidence to indicate that the wharfage system is not an equitable system of collecting fees at the harbours would the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, give consideration to the elimination of that clause from the bill and to establishing an equitable system of fee gathering?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not profess to have the expertise of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), and I say that sincerely because of the nature of his riding. My understanding is that we want to straighten out many of the inequities. We appreciate that wharfingers operate in some areas and not in others and that is inequitable. In turn we do not want to introduce a system which brings
hardship to people already suffering hardship by levying some heavy fee against them.
One reason why I am anxious that this bill go to committee is that we may hear the contributions of thoughtful members from ridings that have this kind of situation so that we can seek a solution that will be equitable to everybody. I agree with the hon. member that it is not entirely equitable now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

Len Marchand: that Bill C-23, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement, be read the third time and do pass.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, may I call it 10.30 p.m.?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being 10.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.


END OF VOLUME VI