1967-10-30

Mr. David MacDonald (Prince) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-176, to amend the Food and Drugs Act (labelling of dates on perishable commodities).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable the consumer when shopping for food, drugs, cosmetics or other perishables to determine accurately that the product he or she buys will be as fresh as depicted by the advertising, labelling and packaging. It is becoming increasingly difficult, due to modern packaging methods, for the shopper to determine whether his or her selection has been on the retailer's shelf, in storage or transit for some time, thus causing the product to be at best stale and on some occasions injurious to health.
This bill would require all perishable products to be clearly marked as to the date the product was manufactured or produced and the ultimate date to which the product in question may be used without any danger to health.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Lambert: As of June 15, 1967, how many persons in the employ of (a) the public service of Canada (b) the armed services (c) crown corporations or agencies, were being paid salary or pay and allowances, or emoluments in the following categories (i)	$18,000-120,000 per annum (ii) $20,000-$25,000
per annum (iii) $25,000-$35,000 per annum (iv) $35,000 and up per annum?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: (a) (i) 922, (ii) 576, (iii) 33, (iv) nil. (b) (i) 157,
(ii)	53, (iii) 10, (iv) nil. (c) (i) 274, (ii) 162,
(iii)	32, (iv) 9.
Air Canada, the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation and Polymer Corporation advise that it has not been considered in the best interests of their respective corporations to disclose data on employees' earnings other than what is available through the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.


CHANGE IN COST OF LIVING INDEX
Mr. Crouse: Is the government planning to make any changes in the cost of living index from its present 1949 base equalling 100 to a more recent year?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics is planning to update the consumer price index for Canada and the ten regional city consumer price indexes to a time reference base of 1961 equals 100. The change to the 1961 time base is expected to be completed before mid-1968. It will involve simply the arithmetic conversion of the present 1949-based series to the new base year and will not alter the movements of consumer prices as measured in the existing consumer price indexes. No changes in the content and relative importance of items in the indexes are contemplated at this time. The change to the new reference year conforms with the Dominion Bureau of Statistics policy of periodically updating indexes to more current periods.


WESTMINSTER HOSPITAL, LONDON, ONT.
Mr. Irvine: 1.	In connection with Westminster hospital, London, Ontario, what is the total land acreage of this property?
2.	What is the total floor area of (a) patients rooms, etc. (b) operating areas (c) recreation areas (d) dining and lounge areas (e) staff and employee living quarters in main buildings (f) staff quarters in separate dwellings?
3.	What was the total cost during 1966 of (a) heating (b) snow removal (c) major repairs (d) general upkeep?

October 30, 1967
Questions
4.	What was the total over-all cost of operating this facility during 1966 exclusive of depreciation factor?
5.	What is the estimated value of the hospital including all buildings and equipment?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. 313.94 acres.
2.	(a) 183,500 net sq. ft., (b) 2,900 net sq. ft., (c) 30,670 net sq. ft., (d) 28,100 net sq. ft., (e) 66,000 net sq. ft., (f) 29 housing units for family accommodation.
3.	(a) $328,081. (b) $16,000 estimated, (c) $79,675. (d) $410,691 (not including housekeeping expenses of approximately $681,000).
4.	$8,212,237.
5.	Estimated value of: buildings, $18,543,000; land, $446,175; equipment and furnishings, $1,200,000. Total $20,189,175.


ELDORADO MINING CO. IN QUEBEC
Mr. Caoueiie: 1.	Has the government or any crown corporation received from Sidbec or the government of Quebec a request for assistance in financing the Quebec steel complex and, if so, what was the answer?
2.	Has Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd. done any prospecting in Quebec to determine if the subsoil contains uranium?
3.	If it is not prospecting and has never done so, what is the reason?
4.	Have the crown corporations, Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd., Eldorado Aviation Ltd., and Northern Transportation Ltd., official names in French?
5.	If so, what is the official name in French of each?
6.	If not, is there some reason?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Eldorado's prospecting activities have been limited by direction of the government to the areas immediately adjacent to its Saskatchewan property.
4.	No.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Eldorado Mining and Refining Ltd., and Eldorado Aviation Ltd., do not operate in areas where there is any significant French speaking population. However, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is exploring with the head of these companies the possibility of adopting equivalent French names. Northern Transportation Company Limited

does not have an official name in French because the company does not operate in an area where there is any significant French speaking population.


AGREEMENTS RESPECTING ELIMINATION OF RIVER POLLUTION
Mr. Bell (Carlefon): 1.	Has an agreement been concluded between the government of Canada, the government of Quebec and the corporation of the city of Quebec to share the cost of eliminating pollution in the St. Charles river?
2.	If so (a) what precisely are the obligations and undertakings of the government of Canada in relation thereto, and (b) what is the estimated cost to the federal treasury of each of these obligations and undertakings?
3.	Has the government considered a similar program of joint action with the government of Ontario, the government of Quebec, the national capital commission and various municipalities in Ontario and Quebec to eliminate pollution in the Ottawa river?
4.	If so (a) what discussions have been held (b) with what result?
5.	If not, will the government of Canada now consider taking the initiative in anti-pollution measures on the Ottawa river?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: 1. There is an agreement dealing with the provision of structures to control water level for navigation purposes between the outlet of the river and the Scott bridge, a distance of approximately three miles. The responsibility for elimination of pollution rests with the province of Quebec.
2.	(a) The federal government undertakes to build a dam at the outlet of the river and to share in the construction of retaining walls along the shores, (b) The dam is estimated at $1,500,000 totally financed by the federal government. The retaining walls are estimated at $16,000,000 of which $8,000,000 is to be provided by the federal government.
3.	No. The project referred to in answer to 1 above, relating to the St. Charles river, is not to eliminate pollution. The agreement between the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec, which is in the French language, specifies that:
Whereas the province has agreed to assume all responsibilities with respect to the following field, to wit:
To co-ordinate drainage studies relating to sewage flowing into the St. Charles river and to take the necessary steps in order to eliminate pollution sources in that river.
October 30. 1967

4.	See part 3.
5.	The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources wrote to the responsible ministers of Ontario and Quebec and, in line with a proposal made last May to the Canadian council of resource ministers, stated that the federal government would be prepared to enter into an agreement with the provinces of Ontario and Quebec under which the federal government would pay the full cost of a pilot study of the Ottawa river leading to the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the abatement and control of pollution.
Questions


AEROMAGNETOMETER SURVEY
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much of the $18,000,000, aeromagnetometer survey launched in 1962 has been completed?
2.	What has been the scale of expenditure in each province and in the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories?
3.	What significant mineral areas have been located by the survey?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: 1.	Approximately 40 per cent.
2.
Province or territory	Provincial share	Federal shareNewfoundland	-	325,604.00Nova Scotia	-	-New Brunswick	14,678.00	14,678.00P.E.I.	-	-Quebec	750,000.00	750,000.00Ontario	721,368.00	721,368.00Manitoba	618,365.00	618,365.00Saskatchewan	387,950.00	387,950.00Alberta	95,565.00	95,565.00British Columbia	220,196.00	220,196.00Yukon Territory	-	445,697.00N.W.T.: Dist. of Franklin (Polar Shelf and Baffin Island	_	549,690.00District of Mackenzie	-	967,564.00District of Keewatin	-	483,782D0Total	$2,808,122.00	$5,580,459.00
3. Exploration of the New Brunswick base metal complex was started indirectly by airborne magnetic surveys. Iron occurrences associated with schists and porphyries coincide with magnetic anomalies which, on prospecting, turned up sulphide deposits.
In northern Ontario, federal-provincial aeromagnetic surveys were responsible for the discovery of the Moose river aeromagnetic belt. Within this belt Consolidated Morrison and Imperial Oil have discovered a carbon-atite with a large tonnage of columbium oxide.
In British Columbia it has been reported that the aeromagnetic data led to exploration on Cariboo Bell Copper property where a copper deposit was discovered.
The first diamond drill hole in the Matta-gami camp which intersected copper values was drilled by New Hosco Mines Limited in a magnetic anomaly.


GRAIN SHIPMENTS THROUGH CHURCHILL
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many bushels of grain have been shipped through Port Churchill each year since 1960, and what kind of grains have been involved and in what quantities?
2.	What is the total cost of the diversion charge on these grains, and what is the reason for the diversion charge?
3.	What has been the total tonnage of incoming freight through Port Churchill each year since 1960?

October 30, 1967
Questions


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1.
Loadings of grain at the port of Churchill in international and coastwise shipping, 1960-66
International shipping	Coastwise shipping
Year	Commodity	Tons	Bushels2 ('000)	Tons	Bushels ('000)1960	Wheat	591,224	197,075	1,666	551961	Wheat	581,862	193,954	5,586	1861962	Wheat Oats	640,737	213,579	2,505	1471963	Wheat Oats	650,589	216,863	1,872	1101964	Wheat Oats	649,239	216,413	1,300	761965	Wheat Oats	738,182	246,061	969	5719661	Wheat Oats	655,756	218,585	2,001	117
11966 data is preliminary.
2 conversion of tons to bushels based on average of 60 pounds per bushel for wheat and 34 pounds per bushel for oats.
2.	The total amount of diversion charges paid by the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of grain shipped through the port of Churchill in each navigation season from 1960 to 1966
is as follow:
Churchill shipping season
1961
1963
1965
Diversion charge on country shipments direct to Churchill $269,310.28 275,183.66 302,032.29 341,486.56 323,259.98 295,367.89 326,877.91
Under terms of a handling agreement negotiated annually with all elevator companies, a diversion charge is paid by the Canadian Wheat Board on wheat shipped by elevator companies from their country elevators directly to the port of Churchill for export.
A diversion charge is a charge assessed by an elevator company when grain shipped from one of its country elevators is diverted from that company's terminal elevator to another destination. Elevator companies con-[Mr. Dinsdale.l
sider that their country and terminal elevators operate as an entity, and terminal revenues are an important factor in determining the basis upon which country elevators can be operated. Therefore, it has been a long established trade practice that when a company loses terminal handling on grain as a result of the diversion of a country elevator shipment to a destination other than the company's terminal, a diversion charge is assessed to compensate for the loss of terminal earnings.
3.	Incoming (unloaded) freight through the port of Churchill in international and coastwise shipping, 1960-66'
Tonnage unloaded International Coastwise
Year	shipping	shipping	Total1960	71,873	218	72,0911961	34,961	17,963	52,9241962	52,730	12,992	65,7221963	57,709	159	57,8681964	37,775	1,839	39,6141965	20,269	95	20,3641966	17,493	271	17,764
'1966 data is preliminary.
October 30, 1967


WHEAT PRICES AND DELIVERIES
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	What was the closing date of the C.W.B. pool for 1966-67?
2.	What was the average weekly price for the following grades from that date to the present time: 1 Nor.; 2 Nor.; 3 Nor.; 4 Nor.; 1 A. Durum; 2 A. Durum; 3 A. Durum; 4 A. Durum?
3.	What was the total delivery to elevator from new pool to July 31, 1967, by grades?
4.	What were deliveries of each of these grades from August 1 to the present time?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (for the Minisler of Trade and Commerce):: 1. The 1966-67 Canadian Wheat Board pool has not been closed.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	The Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada reports receipts of 83.0 million bushels of wheat at country elevators in the prairies in the period August 1 to October 11. The grades of this wheat are not established by the Board of Grain Commissioners until it has been delivered to terminal positions and for this reason it is not possible to provide a breakdown of the grades which have been delivered so far this crop year. However, this information will be compiled by the Canadian Wheat Board and included in their annual report for the 1967-68 crop year.


FEDERAL-QUEBEC AGREEMENT ON TOURIST DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Latulippe: Is there any agreement between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec as to tourist developments and, if so, what is the nature of this agreement?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The one formal agreement concerns encouragement of interprovincial travel. An exchange of correspondence in December,
1964,	with all of the provinces sets forth an arrangement whereby the federal government agrees to match dollars with the provinces for advertising programs within Canada to specified amounts. The government of the province of Quebec agreed to the formula and the following amounts were allocated to Quebec:
1965,	$25,000; 1966, $33,000; 1967, $33,000.
There is continuing liaison and co-operation
between the Canadian Government Travel Bureau and the ministry of tourism in Quebec. The Canadian Government Travel Bureau stocks and distributes Quebec provincial
Questions
literature, refers all inquiries concerning Quebec, and consults with the provinces concerning advertising and promotion programs in United States and European markets.


CANADIAN AND FOREIGN BUILT AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forreslall: What is the current ratio, with figures, between the number of Canadian-built aircraft, of all types, and foreign-built aircraft at present in service with the Canadian forces?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: As of 1 October, 1967, there were 1328 aircraft in service with the Canadian forces. Of these, 945 were built in Canada, and 383 in foreign countries, a ratio of 2.5 to 1.


OTTAWA RESTRICTION ON BUILDING HEIGHTS
Mr. Bell (Carleton): Will the government consider making immediate representations to the corporation of the city of Ottawa to the effect that no amendments should be made to the municipal by-law governing the height of buildings in the centre of the national capital until the proposed special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the national capital has had the opportunity of considering the effect of high-rise buildings upon the architectural dominance of the peace tower and the parliament buildings generally?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the government will not be making representations in the form suggested in the question. However, the government is very much concerned about this subject and is maintaining close liaison with the various persons concerned in the municipal government with a view to maintaining limits on building heights such that the architectural significance of the peace tower and the parliament buildings generally will not be diminished.


MANPOWER RETRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Allmand: Is there any law or regulation which limits the manpower retraining program to persons of a certain age or a certain education?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Adult Occupational Training Act provides that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration may purchase occupational training for a person whose age is at least one year greater than the regular school leaving age in the province in which he resides. There

October 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry are no federal legislative requirements as to education. Many training courses have varying minimum requirements, determined by the educational authorities concerned, as to the qualifications of the trainees who may be enrolled.


POST OFFICE IMPROVEMENTS, ROUYN, QUE.
Mr. Caoueite: Are any repairs and improvements being considered for the Rouyn post office?


George James McIlraith: Yes, certain minor interior changes are proposed.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Allard: 1.	How much money was spent in each province, in detail, by the National Research Council in 1966 for research grants and scholarships?
2.	What are the other federal research institutions in addition to the National Research Council?
3.	How much money was spent in each province, in detail, by the Canada Council in 1966 on research grants and scholarships?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN CENTENNIAL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenteuil-Deux-Moniagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.

Now that Expo '67 has happily come and sadly gone, and in view of the fact that Expo has brought to Canada the attention and respect of every country in the world, would the Prime Minister consider setting aside one day to honour the one who is basically responsible for its success, the Canadian citizen, by proclaiming a Canadian citizens' day, possibly on Friday, December 29, so that 20 million citizens may wind up centennial year by taking this one day to declare in unison "Je suis fier d'etre un Canadien."


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting suggestion indeed, and I shall be glad to consider it.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, having to do with Expo. I ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Secretary of State, whether any consideration is being given by the government to the use of the building known as the broadcasting centre, the administration building-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It was brought to the attention of the Chair just recently that the type of question now asked by the hon. member is not, strictly speaking, a supplementary question. It is a related question. The hon. member may ask it later on when he is recognized by the Chair.


NOVA SCOTIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the press release issued last Friday after the conference between representatives of the federal and Nova Scotia governments, can the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce inform the house whether Dosco has agreed to open its books to consultants, as mentioned in the press release, and whether such consultants have already been appointed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen reports to that effect based on conversations with the premier of Nova Scotia. We hope these reports are accurate, but we have not ourselves yet heard from the premier of Nova Scotia on that particular matter.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The press release referred to April 30-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and remind him that it is not in order to ask about the accuracy or otherwise of press statements. The hon. member should ask the question directly.


David Lewis: I was not going to ask about the accuracy of the press statement, Mr. Speaker; I was merely trying to make my question better understood. Has the federal government made any commitments regarding the continuation of operation of the Sydney plant beyond April 30 next year, or is the commitment limited to that date?
October 30, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no commitment made. No government could make that commitment. But we are discussing the matter with the provincial government.


Hon. Michael Starr (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of his answer a week ago, when I asked whether the government was formulating any plans to bring forward at a meeting with Dosco, has the government now completed these plans and when is it meeting with Dosco to put forward any alternatives it might have?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the meetings that are taking place with Dosco are being sponsored by the provincial government, and they are reporting to us the results of their meetings with Dosco.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government intends to initiate any meetings with Dosco and bring forward any plans it might have as a result of what has occurred.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not directly but through the provincial government. We are being kept informed of discussions with Dosco.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In these discussions with Dosco is the government taking any steps to make sure that the pensions paid by Dosco to its retired employees will be continued even if the operation is phased out?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no doubt that factor is being considered by those taking part in the discussions.


Michael Starr: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government has any plans whatsoever to improve the situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, or we would not have been discussing the matter with the provincial government for many hours last Friday.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Halifax):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as the minister with whom the provincial authority is keepinquiries of the Ministry ing in touch with respect to the Dosco situation. Having regard to recent lay-offs and the concern expressed by the Halifax Welfare Council, can the minister advise the house whether Dosco has given any indication, in any of the discussions which have been held, with regard to the future of the two yards at the port?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This has not been a matter of discussion with the provincial government.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
The minister is no doubt aware of the proposed lay-off on November 1 by the Canadian National Railways of several hundred employees, including 22 in my riding. Could he tell us whether he and his department have taken steps to prevent these layoffs?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Immediately on hearing this news I got in touch with the management of the Canadian National Railways, and they have advised me that the current reductions are part of the normal, continuing process of adjusting the size of the work force to meet the varying employment requirements. The fact is that train movements this year are down very substantially below those in the same period last year. Generally speaking, railway employment rises and falls in accordance with the work load resulting from such factors as seasonal needs, weather conditions, timing and progress in respect of capital projects, developing types of competition, operating and equipment requirements to meet traffic demands.
The government and the management of the C.N.R. are sensitive to the hardships which might result from work force adjustments and will take whatever steps are possible to improve the situation. It must be realized, of course, that unless operating costs are kept under control the company's competitive position will be jeopardized and along with it the continuing livelihood of all the employees.

October 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Has the minister contacted the department of manpower in regard to finding jobs for those C.N.R. part time employees who will be laid off in November after 10, 15 or 17 years of service? Is the Minister of Transport in touch with the department of manpower to allow those people to keep on working?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of that situation. At the present time we cannot provide employment or retraining for those people because we do not know their names yet, especially in those places where seniority is taken into account and, in the railways, it is. We are following the situation very closely and all our services will be available to those employees.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. I should like to ask whether he has received a request from the mayor of Moncton inviting him to attend a citizens meeting in that city tonight with regard to the 450 employees who are being laid off by the C.N.R. in the Atlantic area. If so, is he or are his officials planning to attend that meeting?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: To the best of my knowledge it has not been received, Mr. Speaker. Certainly it has not yet been brought to my attention.


Robert Carman Coates: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and ask him whether he has received such an invitation?


Jean Marchand: I have received a wire from the mayor of Moncton.


Robert Carman Coates: May I ask the minister what are his intentions? Does he or do his officials intend to attend this meeting?


Jean Marchand: As soon as we know who are the individuals who are to be laid off we will take steps to find other jobs for them, or to help them in any other way. However, I wish to say that in this case what I said concerning private corporations, also applies. I think that in the case of a massive lay-off such as this one, longer notice should be given.


Michael Starr: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister of manpower say whether he has conferred with the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet as to whether they will take some strong steps to bring to the attention of these-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: I think my question has been asked.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Red Deer.


David Réal Caouette: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will have the opportunity later to put a supplementary question on this subject.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration ?
The minister was saying a while ago that the lay-off notice should be longer and I agree with him. Now, since the Canadian National is a crown corporation, is the government or the minister thinking about giving a more adequate notice to the employees now laid off and who will be without a job within one day?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that that was a problem, not only for the C.N.R. but for all companies.
Now, you will understand that, in this area there are several companies under provincial jurisdiction and it is not up to us to set the rules for them. The problem remains nevertheless. It is sure that we cannot act before tomorrow or before November 1.


MEMBER FOR LAPOINTE-RAISING OF FUNDS IN FOREIGN COUNTRY FOR SEPARATISTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the fact that one of our number, the hon. member for Lapointe, is presently in a foreign country to raise money for the specific purpose of financing the separatist cause
October 30, 1967	COMMONS
which has as its objective the destruction of the nation of Canada, to which he and all of us have sworn our allegiance. If he is aware, what is being done about these seditious activities?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am only aware of what I read in the newspapers. These reports, I must say, are rather unusual in so far as the conduct of a member of this house is concerned.


David Réal Caouette: (Villeneuve): Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) said that at least five liberal members here would join his movement on November 22.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to give us the names of those Liberal members?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not one of them, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: May I ask the
Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the government's attitude toward federal representation at the confederation for tomorrow conference, and whether he and his colleagues have now decided upon ministerial representation. Would the Prime Minister also be good enough to inform the house of the names of the persons who are to represent parliament and the government of Canada at this very significant conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in our attitude toward federal representation at this provincial conference. I will be able, I think, to announce the names of the federal observers tomorrow.


Richard Albert Bell: May I ask a supplementary question. I take it from the Prime Minister's answer that it has been decided finally there will not be ministerial representation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	3615
Inquiries of the Ministry HIGHWAY SAFETY


RECALL OF DEFECTIVE VEHICLES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: The Minister of Transport took the following question as notice last Friday, and I put it to the minister again today. Has there been any communication between the government and the motor vehicle industry relating to the massive recall of cars last week from Canadian roads?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am sorry but I did not have sufficient time this morning, because of the urgency of other matters, to check that question. I will try to have a reply for my hon. friend tomorrow.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: May I ask a supplementary question. I should like to welcome the Minister of Transport back, and I notice that he is again dealing with these matters of priority. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to check into the urgent matter of the less than carload rates-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not a supplementary question.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May I address a most urgent question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister been advised of the closing of the Victoria Machinery Depot, the first shipyard in British Columbia, as a result of its purchase by the Burrard Dry dock Company? The president made a statement to the effect the closure resulted from the failure of the government to carry through with coastguard construction commitments and the refusal to give contracts to British Columbia shipyards because of lower standards and lower prices in the east. Will the minister please advise us what the situation is regarding shipbuilding in British Columbia and the coastguard contract in particular?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the hon. member is covering a great deal of ground in his question. He is asking the minister to make a general statement on shipbuilding policy. I would not think the question is in order.

October 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Winch: May I then ask the question in a different way. Will the minister please advise this house whether consideration has been given to the coastguard construction program, and whether that has any bearing on the sale of the original Victoria Machinery Depot?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question should be put on the order paper.


Mr. Ron Basford (Vancouver-Burrard):: believe the question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver East is of very great importance to the people on the west coast.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked for an explanation of an event that has already occurred, and I do not think any answer to the question today would change the situation to which the hon. member has alluded.


Harold Edward Winch: Then may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Are any coastguard contracts under contemplation for the British Columbia shipyards?


Mr. Speaker:: This question should also be placed on the order paper.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister received a wire from Mr. Harold Husband regarding sale of shipbuilding facilities at the Victoria Machinery Depot and protesting cancellation of the construction of two coastguard vessels for use on the west coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Obviously the hon. member is referring, if I understand the question well, to the matter raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I do not think it is in order simply to ask whether a wire has been received; that matter is not urgent.


Stanley Ronald Basford: With all due respect-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat and take notice of the fact that, according to the rules, if he feels he has been aggrieved and the matter is urgent he can give notice to the Chair and the matter can be discussed within a few hours, at the time of adjournment.


Harold Edward Winch: My question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and is 
addressed to him in his capacity as minister of manpower. Can he inform the house of any action being taken by his office on Vancouver island or Victoria for the placement of the 150 skilled employees who are being laid off owing to the sale of the Victoria Machinery Depot Company Limited to the Burrard Dry Dock Company Limited in Vancouver.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire into this matter and report tomorrow or the following day.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister of external affairs, but in his absence I will address it to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister now in a position to state whether he has yet received a formal protest or communication from Washington with regard to the proposed 12 mile limit? If so, can he say what was the nature of the protest, and can he inform the house as to the nature of Canada's reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think I will have to look into that question to see whether there have been any exchanges since the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke on the subject last Friday.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister also be so kind as to check with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when we might expect an announcement about the location of the base lines on the Pacific coast?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. This is a very complicated element in the whole situation, of course.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will now ask the Prime Minister about various buildings at Expo, namely
October 30, 1967	COMMONS
the broadcasting centre, administration building and theatre. Is consideration being given to the use of these buildings as a nucleus for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Montreal complex, thus saving many millions of dollars?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member would not agree that this is a matter which ought not to be asked at this time by way of verbal question. If the hon. member thinks there is urgency the matter can be discussed at the time of adjournment.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: Ten o'clock.


FREIGHT RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I should like to ask him whether he has any information to provide the house about what action the government is taking either to have the railways rescind the recently announced 1,000 per cent freight rate increase on cream shipments or to assist the producers and processors who will be put out of business if no action is taken on this freight rate increase by the railways.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon.
member that he is asking a question which has reference to general policy. I think it should be placed on the order paper.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, the urgency of the question stems from the fact that these rates will become effective on November 2; and unless some action is taken immediately, in view of the way answers have been given to questions which are put on the order paper, I believe these producers will suffer hardship.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to give notice to consider the matter at ten o'clock this evening.


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF NEW NON-CARLOAD RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he shed any further light on the questions asked earlier last week about a meeting of the government, Canadian National Railways and those affected by existing l.c.l. freight rates in the Atlantic area?
DEBATES	3617
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I was meeting with the railways again this morning, and I think there is some possibility of a suggestion which might be of some usefulness. I think perhaps that it would be better if I did not elaborate until the details of the proposal have been worked out.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Might we expect the minister to be in a position to advise the house of these details this week or early next week?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think it would take a few days to be in a position to advise the house, because the matter would have to be referred to the government for decision. That would take a few days, even if the matter were handled most expeditiously.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask the Minister of Transport to ascertain whether the recent C.N.R. lay-offs in Moncton are related in any way to the new rate increase and the drastic falling off of traffic in the maritimes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, I shall be glad to inquire into that, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldf-Melforf-Tis-dale):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that the United States is flooding the Canadian market with turkeys which are sold here at prices below the cost of production in the United States? Is the minister now prepared to put into effect an anti-dumping duty with respect to these turkey imports?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: I have been advised of this. As I informed the house on Friday, I believe, we are meeting with the turkey producers. Other government departments which are directly concerned with questions of trade and tariffs are also investigating the matter to see if special action is warranted.


Reynold Rapp: I hope the minister will not delay this investigation, because if he waits all the United States turkeys which are to be exported will have been exported to Canada.


John James Greene: I can assure the hon. gentleman that we shall act as quickly as possible to save his turkey.

October 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry AIR CANADA


WINNIPEG-OPERATION OF OVERHAUL BASE TO BE CONTINUED
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: My
question is to the Minister of Transport. In the light of the minister's statement in Winnipeg regarding the Air Canada base, is the minister to meet with the Air Canada management to work out the implementation of the commitment he made there?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are working on it, Mr. Speaker.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to ask him whether he is prepared to make a statement at an early date about the 600-odd United States draft dodgers in Canada. In that statement will he inform the house whether those draft dodgers came to Canada as immigrants, as visitors, or in some other capacity. Also, what has been the average length of their stay in Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we have never been supplied by anybody with a list of draft dodgers who are in Canada.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister has had any communication with Mark Satin, who is himself a draft dodger and director of the Toronto anti-draft program. He could probably give the minister a list of these people.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: The people of Saskatoon are waiting with bated breath for a reply from the Prime Minister regarding their television station. I wonder whether he has consulted his colleagues and is prepared to reply to the queries about this station.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am discussing this matter this afternoon. I hope these discussions will be completed tomorrow and that I shall be able to reply on Wednesday. I know my hon. friend has waited for this reply for a long time.


Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hope favourable consideration will be given to satellites for this station.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation, and I expect that it has been noted.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCES ACCEPTING INVITATION TO ATTEND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Norih):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. Have the two provinces which, when I raised this matter some two weeks ago, had not accepted his invitation to the federal-provincial conference to be held early in the new year now accepted it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall have to check to see whether letters have come in. I have been informed verbally that both provinces will attend, but I am not sure whether their letters have arrived yet.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Is the introduction of the universal medical care plan, which was the subject of legislation passed in this house, on the agenda for that conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Scott Harkness: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the subject is not to be discussed with the provinces at this federal-provincial meeting, when is it to be discussed with them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the question is not to be discussed that soon, I assume the question might be placed on the order paper.


Douglas Scott Harkness: It may be that that matter will be discussed in the next week or so. I do not know. That is why I wanted the Prime Minister to inform the house about it.


Richard Albert Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister arrange to lay on the table of the
October 30, 1967	COMMONS
house and perhaps, as is customary, to have printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings the correspondence there has been with the provinces on this important subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have no objection. I shall get in touch with the provinces to see whether they will agree to that.


WHEAT-REPRESENTATION AT CONFERENCE ON SALE TO CHINA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: My
question is for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will he or other members of the government attend the conference between members of the Canadian Wheat Board and the Chinese delegation, to be held at Hong Kong for the purpose of selling grain to China?


Hon. Roberl Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I shall certainly attend if my attendance is necessary. However, the negotiations in the first instance will be carried on by members of the Canadian Wheat Board which is the government's official selling agency.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Since grain is not being moved off farm or elevator points in western Canada, would the minister check to see whether grain can be delivered to the government elevators at Moose Jaw and Saskatoon, which have a large capacity?


Robert Henry Winters: I do not accept the first part of that statement, and I shall look into the latter part.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of continuing reports in Ottawa that certain forces in the government are at work to postpone the implementation of medicare, will the Prime Minister give parliament and the country an unequivocal assurance now that so far as his government is concerned, medicare will go into effect on July 1, 1968?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating a question which was asked in almost precisely the same terms two or three days ago.


Reid Scott: But was it answered?
DEBATES	3619
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


REPORTED DISCOVERY OF ARMS ON ISRAELI SHIP IN CANADIAN PORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Perhaps he might take it as notice. Can the right hon. gentleman advise the house whether arms have been found on board the Israeli sh p Nahariya, which was taking on lumber at the port at Pictou, Nova Scotia, on Friday last? If such is the case has the minister any information to give the house on this matter, and can he tell us what action the government has taken? I ask this in the light of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to my hon. friend from Kamloops on Friday last.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the matter.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to address a question to the President of the Privy Council. I wish to ask him what steps he has taken to prevent the take-over of Laura Secord by Fanny Farmer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.


Hon. Walter Gordon (President of the Privy Council):: Pity. I wanted to give the hon. gentleman a sweet answer.


REQUEST FOR PROHIBITION OF L.S.D. AND OTHER HALLUCINOGENS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to answer the question I asked him some days ago in the house in connection with marijuana and psychedelic drugs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Having regard to the severe shortage
3620

October 30, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry of teachers at the Canadian forces language school at St. Jean, Quebec, would the minister consider using qualified reserve officers to fill the vacancies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question should be placed on the order paper.


REPRESENTATION OF PRODUCERS ON TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On October 11 I asked the hon. gentleman a
question concerning the desirability of having representatives of the producers or grain farmers on the special subcommittee which is investigating the operations of the railway companies particularly in connection with grain marketing in western Canada. I wonder whether the hon. gentleman has an answer for me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I have an answer, but I do not have it with me today. I am sorry; I will bring it
tomorrow.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: had a question for the Postmaster General. In his absence perhaps another minister might reply or take it as notice. Is it the intention, as reported on the radio news this morning, to reduce the postal service to a five day week basis?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the office of the Postmaster General that there is a denial that any such statement was made. However, the Postmaster General will be here himself tomorrow.


WATER RESOURCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georgs Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs; in his absence one of his parliamentary secretaries might take it as notice and give me an answer tomorrow. Has the government now received a report of the International Joint Commission on the Pembina 
river development project and, if so, is the government prepared to ratify the agreement as recommended by the commission in its report?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have reason to believe that the report is now in the hands of the government. The answer could be given orally to me tomorrow, if this were permissible.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: My question is directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the hon. gentleman aware that though many government agencies are compiling statistical data, none of them is compiling data with respect to the growing practice of the purchase of Canadian farmlands by groups other than Canadian, with the intention of operating them as non-residents?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question should be placed on the order paper.


IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lewis Mackenzie Brand: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that new immigration regulations came into effect on October 1, and since these regulations require certain applications to be made on special forms prescribed by the minister, is the hon. gentleman aware that many of the immigration offices across the country do not possess supplies of these forms; and will he do something to remedy this situation as soon as possible?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation at the moment. In any event I do not think this is the type of question which can be asked on orders of the day.


EXPO '67 REQUEST FOR FURTHER SHOWING OF FILM ON CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and I do so as a Canadian sentimentalist.
October 30, 1937

Some time ago I asked the right hon. gentleman what could be done to retain in Canada that most fantastic and magnificent film of Canada which was shown at Expo at the telephone pavilion. The Prime Minister was good enough to say that he had a personal interest in this matter and that something would be done. Four weeks have now passed, and perhaps he could tell us about the progress of negotiations to have this film retained in Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: These negotiations are progressing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Similar questions
have been asked by other hon. members and the Chair suggested that such questions could not be asked at this time. I therefore make the same suggestion to the hon. member for Vancouver East.


Harold Edward Winch: My question relates to an answer the Prime Minister gave me four weeks ago; I was asking whether negotiations had been completed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: They are not completed but they are progressing.


Frank Howard: May I ask
the Secretary of State whether she will make inquiries to see whether any negotiations are proceeding for the release of a film relating to Mr. Pearson?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is progressing, too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


PRINTING OF CLOSING SPEECHES AS &quot;HANSARD&quot; APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. This being the day after the closing of Expo, and in order that parliament might take note in its records of the very successful way in which this tremendous project was brought to a conclusion yesterday, would the Prime Minister consider asking the nouse to have the speeches which were made during the closing ceremonies printed as an appendix to Hansard? I am sure the right hon. gentleman would agree that the speeches were very good.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I would have no objection. I agree that the speeches were very good. Some, indeed, were excellent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The last speech was the best one.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


NORTHWESTERN QUEBEC-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MINING INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Has the minister, who visited the most beautiful constituency in Canada last weekend-namely my own-received any request for assistance from northwestern Quebec, faced at present with a precarious situation in the mining field?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: No, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister advise the house whether he has received any representations from fishermen in the area of Halifax harbour with regard to the placement of electronic equipment, buoys and so on, in the middle of the mackerel fishing area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Remembrance day, November 11, falls on a Saturday this year, has a decision been taken to allow a government holiday on Monday, November 13?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: With respect to the civil service no decision is necessary, because if a statutory-holiday falls on a non-working day the following working day is a holiday.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
of Industry for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1 will be found on page 238 of the blue book and the details of services on page 239.


DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,568,300.
Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks I should like to address to the minister on this occasion. He may perhaps recall that on November 4, 1964 I brought to his attention the matter of introducing into this country the metric system. He gave me what I thought was a very courteous hearing. I was endeavouring particularly to emphasize the point that if this system is to come into operation in this country, where it is not in use now except very slightly in a scientific way, a great deal of preparatory work will be required. My attention was directed to this matter at that time because Dr. Howlett had written an article which received a great deal of coverage. It emphasized to my mind the necessity for the introduction of this system. I tried to point out that based on my own experience I felt this was a very necessary and worth-while action, that it would simplify scientific work in the nation and would be of great help to the consumers who would find it would be much simpler to compare the cost of cans of food, butter and other articles that are commonly sold.
I had hoped that by this time in 1967, almost three years later, some evidence would be before us that the government had taken some steps to institute this system. I regret to say that I have seen none at all. I doubt that anybody else has either. This does not make the matter any less important. Therefore I should like to emphasize again, without going over all the evidence I did on that occasion, that the metric system is accepted practically all over the world. It would assist us greatly in our external trade and in the operation of business within the country if we used it. It would help the consumer and would help all students in this country because they would not be compelled to learn a very awkward and inefficient system. Instead, students could use a simple and efficient system in its place. I hope the minister will have some comments to make on this matter when he gets up to speak later in this debate.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon there was an attempt made on both sides of the house to discuss a serious situation in the
IThe Chairman.]
province of British Columbia. At the time I thought to myself that it really is closely connected with the business before us now. I should like to deal with it on the basis of the responsibility of this department and the minister for the situation which has arisen in the city of Victoria.
As was pointed out earlier today, the oldest shipbuilding firm on the west coast of Canada is closing at the end of the year having been sold to another shipbuilding firm, the Bur-rard Dry dock Company of North Vancouver. The new owners propose to shut down the firm in Victoria and cease its shipbuilding operations. In the announcement of the closure of this yard on the west coast the president, Mr. Harold Husband, reported he had had a report from a reliable source in Ottawa that the government was proposing to cancel its program for the building of vessels for the coastguard on the west coast of Canada. I do not know whether we shall ever be told what the policy of the government is in this regard or whether, as usual, we will have to wait for the evidence of its neglect to accumulate before our eyes.
What does strike me about this situation, however, is that not only has the government failed to go through with a program which has long been necessary but that there also is a much more serious failure on the part of the government to develop the Canadian economy. There is something fantastic and absurd in the spectacle of this very wealthy country apparently being unable to support a shipbuilding industry and unable apparently to support a merchant marine, when we compare Canada with that much smaller nation, Sweden, whose population is hardly more than one third that of Canada and which is today in the process of constructing new shipbuilding yards. We are not doing this for the simple reason, of course, that this government is not concerned about the development of a mature economy in Canada. It is much happier that the iron ore mined in the constituency of my seatmate, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, should be shipped to Japan. It is much happier not to have a steel industry established on the west coast and apparently is much happier that a gradual contraction is taking place on both sides of the country.
On the east coast the coal mines are being shut down and on the west coast shipbuilding is being shut down because the government has not undertaken its responsibilities with regard to the development of the Canadian economy. I am again reminded of
Ociober 30, 1967

the singular lack of enthusiasm displayed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when I asked him, at a meeting of the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs, whether he did not consider that the first duty of the government is to ensure the development of the Canadian economy. The minister said that it was one of the responsibilities of the government but that the government had to be concerned also about our export trade.
I suggest that events such as the one in Victoria indicate it is time the government began to accept the role that government must play in the modern world. It is no longer sufficient for government, as this government seems to want to do all the time, merely to go through the motions of being a referee between contending forces in our society. That age is gone. It now is time for the government to become a player in the economic game of the country.
Yesterday I was interested to learn through the press of a report, which emanated from mysterious sources in the same way all such reports do, to the effect that the government has in mind a role for the Canada Development Corporation which will be very different from that envisaged by the former minister of finance, the present President of the Privy Council. The report suggested that the Canada Development Corporation would play some part in the restructuring of Canadian industry for which members in this party have been pressing for two years now. I shall be interested to see how far the government will go in this regard. It may be that the government at last is awaking to the necessity to take action to develop our own economy.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I would suggest in respect of the closing of the Victoria Machinery Depot, which will take place apparently because the Burrard Drydock Company does not consider it worth keeping open inasmuch as the government has failed to go through with its plans for a coastguard service and is still leaving us dependent on the U.S. coastguard service, although in the face of an emergency it will couple together the air force, the towboat companies and various other interests, that the government should proceed with its program of coastguard vessel construction. I suggest it is time the government took a look at this situation. I suggest that as a first step it should re-establish the shipbuilding industry on the west coast and, for that matter, on the east coast, and that it should go through
Supply-Industry
with the coastguard vessel construction program. It should adopt a program of building new and more up to date vessels to service lighthouses and for buoy marking, which according to the report has also been cancelled. The government should take definite steps to encourage the development of a steel industry on the west coast of Canada where there are the natural resources to support it and where we obviously have a need for the steel that could be produced there.
One of the difficulties the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia has been facing is that in my province the workers com-mendably have been able to extract more satisfactory wages from their employers than workers in the same industry on the east coast and in central Canada have. Their wages are about a dollar an hour more than wages in eastern or central Canada. Even more important has been the cost of transporting components and steel supplies from central and eastern Canada. This is a clear indication that this government has abdicated its role of governing in the modern age and is going to let the whole economy wither on the vine. It merely exemplifies what a correspondent of mine had to say in a letter I received from him. He is a Canadian newspaper correspondent stationed abroad, and he remarked that in looking at his own country from abroad it occurred to him that the government is allowing the economy to veer like a tank completely out of control from one ditch to another in the hope it will be able to avoid complete catastrophe by doing nothing and by refusing to take the driver's seat in making the economy move forward in the twentieth century and into the twenty first.
It appears that this government is much more concerned about having this country as an adjunct or ancillary to our great friend next door. I am sure it considers there is something wrong in developing a forceful and viable economy of our own because it does nothing whatever to encourage it and everything to discourage it. This is just another example of the results of the government's inaction.
It is my hope that the government will not allow too many more plants to shut down because we are going to see a picture of despair in the form of the minister of manpower who valiantly tries to slip men into new slots as the slots they are now in close behind them. The slots are closing all over the country today and very soon the minister of manpower will be in the position of not being able to place these displaced people in

October 30. 1967
Supply-Industry
our economy, particularly if his colleagues who determine and control the over-all economy are permitted to have their way.
I hope the warning signals now flying in Nova Scotia and British Columbia alert the Canadian people to the dangers of leaving their affairs in the hands of a government which refuses to govern, a government, indeed, whose philosophy is that government is best when it does the least governing and interferes as little as possible. This is a government which is committed entirely to an outmoded doctrinaire system which no longer exists, that of free enterprise.
The people of Canada are now paying a huge price for this attitude and the people of my province are going to pay a very high price as a result of this example of governmental neglect to stabilize and remedy the situation that resulted in the closing of this shipyard. I am afraid this may only be the first in a series of closures which may result in the most drastic economic decline in Canada. This will surely happen unless the government finally summons the courage and intelligence to start governing and directing the economy, as only the government can in this day and age.
I have received telegrams from people in Victoria who are greatly distressed by this situation and hope we can do something to avert this local tragedy. I do not suppose we can avert it. I have no doubts whatever that the government knew very well it was not going to go ahead with the building program which might have kept this shipyard in existence. I have no doubt it has known this for many months but has done nothing about it. The government has not even warned the unfortunate victims of its folly, as was the case in respect of Dosco. If the government did not know this was going to happen, all I can say is, this is further proof that the government is thoroughly incompetent and unfit to control the affairs of Canada.


Mr. Bower:: 

the present rate of $4.29. To Halifax the rate is $11.76 compared with $3.19. To Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, the rate is $16.94 compared with the present rate of $4.60. To Sydney, where the furniture is transshipped to Newfoundland, the rate is to go from $5.36 to $17.78 for a chesterfield suite, that is, a chesterfield and a chair.
Rates like these will put this small plant and others like it out of business. They are not large enough to ship carload lots so they will be subjected to these exorbitant rates. I quote only these figures, Mr. Chairman, but there are in my area many other similar small enterprises which will be equally adversely affected. It seems to me that the Department of Industry should be equally as alert to prevent the demise of industries as it is to encourage new industry.
I come back to my original point, the one made by the hon. member for Bow River. I believe that the Minister of Industry should make it a point to play an effective role with his colleagues in seeing that these proposed freight rates are not put into effect. I again refer to the point made by the hon. member for Waterloo South and his criticism of allowing crises to occur. This is just the sort of thing that should be avoided, and I believe the province of Nova Scotia and probably all the maritime provinces will be very alert in watching to see what is done in this regard.
I should like to spend a moment discussing the fishery, the main industry of my area. Here again, through lack of co-ordination the growth of the industry is being severely circumscribed because of the lack of increased facilities in the infrastructure of the industry. I have here a copy of the Yarmouth newspaper with a picture of the public wharf just after it was built. I believe it was completed in 1964. The picture shows that there was at that time a normal amount of shipping around the wharf. A picture taken during the first week of October shows that you cannot see the wharf for ships. The seiners and trawlers are clustered around it, and in places these ships are six or seven deep. Obviously crowding to this extent inhibits efficient fishing operations. I take this opportunity of calling to the attention of the Minister of Industry the fact that here is an industry whose growth is being impeded by inadequate facilities. I also point out that this is occurring in an area where the economy is fragile.
The laying off of 70 or 80 men in a constituency such as mine, in an area such as the one in which the furniture factory to
Supply-Industry
which I have referred is located, is equivalent to the laying off of thousands in a larger area. I ask the Minister of Industry to make it a point in his dealings with his colleagues to emphasize the need to avoid freight rate increases that are out of all proportion and will have the effect of killing the existing industries that we have. I also emphasize the necessity of providing new facilities and the enlargement of existing facilities where this is necessary because of the growth of industry.


Reid Scott: Mr. Chairman, there are a few brief comments I should like to make in connection with these estimates. One of my colleagues say that is a refreshing change, but I understand there is agreement that these estimates will be passed by five o'clock and I know that other hon. members wish to participate in the debate. Therefore it is not possible, as I would have liked to have done, to review this interesting department, but I know how much the minister enjoys sitting in the house and listening in his genial, friendly and co-operative manner to comments from the opposition.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, I cannot but hark back to the birth of this department. It was an event likened to the coming of the second messiah. It was the great new department which was going to cure all our problems, rationalize all Canadian industry and implement adjustments in the automotive industry. It would also take care of any trade adjustments under the Kennedy round. In short, it would do everything in a wonderful way.
The minister has learned the great art practised in Otttawa. Not only does he know his way around as a former deputy minister but he has also developed the political techniques of how to build an empire. The size of this department has increased in a completely inverse ratio to its accomplishments. It has trebled in size. No matter what we on this side of the house say the minister goes about in a lively way surrounded by his prize whiz kids and determined to preserve his view that the opposition are a bunch of dunderheads who really do not know anything anyway. He merely tolerates us as his estimates go through the house.
I would have liked to go through his department in detail but we had a good go at it last time and I know the minister must get away. As I said, I am not sure it would be productive or that there would be any real purpose in doing so. As an empire builder
362S

October 30, 1987
Supply-Industry
the minister is wonderful. He has out-Cae-sared Caesar himself, at least so far as the growth of the department is concerned.
I want to say a word or two about the automotive pact which, as the minister knows, is my perennially favourite subject. If he does not have an opportunity to answer a couple of points I wish to raise, perhaps some of the departmental officials might send me some information about them if it exists. We are told on good authority that great pressure is being exerted by the United States government, the United States motor car companies and their subsidiaries in Canada for a drastic reduction in the Canadian content under the agreement with the possible goal of eliminating it entirely. If this is true we should know about it. It is not necessarily a bad thing if it is prepared for. If there is a sufficient competitive advantage on each side it may be a desirable end. However, I hope the government will not keep it a secret until the last moment as it has done with everything else under this agreement.
I hope the government will make this type of information available. I realize that at least in the initial years some built-in protection is perhaps necessary under the agreement but it may be that it is possible to reduce it later and perhaps in time remove it. I would like to hear the minister's comment in this regard. However, we know there is pressure from the United States and we should like to know its source and strength and the government's likely response to it.
I think that in one area the agreement has been a total failure. Everyone admits that employment has increased in the automotive industry and that because of changes dislocations are not as great as they were. In fact I think there was only one case this year. It occurred in the Chrysler company and it was not really serious. Of course we do not know whether the general expansion in the automotive industry would have taken place in any event. But in one area, that of prices, the agreement seems to be a failure.
When the agreement was approved by parliament some years ago one of its great selling points, both inside the house and more specifically outside the house as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, was that it would ultimately result in a reduction in prices and that the advantages given to the companies under the agreement would in a reasonable space of time be passed on to the public in the form of lower automobile prices. We heard of the $50 million which the

poor, debt-ridden General Motors Corporation and the others needed to build new plants. They needed it like a hole in the head but they got it just the same. The straw which was thrown to us was the statement that this would bring about lower prices. This did not happen. The public has been sold out by the government. Prices have not come down. The consumer has not benefited in any real way. The disparity in prices has not narrowed, as we were told it would, and the promise that the public would benefit has not been fulfilled.
Why does the minister not take the one obvious step which would accomplish this? For several years now we have asked the government to remove the tariff on automobile imports as it applies to individuals. It is true that the companies have this advantage, but why does he not give it to everyone else? This would be the most effective way of forcing the motor car companies to reduce their prices. If they did not want to do it all one would have to do if one lived near the border would be to drive over to Buffalo and buy a car there and the $200 one saved would give one a good week end while over there. I do not understand why the government continues to sell the public short and will not take any steps to remedy this situation.
The other question I should like to put to the minister is with regard to his position on trade adjustment assistance. To what degree is this matter dealt with by the Department of Trade and Commerce? We have been told for years now that Canada's salvation lies in the trade adjustments taking place under the Kennedy tariff cuts. We also know that in the short run this may well mean a significant hardship for Canadians. Many of our small industries which have grown up behind tariff walls will probably die when these walls are blown away by the new trade winds. We have never been able to get a commitment from the government for a trade adjustment act and genuine trade adjustment assistance. What is the position of the department in this regard?
I know that the Department of Industry has cannibalized many other departments to build its own staff but how will it co-ordinate its work with, for example, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Finance in order to convince not just the business community but labour and the municipalities which have just as big a stake in whatever industrial changes will take place? It is not good enough for the minister
October 30, 1967

to run around the country holding conferences with business alone. Municipalities have great investments in these communities and there is a great capital debt built up. Unions have the investment of their men in these communities. I would like to know how the department will deal with the whole problem of trade assistance under the Kennedy tariff proposals in the next year or two.
Finally, I cannot help but make reference to Dosco in view of the minister's speech the other day in which he spoke about focusing on specific economic and technological problems, etc. These are very nice and good words. We have heard them from him ever since the department was established. I was in Sydney before the last general election attending a nomination meeting. I went down there primarily out of interest in the area. The economic problems of Dosco, its rundown equipment, its lack of proper markets, and the unwillingness of the owners to modernize and to seek other products and other markets have been known for five years. This has been a known fact both in that area and in Ottawa. I should like to know whether the department is taking a look at sick industries and, if so, what kind of studies are being made.
These are the only points I wish to raise and I believe they are relevant to the future of this department. I have never been impressed with the department. I am told that half of the whiz kids sit around in utter frustration because there is no real cohesion, no real direction from the minister in assigning projects. I know that many provincial representatives have given up because they cannot find what the department is studying when they come down here to talk to the department. It is all very hush, hush.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There may be a place for this department. It seems to me that at the moment its status and its co-ordination with other important departments have not been defined, have not been effectively worked out. If we had the time I should like to spend a few hours with the minister asking him for more specific answers to some of these questions. As I say, the minister may be able to satisfy us on these points. I hope he will at least try. With these words we will let the minister go for another year.


Mr. Fulion:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a couple of questions to the minister, one of a general nature and one of a more specific nature.
Supply-Industry
I am bound to say also that in putting the questions I appreciate the fact that all members of the committee are in the same difficult position as I am because of the ridiculous 30-day limitation on the discussion of supply. We find now that we have two and a half days left for discussion of the estimates of several important departments. A number of members make general remarks as well as asking specific questions. These take the whole of the one day now allotted to each remaining department, so the minister is able to ride it out comfortably by simply sitting there and not dealing with our questions. Then, if there are any objections that by the end of the day he has not answered any questions, he says there were so many members who had things to say, that he wanted to hear everything they had to say, and the time allowed expired before he was able to answer questions.
The result will be that members who have had serious questions to ask are left without answers as a result of these rules. Another result of this situation will be that some time Thursday hundreds of millions of dollars, probably billions of dollars of estimates will be passed in a few minutes, the subject matter of many of which have not even been referred to, let alone discussed in committee of supply. Discussion of the estimates will be closed and scores, if not hundreds, of questions that have been asked will be left unanswered.
As I say, the Minister of Industry is not responsible for this rule. However, I feel it is important we should point up the situation as I am doing now, because the position it leaves this committee of supply in has now been amply demonstrated so that it should be obvious to everybody that the continuation of this rule should neither be sought nor acceded to if it is sought. In addition, I should like to suggest to the minister with regard to his current estimates that he should consider following the course of answering questions as they are addressed to him, even although there may be other speeches to be made later and other questions to be asked later.
This brings me to my question. I should like to ask the minister if he can tell us whether any appreciable change is contemplated at the moment in the list or composition of the designated areas across the country? I may as well tell the minister that there have been rumours that he is contemplating making an important statement in the very near future in which he will say that a review has been made and the situation of a
3628

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
number ol designated areas has improved to the point where they can now be-how will I put it-de-designated. I am asking the minister whether in fact he is contemplating any such move. If so, will he take the committee into his confidence today by giving us a list of such areas and a summary of the progress made as well as the reasons these areas are to be removed from the list?
Second, I should like to renew a request I made of the minister with regard to my own area of Kamloops and particularly the district of Merritt within that area. In my constituency, sir, we are immediately adjacent to another splendid area of British Columbia, the Okanagan valley. I should make it clear that the Thompson valley in which Kamloops is and the Okanagan valley are contiguous but they are not the same, although their physical, geographic and economic bases are very much the same. However, we find ourselves in my district in a non-desig-nated area whereas the Okanagan-I may say to everybody's surprise including initially that of the premier of the province-is at least the first of not the only area of British Columbia which was designated. I may say that Premier Bennett was greatly surprised to be told that his home town area, including Kelowna, was designated as the poorest or as having a standard of income lower than any other part of British Columbia. However, I believe Premier Bennett has been able to reconcile himself to that designation because it has been found to be of substantial benefit to the Okanagan.
But the result has been that industries which have been contemplating settling somewhere in the interior of British Columbia have, understandably, all gone to the Okanagan area. May I say to the minister in all sincerity that I have been asked to take up this matter by my constituents, not in the spirit of a dog in the manger saying that he should take designation from the Okanagan and give it to the Kamloops area. On the contrary, we are happy if it is helping them, but if you feel you must leave them as they are, then you must also designate the Kamloops area which has the same basic geographic and economic features.
There have been at least two specific instances which have concerned our people in the Kamloops area, where industries which had first been considering settling in Kamloops have been attracted to the Okanagan area by these various incentives. The two areas are only 70 miles apart, but as they have the same access to markets, the same
IMr. Fulton.]
availability of labour and so on, it is only natural that with the incentives the industries have gone to the Okanagan area. Kamloops businessmen are now having to compete with subsidized businesses in the Okanagan area.
Those people on whose behalf I am speaking are not resentful of the good fortune that has come to the Okanagan by virtue of being designated. We do say, however, that it was never the basic intention to create such discrimination between two immediately adjacent areas as results from designating the one area and not designating the other. So I repeat my request to the minister that the Kamloops area be designated. Indeed, early this spring when we had the matter under discussion by way of correspondence, the minister said that the whole basis for designating areas was to be reviewed and that he would be in touch with me after that. I hope that as a result of the review he will be able to tell me that the Kamloops area will be designated.
Within this area there is the particular district of Merritt, which suffers from the economic disadvantage of having had a decline in employment in the area. The town is primarily dependent upon the Craigmont mine, a strip mining operation which has been closed, and upon a number of lumbering industries which will suffer a further decline in employment in the near future as a result of having their allowable quotas cut under the provincial forest regulations. Merritt now has an emergency situation. I hesitate to apply this description to any area but Merritt has an economy which is definitely depressed in relation to the economy of the rest of the interior of British Columbia and with relation to the area immediately surrounding it.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Therefore I would ask the minister and the minister of manpower to get together and arrange that the Merritt portion of my constituency be included within the jurisdiction of a manpower centre in the Okanagan area of designated area thereby including Merritt within an area that has already been designated. That is to say, Mr. Chairman, if we find that there is going to be delay and difficulty in getting the Kamloops area as a whole made a designated area, then I hope the minister and his colleague, the minister of manpower, will immediately get together and work out an arrangement whereby the Merritt portion of this area can be included
October 30, 1967



within an Okanagan manpower centre, so that it will at last get the benefit of being included in a designated area.
These matters have been under discussion with the minister by way of correspondence since the beginning of this year and I recently renewed the request to transfer this area, but I see no indication of any progress. Perhaps something is on the verge of being done. But I bring these matters up now, Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my constituency in this commmittee of supply and 1 press them here, because in my view the situation in these two areas not only demands action now but also indicates the measure of unreality in the methods by which areas are designated and the undesirable consequences that flow from those methods.
And I remind the minister that I couple this request for action in these particular oases with the request for information in the general case, namely, that the minister should let us know if there is under contemplation any substantial change by way of moving areas out of the category of designated areas into the category of non-designated areas.
Mr, B re win: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question about a matter that I think falls within the purview of his department. It has to do with plans for the economic development of the 11 eastern counties of Nova Scotia.
The other day I happened to be in Calgary at a meeting which was attended by the minister of forestry. In the course of a very eloquent speech about the virtues of economic planning the minister of forestry gave as an example of the economic planning that is going on under the aegis partly of his department, other departments of the government and other provincial departments the extensive surveys that have been undertaken of the potential economic development of the 11 eastern counties-I do not have his speech in front of me but I think there are 11-in Nova Scotia. I might say that this was just about the time of the announcement of Dos-co's proposal to shut down the steel plant at Sydney.
The minister said that these surveys had revealed that by far the most promising development in meeting the serious economic needs of the region related to deep sea harbours on the strait of Canso that would be capable of berthing the supercarriers which, according to the rather enthusiastic account of the minister of forestry, would be able to carry ore and potash to every corner of the 27053-230J
Supply-Industry
world. I think the minister mentioned during the course of his remarks that the natural advantages of these harbours far exceeded anything presently available in the United States.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the minister gave this illustration of the virtue of economic planning by various departments. As I remember, he went on to point out that the various departments of government with which he was concerned in Ottawa could not plan effectively to deal with the problems of agriculture in the area without there being economic planning to deal with other developments in the area, and in this regard he cited this particular prospect in Nova Scotia which I think he described as exciting.
I too think this is a very exciting prospect, but as the Department of Industry would surely be concerned about this question-indeed, every department of government should give its co-operation in view of the prospect the minister of forestry spoke of-I should like to ask the Minister of Industry whether his department is aware of this situation and is co-operating in achieving the co-ordination that will be required with other departments. It seemed to me that the matter did not fall under the jurisdiction of the minister of forestry except as it affected certain aspects of agriculture in the area but that it affected the government as a whole, particularly the Department of Industry and this minister.
It seems to me that either this prospect should be explored with all possible vigour, with full assistance from other departments of the government and the government of Nova Scotia, or if it is just a dream or fantasy and these economic surveys do not evidence the prospect that the minister outlined then this should be made perfectly clear. Otherwise the whole thing is a delusion, a snare, and amounts to a mockery of the people in that part of the country who are so deeply concerned that something be done to deal with their economic problems. I should like to ask the minister to deal with this matter when he replies.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Chairman, there are a few comments I should like to make. First of all, may I say how glad I was to see the minister in my part of the country a few months ago. I thought he did a very good job in opening the new building. As a matter of fact, as he went around on tour he looked at this and looked at that and it reminded me of the story about Checkpoint Charlie. I do not

October 30, 1367
Supply-Industry
say that unkindly. The minister was asking how this was done and how that was done, the reasons for this and the reasons for that, and this was all to the good.
I should like to ask the minister whether there has been any consultation with the provincial governments through his department in connection with sharing the cost of helping industry to establish itself in low growth areas. I refer to programs additional to those now being operated by his department. If he has had consultation, will he tell us what the situation is? If not, when is the department going to conduct consultations on this point?
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Many of these slow growth areas have residents who have to travel some distance to work in other towns or cities. These workers commute from their own town or city, which provides them with hospital, school and ancillary services without receiving compensatory taxation, to work in another town. Their own town derives no benefit from the industry but the city where they work does. The views of those who will present briefs on the Carter and Smith taxation studies with respect to depressed areas will need to be considered.
My second question is, what assistance is industry being given to make changes which will eliminate air pollution? Such assistance is most important as air pollution may have a very detrimental effect on the health of Canadians. Is the Department of Industry assisting plants to make those changes which will diminish air pollution? Extensive changes must be made in many cases.
I realize that help is given to industries in acquiring land and in getting rid of refuse heaps that may be lying around and detracting from and polluting the ground. My question is, is air pollution being considered? If not, will the minister say so. Pollution concerns the Department of Industry, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. These three government departments must work together in coping with problems of pollution.
I also wish to ask whether the minister knows what Canadian industries will be hit by the Kennedy round of tariff adjustments. I am thinking particularly of the chemical and shoe industries. What will happen to the chemical, shoe and allied industries once the adjustments come into effect? Have any ground rules been laid down to protect them

so that they may keep on manufacturing in this country?
I also wish to ask what the government has done to protect the drug industry? What is the score there? I wish the minister would indicate what steps may be taken to protect our drug manufacturers, what studies have been undertaken, what are the results of those studies, and what the government proposes to do generally to protect our drug industry.
I also wish to ask whether industry has been consulted with respect to building industrial plants in designated areas where there is high unemployment. At present our program in this regard is a hodgepodge across Canada. Knowing of this hodgepodge, I wonder what satellite towns may have been planned, if any. It is all very well to locate industries in certain areas and satellite cities in another area, but transportation facilities must be provided to take the workers from their homes to the factories and back. Otherwise they will use their cars, with all the resulting pollution. Are there guide lines for this problem?
I believe the questions I have asked are of great interest to Canadian industry. Planning to take care of industry's requirements must be undertaken now. We should not wait until problems come crowding in. For these reasons I have asked the minister to give up his ideas and to let us know what has been done in the fields I have spoken of.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I have only two very brief remarks to make on the Department of Industry and Defence Production estimates. They may seem repetitious because they have been made already but, as we say, each one must look after his own interests.
First of all, I should like to second what one of the hon. members of the official opposition said this afternoon when he urged the minister to take steps for the adoption of the metric system, or at least to look into he possibility of adopting it here. I second that suggestion for a rather peculiar reason: for two years now, I have had a notice of motion on the order paper recommending to the government that a commission should be set up to study the best means of adopting the metric system in Canada.
It is a rather long process. One can assume that it will take eight, ten or twelve years to implement it everywhere in Canada, but I
October 30, 1967

feel that Canada is already late in this regard.
A few years ago, Great Britain appointed a committee to study the matter which committee recommended that the metric system should be adopted in Great Britain. Recently, the same was done in the United States, and I feel that if the Canadian government delays too much in taking similar steps, we will wake up and find ourselves somewhat isolated amongst western countries with which we deal. As private members, naturally, we can give notice of motions. But we know the process is long and that it would be much simpler if the minister decided to appoint a committee to study how best the metric system could be adopted as soon as possible.
So much for my first comment. I wholeheartedly support this recommendation made by one of the members of the official opposition.
My second observation is somewhat in the same vein as those made by some other hon. members with regard to designated areas. I know that there can be no perfect laws, but I think there is some injustice in certain cases. Take for example the case of my own riding. The towns of Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine certainly cannot be considered underdeveloped and badly off to the point of being chosen as designated areas. But I think that to establish standards according to the prosperity of the towns of Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine is unfair because there are many small municipalities around those two large urban centres which are not designated and where there is much unemployment.
Those jobless people are coming to Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine and taking the jobs away from the citizens there. That creates a difficult situation because many of them come from rural parishes, where farms are so unproductive or the soil so sandy that they cannot be cultivated economically enough to enable them to support their families. Consequently, a great number of municipalities have a very high rate of unemployment and many jobless come to Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine where they take the jobs away from the citizens of these two cities.
I wonder whether it would be possible, when the departmental officials make surveys to establish standards and determine whether an area can be "designated", to parcel out
Supply

Industry
the area because, if I understand well, an area covered by the unemployment insurance office has better chance of being taken into consideration. Therefore, I think that the areas which are not entities or have nothing in common with Trois-Rivieres and Cap-de-la-Madeleine should not be part of that territory. I have in mind, for instance, Baie-Jolie, Trois-Rivieres-Ouest, Pointe-du-Lac, Yama-chiche, Saint-Etienne-des-Gres, Saint-Boni-face, Saint-Barnabe-Nord and a few other small municipalities such as Saint-Thomas-de-Caxton which have no industries but would welcome a few because they are not very far from centres such as Trois-Rivieres and would be in a position to offer appropriate services which would enable those people to earn their living at home instead of coming to Trois-Rivieres or Cap-de-la-Madeleine, to take jobs away from those who live in those two cities, who pay taxes and who contribute of course to the creation of the services used by the residents.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am pointing it out to the minister, and I am reminding him that I have taken the liberty of writing him to that effect in the past days, in order to explain the situation, because once again I feel that if the whole area covered by the unemployment insurance commission is reviewed to establish those standards, I think that such a procedure can lead to discrimination. It would be advisable to set aside a part of that area and consider it as a distinct unit and to designate it so that a few medium size or small industries could establish themselves there, benefit from the resulting advantages and, finally, clear the congested industries of Trois-Rivieres to enable residents of Trois-Rivieres or Cap-de-la-Madeleine to earn a livelihood.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the estimates of the Minister of Industry and of Defence Production (Mr. Drury) be considered without making a few remarks. But I will be very brief.
I come from a constituency, particularly from a city, where the textile and the shoe industries are the most important. Naturally, the Kennedy Round negotiations did not fail to cause some concern among many of the industrialists in my area and I should like to call the attention of the minister to the importance of these two industries. At home, the textile industry gives work to many people and imports from Japan, Asia, Italy and many other countries should not be allowed

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
to deprive the workers of my city and of my constituency of the wages to which they are entitled.
I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Industry to take the measures required to protect the jobs of these workers.
The same holds for the shoe industry which has suffered considerable losses in the past years. It is known that since 1962, 28 shoe manufactures in the province of Quebec had to close their doors as a result of the competition from countries that are called underdeveloped.
Products imported from these countries into the Canadian market have unfortunate result for Canadian workers and I should like to ask the hon. minister to take measures so that the necessary protection is given to those of my compatriots who get their livelihood from the textile industry as well as from the shoe industry.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief, but before agreeing to the estimates of the Department of Industry and Defence Production amounting to $146,785,300, which is a rather large sum the minister, I feel, should be reminded that his department must not operate only in one area or in a few areas of Canada but in all of them.
The $146 millions we are asked to vote should not all be spent in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver or Edmonton. Other areas should also be thought of, and among these there is my own area of the northwest of Quebec.
We see here, for instance, in a statutory item, that the department will spend $29,000,000 to stimulate creation of jobs in industry in certain areas of the country.
Well, as far as my own area is concerned, it has not been recognized as a designated area, because according to the government departments, the number of unemployed does not allow the area to be designated. I want to call the minister's attention to the following fact: When mines are closing-for instance the one that was devastated by fire last week, as a result of which 250 to 300 miners have been laid off-these people are not considered as unemployed. Most of them live on farms and, as farmers or settlers, they are not considered as unemployed. Others who receive social welfare benefits, are not considered as unemployed either, and besides all those, we have thousands of people who, according to the department, are not considered as unemployed.

It does not matter whether the Department of Industry or the Department of Labour is concerned, one fact remains: our area is deprived of industries merely because the departments say that it is an area that cannot be designated, since there are not enough unemployed.
Another point is that several of those miners who are laid off or discharged leave the mines to go to northern Manitoba, northern Ontario or north of Amos which is in our area, but some 180 miles from where we live.
Mr. Chairman, I think the Department of Industry should anticipate those situations -somebody talked about planning-especially when one knows what will happen. The minister must be aware that some half dozen mines will perhaps close down within two or three years in our area, including the Que-mont and Lake Duffault mines. In fact, even Noranda may have to lay off from 800 to 1,000 men in seven or eight years, since its production will be reduced. What do we have to replace those mines? Absolutely nothing.
Yet those people have lived in the area for 40 and 45 years and after 40 or 45 years, men of 60 or 65 years of age and their families have to leave the area, when it would be a lot easier to encourage the establishment of secondary industries in our area after all which is a civilized one, and one of opportunity.
For instance, what step is the Department of Industry taking at the present time to assist the exploration for new mines, with regard to prospection? We all know, including the hon. minister, that there are enormous iron, iron pyrites, zinc, nickel and copper deposits in our area. The deposits are there. The question is to locate them, to develop them by opening up new mines.
If it is necessary then to encourage companies by means of a tax reduction. I think this would make it possible for them to employ thousands of people who, in turn, would pay income tax and thus help replenish the federal treasury. But no, nothing is being done. It might be said that the whole matter comes under the jurisdiction of the province of Quebec. That may be, but nothing prevents Ottawa from co-operating and assisting in the locating of those deposits or the possible establishment of new industries.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We have just heard, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Industry, but the minister of energy tell us, for example, that we grant subsidies to gold and coal mining in our region
October 30, 1967

in order to allow these industries to disappear peacefully.
Yet we are sure that we are able to export all our gold production to the United States. The United States undertake to buy all the gold we produce. We are told that we must grant subsidies and that this costs Canada more than to buy gold from other countries and pass it on to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, according to this line of reasoning, it appears that we sell the wheat produced in western Canada below cost. The government has never mentioned the possibility of cutting down wheat production. Yet, we are not sure that we can sell our entire wheat production. In spite of that, the government has agreed to pay for all the wheat produced in western Canada, even if it cannot be exported.
All our gold can be exported, and that is guaranteed. The same applies to Dosco steel in Cape Breton or Sydney. We are certain that our entire output will be exported. I understand that this steel will have to be marketed at the best price, or at prices lower than production costs but, Mr. Chairman, that does not alter my argument to the effect that we can export our total output of these products, because some countries have indicated they would purchase our full production, whereas, in the case of wheat, we have no certainty of exporting all our production.
Mr. Speaker, I come to my point, namely that an area such as mine, where many young people are in fact unemployed, although not considered as such, should be included among designated areas and get government assistance for the establishment or development of new industries.
We should also get aid from the federal government for the exploration of new ore bodies and the establishment of new mining operations in our area.
Mr. Speaker, I fail to see in the department's estimates-even if we hear about funds to help create new job opportunities in industry in some areas of Canada, not even in the details at page 241-any aid for the northwestern Quebec area. It is vague.
We know that the department will spend $146 millions, that is an increase of $95,802,899 over last year. But long suffering areas are forgotten. I warn the minister that the problem will be tricky, it will be serious in a few years. Now, is the time to prepare for it. A government which is a good administrator foresees calamities or economic tragedies.
Supply-Industry
If the government does not take a stand at the present time and does not take action to assist certain areas in the northwest of Quebec, or the northeastern region of Ontario which includes Timmins, Kirkland Lake, Cochrane, Hearst, up to Sudbury, we shall be faced, in a few years, with a manpower problem, with an intolerable situation quite inacceptable in a country such as ours.
World markets can be found for the iron produced in our area, which might promote the opening up of four or five important mines for its extraction and, furthermore, its processing at home, in our area.
But markets are not sought, and no attempt is made to increase our production or develop new industries.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the government may not have any solution. Yet, we have one that the government refuses either to apply or to use. When we ask, for instance, that our financial institution called the Bank of Canada should be used to finance the development of our natural resources, the government is at a loss to understand this. If the government rejects our solution, our theory, let it at least offer one. Under our present system, there is still no solution and the government keeps harping on the same string year after year. For the past six years, we have been calling the attention of the Department of Industry and Defence Production to our problems. For six years, we have been passing estimates, and for ten years, we have been discussing-
-general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada.
Scientific research for what? For the application of what, the development of what? Money is being spent in large centres, true enough, but in centres outside our area. Let us take for instance, the zinc refinery that was built in Valleyfield, Quebec, to treat the ores coming from northwestern Quebec or northeastern Ontario. Why was that industry, which was established with assistance from the federal government, or perhaps at its suggestion, not set up in our area? Had the hon. minister or the government intervened with Noranda Mines, I am convinced that it would have agreed to build its plant at Rouyn-Noranda or Val-d'Or, or in our area as readily as at Valleyfield.
Why, for instance, were the directors of Noranda Mine not told: You will be exempted from taxes or income tax for a period of three years? The mine would thus have

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
employed 800, 1,000 or 1,200 additional workers; it would have created employment opportunities and stimulated the economy of the area which has been neglected for so many years.
Mr. Speaker, I urge upon the minister that action be taken to help the development of the area, since that would encourage the pioneers of northwestern Quebec or northeastern Ontario to stay there. By so doing, the minister and the government would help brave people, who were courageous enough to go and settle in that area and operate those mines which have already been beneficial not only to the region but to the whole of Canada.
Our gold mines have served the monetary system with which the present government is struggling. This is not the time to say to the miners and gold mining companies: Close your doors, get lost, we are anxious to stop paying you subsidies.
If we can subsidize steel production and the wheat which we sell at a loss, we can also grant subsidies to keep our gold mines operating, since we are sure of selling the whole production to the United States, thereby restoring our trade balance. In this way, our gold would at least help to get Canada out of its present financial deadlock.
Mr. Chairman, those are the few thoughts which I wanted to put forward during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Industry and Defence Production.
I feel that the minister, who knows the northwestern region with its 183,000 inhabitants-yes, 183,000-should take a decision and order his department to make a survey of the economic conditions, in order to include it among designated areas. I hope he will promote the establishment of new industries, in order to keep our people there and to attract others, because we have the available space, some favourable places where families could earn their living, but as long as the governments provide some incentives instead of strait jackets as in the present case.
e (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Watson (Chaieauguay-Hunlingdon-La-prairie):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention two items which relate indirectly to the Department of Industry. The first has to do with the extremely serious labour problem existing in areas of our north where our native people, be they Indian or Eskimo, make up the dominant proportion of our population.

There can be no dispute with the suggestion that between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of our adult male Indian population is unemployed. There can be no dispute that there has been less co-ordination between the department of Indian affairs, the department of manpower and the Department of Industry in seeking solutions to this extremely serious labour problem than is warranted by the seriousness of the problem. The time is long overdue when the three departments should be directly concerned and when their representatives should get together with representatives of northern based industries and provincial labour departments to ascertain how more Indian and Eskimo labourers can be induced to join the Canadian labour force.
The solution will necessitate the payment of subsidies to employers through the minister of Indian affairs and a designation by the Ministry of Industry of all areas in the Canadian north where these people live to enable special tax incentives to be awarded in these areas of Canada. The excuse for non-designation is that these people do not form part of the labour force or unemployment statistics. This is nonsense because these people are unemployed and the statistics in respect of their unemployment are available to the minister of Indian affairs. It appears to me that neither the minister of manpower nor the Minister of Industry has taken the trouble to find out what is the number of Indians unemployed in the determination of their policies in respect of designated areas. Almost the entire Yukon and Northwest Territories, with the exception of those areas where there are active mine developments, should be designated to be eligible for benefits under the terms of the designated area program.
The hon. member for Churchill has often spoken in favour of designating similar areas in the northern part of Manitoba. In view of the extremely serious Indian unemployment problem I find it intolerable that we should allow this situation not only to continue but to grow worse. The educational program of the department of Indian affairs is now producing a number of high school graduates who for the most part are untrained in the industries which operate in the north. These graduates are returning to their reserves and in a very short period of time, because they are not equipped to deal with the basic requirements of their reserves and because they are not equipped to fit into the new industries developing in the north, they become worse off than perhaps they might
Oclober 30, 1967

have been had they stayed on their reserves and continued as their forefathers, spending their early years on the trap lines.
I urge the Minister of Industry to meet with representatives of the department of manpower and the department of Indian affairs to initiate a solution to this problem. The Minister of Industry should, before he announces any further change in the designated area program, give serious consideration to the adoption of a policy to relieve this unemployment. The problem is not as serious so far as the Eskimo is concerned, but there are areas in the north where Eskimo unemployment does exist. Policies of the Department of Industry may not entirely solve the problem but could contribute to a final solution.
The second subject I wish to touch upon today is the Canada Development Corporation. I assume that when this corporation is formed it will come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Industry and that is why I wish to refer to it for a few minutes at this time. I do not particularly like the name and feel that a more specific name should be adopted. This title has stirred up unnecessary criticism and fear in Canadian business circles because businessmen do not know in which areas it will operate and extend its influence. One area where it should operate and extend its influence is in the area of development and exploration of mineral and oil resources. Perhaps it could be called the Canada natural resources development corporation. In this way there would be fewer fears and apprehensions about its creation.
There is necessity at this time for the creation of such a corporation. The experience of even the last few years demonstrates this fact. If we are to retain any sort of control of our own economy such a corporation must be put into operation. Let me give several examples of recent Canadian mineral developments which might have been retained in Canadian hands had a natural resources development corporation been on the statute books. Perhaps the most dramatic example is the Rainbow oil field in Alberta.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I have here a clipping from the Financial Post of January, 1967. The article deals with one of the men who was responsible for finding the Rainbow oilfield, Mr. J. C. Rudolph. Among other things it indicates that Mr. Rudolph was extremely disillusioned about his inability, after this discovery was made, to find Canadian capital to assist him in
Supply-Industry
developing the field. It turns out that this field is one of the major ones in North America. The cost of production per barrel is fantastically low and consequently the profit will be fantastically high.
Because Mr. Rudolph was not able to find Canadian capital, what has happened? The field is now pretty well owned by a combination of Aquitaine of Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Societe Nationale des Petroles d'Aquitaine de Paris, which holds 45 per cent, and Mobil Oil of Canada which holds 50 per cent. The original company which Mr. J. C. Rudolph controlled, Banff Oil, is now 44 per cent owned by Aquitaine. I cannot accept that the French government, which controls Societe Nationale des Petroles d'Aquitaine de Paris, should control a substantial percentage of our natural resources when, had we had the Canadian Development Corporation, the Canadian people could have had direct participation in this natural resource.
The same thing is true of several other developing mineral deposits in our Canadian west. The Japanese control several. This has its advantages. There are some good features about foreign participation in our natural resources. It creates additional market outlets. I do not want to leave the impression that I am against Japanese or French participation in our natural resources, but I object strongly to the fact that we as a people are not, through our government, being represented in this development. The French people are but the Canadian people are not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Herridge:: That's the stuff.


Lawrence E. Watson: Another example of this type of thing is Eldorado itself. This is one of the few Canadian corporations which as a result of the wartime situation was permitted, on behalf of the government, to enter the mineral resources development field. It did so very successfully. But I am informed fairly reliably, although I would have to check my facts more thoroughly, that because of the fairly restrictive action permitted Eldorado, companies directly owned or controlled by foreign governments were able to stake claims around Eldorado holdings. At that time Eldorado was being restrictively administered so far as additional mineral exploration and development were concerned.
Another example is Faraday in the Bancroft area. What has happened there in the

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
last few years? Because we have had no natural resources development corporation, because there was a glut on the uranium market, because no move was made to finance the stockpiling of Faraday's uranium output, and because this company was unable to finance stockpiling and eventually found itself in need of additional capital, an American firm now controls this uranium producer at the moment when uranium sales are again booming. These are just three examples, Mr. Chairman.
Potash development is an example of where the influx of foreign capital was invaluable to the development of a new industry. But had we had at the time a mineral resources development corporation, most surely the Canadian people could have participated more fully in the development of our now booming potash industry. I think we need to get away from the idea that government participation in mineral exploration and development necessarily implies government ownership or control. I would be very satisfied, and the industry as a whole should not have any objection, if the Canadian government had a minority participation in these ventures. It does not have to be majority participation. We can become partners to the extent of 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 60 per cent as the situation demands.
There is no reason why the federal government department responsible for the Yukon and Northwest Territories could not create tomorrow a prospecting and exploration division whose function would be similar to that of any prospecting and exploration division of any of the larger mining companies in Canada. We would tender for geological services and a geological firm would carry out an exploration program. This is what I envisage a natural resources development corporation doing, among other things. It would have a division which would at least be exploring and developing in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon where we have full jurisdiction. At the same time it would provide a reservoir of capital for minority or majority participation in ventures which had already resulted in proven ore bodies or proven oil pools.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If we participated in this manner in no way would we interfere with private enterprise. We would co-operate with private enterprise, and quite obviously it would be an easy matter in most cases to arrange for

the preferential participation of Canadians in such developments. But in some cases our partners would be foreign governments or foreign companies. In addition to having a direct participation in the ownership we would also gain a valuable secondary advantage in that we would ensure that Canadian companies would retain ownership of the resources which are being discovered now and will continue to be discovered in the future.
I do not think many people realize that 35 per cent of the Canadian land mass lies within the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Experts predict that not too long from now, with a substantial increase in exploration in these areas, it is reasonable to expect that 35 per cent of Canada's mineral resources will be found in these territories. I would like to see greater Canadian participation in these discoveries. Apart from the very obvious reason that the creation of a natural resources corporation will give the Canadian people a more important piece of the action in this field, we will be able to retain in Canadian hands a much larger percentage of our resources than we do now. Even more important, it will give us a more important sense of participation in our national development.
What is more important is that if such a program by a development corporation is applied with particular emphasis to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories it will dramatize a basis for national unity which far too few people in this country and more particularly in my province of Quebec appreciate, namely, the fact that the natural resources of these two areas of Canada, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, are commonly owned and are the common heritage of all Canadians. Unlike the situation within the provinces where the provinces own the natural resources within their boundaries, all the Canadian people control and own the fantastic natural resources of these two territories.
In closing I would simply like to reiterate what I said earlier, that as a young Canadian I want to see the Canadian people participate much more fully than they have to date in the development of the mineral resources of this country. If we restrict the new development corporation initially to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon and to mineral and oil development in these areas we will be able to start tomorrow because the provinces would offer no objection and I cannot imagine any real criticism of such an action
October 30, 1967

Supply-Industry
by private industry. In fact I think the Canadian mineral industry as a whole, except possibly for the very large corporations which have tremendous capital resources of their own, would be delighted to see the government make funds available for the development of proven ore bodies. It would have no objection to the government entering the prospecting and exploration field with exploration teams hired and paid for by a section of the major development corporation. The latter's role would be the over-all policy.
I hope the minister will impress upon his colleagues the urgency of action in this area. The predicted oil reserves in the Northwest Territories are immense. I am unhappy every time I see new oil leases being granted by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The granting of any further oil concessions in the Northwest Territories should be halted until we have a development corporation of our own. It is urgent that this year the Canadian government set up a corporation which will ensure direct Canadian participation in mineral and oil development not only in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories but I hope also in all the provinces of Canada which are prepared to make the necessary arrangements with such a development corporation.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, there are three or four brief questions I should like to put to the minister. First of all, while I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood I would ask the minister that in any plans the government may have as a result of the representations made to them for the development of a deep water port at Canso he should not overlook the fact that there are already some well-established ports in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
I should like to ask the minister to dispel in his concluding remarks certain fears that are growing in the Halifax area with regard to the destroyer escort program. The comments that are being made-and because they are being made they should be answered-are to the effect that the government may well call for tenders on these four new vessels but then in order to meet its program of cut-backs it will delay awarding the tenders. Any such move would have a disastrous effect on the Halifax area if indeed it happened to one of the yards whose tender was successful.
e (5:20 p.ra.)
My second point, which has also been raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, has to do with the area incentive program. I should like to ask the minister whether the government, on its own advice or on advice from other agencies or bodies, has now given consideration or is prepared to consider the broadening of, for example, the terms of reference and authority of the development board to embrace all of the extraordinary self-help programs which are aimed at overcoming the very serious economic situation in Atlantic Canada. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that if there were any merit in the suggestion of broadening the terms of reference of the Atlantic Development Board or establishing one body which would have responsibility for co-ordinating all the government's extraordinary programs in the Atlantic area, it would have the benefit of removing the very real conflicts between the several provincial and federal programs. A reply by the minister to the comments specifically set forth by the Atlantic Development Board would have the benefit of indicating to the people in Atlantic Canada why such a move would not be feasible. If that were the case, then we could stop wasting our time trying to find an answer to our problems in that direction and search for other possible solutions.
Finally, I have one further question to direct to the minister. There are two aspects to the question because it involves research and development funds. It is not prompted by any interest at home but results purely from my own concern for the port of Halifax and what is going to happen in the years ahead. I should like to ask the minister if the government could give sympathetic consideration and, hopefully, approval to a request that must ultimately come from the port of Halifax commission for research and development funds for the construction of the prototype of an integral train or unit train. This train has been referred to as a continuation of the original transportation concept from the point of manufacture to the point of ultimate distribution. The terms "integral" and "unit" are not quite the same but they essentially involve the concept of extremely large trains so that the cost of moving goods becomes less by rail than by water. This program is well advanced and there might be some hope in it for the future of the port of Halifax. It is going to cost some millions of dollars for the engineering and design work

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
on such a train. I hope the minister can urge upon his colleagues in government the viability of such a request. Any delay in this request may well put us pretty well out of the running in regard to the massive movement of goods from one continent to another.
The other aspect that goes hand in hand with this problem is the establishment of a fund to bring about the development of a light, single engine sport aircraft in Canada. The ratio of aircraft brought into Canada as opposed to aircraft designed and built here is widening every year. It widens in direct proportion to the number of people who are turning to flying for both business and pleasure. There are at least five major foreign companies who now control virtually 100 per cent of the Canadian light aircraft industry.
I do not know how the minister is going to get around answering all the requests that have been made of him this afternoon. The questions I put in connection with the area incentive program have already been raised, but I know the people of Halifax would be relieved if the minister could at least make a passing comment on that.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, there are two matters I should like to raise in connection with these estimates. The first one deals with item No. 5 on page 238 which reads:
To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting-
I want to emphasize this.
-selected defence development programs-
I believe that the house and the people of Canada are entitled to some explanation of this business of selected defence development programs. If my memory and my mathematics are correct, in the past 12 years the federal government has expended in the neighbourhood of $550 million or $600 million on selected defence development covering only three selected programs.
I refer first of all to the Avro Arrow upon which I believe $450 million was expended. We had one plane in the air and one ready to go in the air when the program was cancelled. I have been told in France and the United States that Canada was years ahead and undoubtedly had the finest plane ever known. Millions of dollars were spent on the Bobcat, the armoured carrier. This program was cancelled. Now let us come up to date and consider the hydrofoil. We do not have the figures yet but I am led to believe that when the final bills are paid they will amount to close to $50 million. This program

is being cancelled. So we have between $550 million and $600 million expended on three items in 12 years. The point is that this country cannot afford to spend $550 million to $600 million on projects that are cancelled and from which there is no return. a (5:30 p.m.)
I think we have the right to ask the minister on what basis is the policy on selected defence project expenditure has been and is now being established. In particular, I think we are entitled to know what happened to the hydrofoil project in view of the fact that the United Kingdom and United States were apparently years ahead of us. What has been the return to Canada on the money that has been expended and what is going to be the basic principle that will be applied in the future?
If we are going to spend such large amounts of money on research into defence equipment and armaments, then let us not pour it down the drain as we did with the $550 to $600 million spent on three projects alone in the last 12 years. So far neither this house nor the public has been given any explanation why the hydrofoil project was cancelled, and this I think we are entitled to receive.
I have had the honour of being a member of the defence committee for many years and I am also a member of the public accounts committee. My experience has been that no member of those committees receives much in the way of information from the government. We are always presented with a fait accompli or the government gives excuses. We receive no definitive answers to our questions.
The only point I am trying to make is that if three projects have cost the Canadian people approximately $600 million and produced no return the committee is entitled to know what is in the government's mind when the Department of Industry supports in the future selected defence projects. In this connection I should like the minister to take time to tell us what returns have been received by the Canadian treasury and the people of Canada on the money spent under this head.
My second point is somewhat along the line of the remarks of the previous speaker from the Atlantic region. In time of war there was great interest in industrial development and industrial capability to supply war needs. But now, as the minister well
Ociober 30, 1967



knows from the questions asked this afternoon on orders of the day, the government apparently does not give a damn about what is happening to the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia. I remember that the government was mighty proud during the last war of what British Columbia could and did produce.
Not too long ago the minister made a speech in British Columbia, and basically I agreed with what he said. He told industry to pick up its feet, to modernize itself and compete. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, standards and wages are higher in British Columbia and so, I think, is efficiency. Nevertheless, surely some consideration should be given to maintaining the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.
Last week the first shipbuilding yard in British Columbia was sold to the Burrard Drydock Company, and my understanding is that this yard is to be closed out. This knocks out 151 skilled employees. I realize, of course, there is competition between east and west and that each has different standards and wages. But I want to emphasize that it is just as imperative to maintain a shipbuilding industry on the Pacific coast as it is to maintain one on the east coast.
I also suggest some consideration should be given to the cost picture on the Pacific coast as it relates to the transportation of steel and other materials to the area. We in British Columbia always seem to get the dirty end of the stick in the matter of transportation costs. Nevertheless my point is that even with the extra freight charges involved it will be a sorry day for Canada if the federal government does not maintain the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia.
The government moves fast enough when an emergency situation arises in Quebec or the maritimes. Subsidies amounting to hundreds of millions are immediately made available. Why does the government not turn its eyes once in a while to the west? I am not criticizing subsidies and help in the case of bankrupt industries such as Dosco, but I do feel that the government should maintain those industries in the west which are essential to Canada in peace as well as in war.
The minister could not have done without the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia during the war. Why does the government crucify it, therefore, in time of peace? I admit we have higher standards and wages, but why condemn us for that? Why should this industry be closed down because of this?
Supply-Industry
We in British Columbia are not asking for special favours. We ask only for proper consideration, for recognition. The government spends hundreds of millions of dollars in the east and should be prepared to spend a few million to maintain industry in the west when required. Shipbuilding is one industry that requires to be maintained. We in British Columbia ask for equal consideration and equal treatment. Give us that and there will be no more complaints from our province, regardless of which party forms the government in this house.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, owing to the limitations of time I shall not be as articulate as I should like to be. I take comfort from knowing that these estimates, as I said in my opening statement, were examined thoroughly by the house committee in five long meetings prior to the discussion which took place most recently in committee of supply.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert asked a number of questions about the designated area program. He asked particularly about Saint John. His first question was whether federal assistance has been a deciding factor in the location of new industries in the Atlantic provinces or has been of assistance in the relocation of industries in that area. The answer of course is that this program has been a not inconsiderable factor in inducing new manufacturing and processing industries to locate in the maritimes. Figures have already been given. As a consequence of this program, since its inception until September 30 last some 78 projects have been undertaken in the hon. member's province of New Brunswick, involving the expenditure of approximately $202 million. These projects have provided new job opportunities for approximately 4,800 employees.
Whether federal assistance has had any effect on the relocation of industries within the maritimes may best be answered this way. As the hon. member knows, the program is designed to avoid the shifting of existing industries from one point to another. A requirement, if there is to be a benefit under the program, is that 95 per cent of the capital facilities to be installed in any plant which is moved to a designated area must be new machinery and equipment. The purpose of this provision is to prevent the mere physical transfer of old plant and equipment from a non-designated area to a designated area. The idea is that unless an entrepreneur wishes to set up a new plant and equipment he will have no reason to shift. We know of

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
two relocations where industries have moved to designated areas in the maritimes as a consequence of this program.
One instance is the G. E. Barbour Company Limited which was forced to move from its location in Saint John. Because of the purchase of land and buildings by the Saint John bridge authority it was no longer possible for that firm to continue where it was. In seeking a new location they decided to move from an area of relatively good employment to an area of chronic unemployment, at the same time qualifying for benefits.
A similar sort of thing took place in the instance of Marden-Wild of Canada Limited in Halifax. This firm was no longer able to continue in business because of rezoning which was carried out in Halifax and they moved from Halifax to a designated area.
The hon. member also asked how many applications for assistance from industry have been rejected because of inability to relocate in growth centres. I do not know what the hon. member means by growth centres. I cannot think of any manufacturing or processing industry which would have to locate in an urban area such as Halifax or Saint John and, if there were sufficient financial attractions, could not locate outside those areas. Outside these two main centres that I have referred to there are a number of other manufacturing areas which are adequately provided with labour, communications and public utilities.
The hon. member asked why Saint John has not been designated and whether there is any hope that it will be designated. The designated areas program is designed to induce entrepreneurs in Canada who wish to set up new manufacturing or processing industries to set them up in areas of chronic unemployment. The idea is to bring relief to those areas of Canada where unemployment figures are highest. The program attempts to provide more employment opportunities for those who live in areas of chronic unemployment and seeks to induce industry to designated areas rather than to those areas where the unemployment situation perhaps is not so acute.
Saint John is fortunate in terms of relative unemployment. In the past ten years it has experienced a not unsatisfactory rate of economic growth. As the hon. gentleman knows, the average non-farm family income also is at a satisfactory level. Until-and I hope this will never happen-Saint John has the misfortune to register a much higher level of

unemployment than is current now, I should not think there is much prospect that it will be designated. I am sure the hon. member shares my hope that designation for Saint John will never be necessary.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a
question? I thank the minister for his answers. Has subsection 9(e) of the legislation been used? I am referring to that subsection which has to do with grouping together manpower centres in areas of traditional geographic connection. Is there any chance of including Saint John under that part of the legislation? I merely wish to know whether we should continue our approaches or whether we should desist. The mayors keep coming up here and they ought to know whether their quest is hopeless. That is the pertinent question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We have explored the possibility of grouping. The effect of grouping is to average out or establish a gross figure with respect to employment or unemployment. The conditions in Saint John are sufficiently good to raise the level of the contiguous areas and to take them out of the designated area class. Only if conditions in Saint John became marginal and the conditions in the contiguous areas were to decline would the region be considered. I suggest to the hon. member that representations by the mayors of the region and not likely to lead to the kind of result they wish for. The area development agency carries out periodic reviews of the manpower situation in all designated and non-designated areas and adjustments are made depending on whether the areas concerned fall within or without the criteria.
I shall only address answers to those who have shown a real interest by staying in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I see that the hon. member for Greenwood is here. He asked a question about Point Tupper and Port Hawkesbury.


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, I am sorry. I did not raise a question about that. I asked about the eastern counties of Nova Scotia. The minister's colleague, the minister of forestry, has an interest in this matter, I believe.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: A port at Point Tupper or Port Hawkesbury.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I did not actually name the ports.
October 30, 1967


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I assumed the hon. member knew about this. The minister of forestry, as I believe the house is aware, has a program known as FRED which is concerned with the regional development of disfavoured areas of Canada. In order to put in train a comprehensive development plan for disadvantaged areas it is necessary to conduct basic surveys of all the factors involved. In the speech to which the hon. member for Greenwood has referred the minister cited as an example of how this is being done the survey which had been carried out in Cape Breton and the northeastern counties of Nova Scotia as a result of which certain tentative conclusions had been reached. He did so by way of illustrating the proposition that while there were difficulties there was also one very substantial asset in the area, namely, the presence at the eastern end of the strait of Canso of one of the best potential deep water harbours in North America, a factor which should perhaps be examined with a view to development and exploitation.
There is as yet no formulated plan for the development or exploitation of this advantage but the whole question of the further development of Cape Breton including a deep water port at Port Hawkesbury is now under urgent consideration by a committee of officials made up of representatives from all the departments which have an interest in this matter. The departments concerned include the Department of Industry, the Department of Trade and Commerce in respect of possible exports, the department of manpower, the department of forestry with the FRED program, the Department of Finance, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Francis Andrew Brewin: The Department of
Transport?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, the Department of Transport. I do not have the complete list but I want to assure the hon. member that a coordinated attack is being made on these problems.

The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bag-got-made representations concerning the shoe industry.
I have listened to him and I know very well that this industry has had problems, particularly recently, when we noted a reduction or a slight adjustment in the tariffs. My department is currently organizing a group of representatives from the shoe
Supply-Industry
industry to go to Europe to study how things are done over there and to try to find markets, so that the Canadian shoe industry can be made more efficient. The Department of Industry is organizing the tour of the group. I hope that this trip will bring results and that the businessmen who will make up this group will come back with conclusions and impressions likely to be shared with the shoe industry in general.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I thank the hon. minister. [English]


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The hon. member for Vancouver East, who was the last speaker, asked what the policy was in connection with research and development and drew attention to three occasions upon which substantial sums of money had been spent on research development, and at least in one case on production or preproduction, in connection with projects all of which were cancelled with no return to the public of Canada.
I might point out that a large part of the expenditures on the Avro Arrow were incurred not in connection with research but for production models. It was only after substantial expenditure had been incurred in connection with preproduction that the government of the day decided not to go ahead with the program. One should not assume that all the sums of money which have been mentioned in connection with this particular program were spent on research and development. The second example the hon. member gave was that of the Bobcat. This is clearly a situation of the kind one must expect to encounter in any developmental program. It did not turn out to be a good guess.
As to the hydrofoil a considerable amount of research and development has been done in connection with this project. The work suffered a setback as the result of a fire which occurred some time ago, but research and development are continuing. If the hon. gentleman has information to the effect that this effort has been cancelled, neither my colleague the Minister of National Defence nor I have any knowledge of it. In any event, the fact that sums of money are spent on research and development in connection with items which do not reach the production stage does not necessarily mean that all the money is wasted. There is in connection with all these programs a considerable industrial fall-out.

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
There have, of course, been a number of successful programs under the defence export development program to which the hon. member referred. Since my administration of it began, at any rate, we have been spending at the rate of about $20 million or $22 million a year. Since its inception 109 defence development projects have been supported from this vote and expenditures to date amount to $103 million. Of the projects supported, 53 in number costing $53 million have been completed and are achieving sales. So for $53 million we get some results.
I intend to mention some of them. The value of the sales or orders resulting from these projects is $348 million. Here are some figures by way of example: the PT-6 turbine engine, $58 million; the Doppler navaid, $115 million; the GRC-103 radio relay, $18 million; the Buffalo STOL aircraft, $49 million; the twin Otter aircraft, $25 million; the CL-89 Drone, $60 million; flight simulators for both military and civil aircraft, $15 million. So for an investment of some $53 million in these projects resulting sales are in excess of $388 million. This does not mean that every project we bet on is going to turn out well. Some do not turn out well. Either the scientists have endeavoured to accomplish too big a task and been unsuccessful, or they have been unable to move as fast as other people and we have lost a particular race, or the need for a particular object under development has in the course of time, some four or five years, disappeared.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
In an effort to avoid this we obtain the best possible advice concerning what is technologically and scientifically a good bet. We try to ensure that this is put into the hands of the most competent developers in the country. All these programs are kept under continuous review. Once there is any indication that a project will be unsuccessful it is stopped. We had occasion to make reference to one the other day. A gas turbine engine was being developed in Toronto. When it appeared clear that further developmental expenditures would not yield a return this development work was stopped and the people were put to work on something else. I suggest there is some management being carried out in respect of these programs.
The hon. gentleman, among others, mentioned the situation in respect of the closing of the Victoria Machinery Depot. This is most unfortunate. It represents perhaps rather

more than just the closing of the oldest shipyard in British Columbia. It represents the consolidation of the shipbuilding element of V.M.D. with those of Burrard and Yarrows. It is my understanding that these three units or two, because the control of Yarrows and Burrard is the same, will now be run as one unit.
I think it is a source of regret that in respect of shipbuilding yards which have the capacity to build or repair very large ships we should have lost an element of competition which existed hitherto. It is difficult to generate competition if the entrepreneurs who provide it are not persuaded that it is a good thing.
It has been alleged that the reason for the closing down was the failure of the government of Canada to proceed with its shipbuilding program. I should point out that a little over two years ago we did disclose to the shipbuilding industry in Canada a five year program of government shipbuilding; it was all laid out. It was declared then that competition for this program would be on a national basis. However, in order to enable a transition to be made from the old system to the new, shipbuilding companies on the west coast were guaranteed that the west coast would be free of competition from the rest of Canada for certain ships. This program is being and has been proceeded with exactly as advertised; there has been no change in it.
Reference has been made to a recent report based on the assumption that the Department of Transport should or would build a couple of coastguard cutters which were not included in this transitional program. Now it appears to have been learned from somewhere that these two ships which were not in the plan in the first place are not going to be built. Mr. Chairman, I see that we have now exceeded the allotted time.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock, in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be considered at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for
October 30, 1967

3643'
Royal (Mr. Fairweather), Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-possible use of Expo buildings as Montreal headquarters; the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Bas-ford), Fisheries-inquiry as to establishment of geographical co-ordinates; the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski), Freight Rates-cream-request	for rescission of
recent increase.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so that workmen may deduct from their taxable income any expense incurred by the acquisition of hand or electrical tools required to perform their work.

He said: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 12 appearing on the order paper could apply to all workers entered on a payroll.
As I have already mentioned on several occasions in this house, we are allowing a general discrimination against workers with regard to employers or to all those who are not wage earners. Besides, one could say generally that tax deduction at the source is a glaring injustice towards workmen, as compared to other groups. Moreover, I have already pointed out in this house that a wage earner entered on a payroll is not given the same advantages, because his income tax is deducted from his gross earnings and he is not allowed the same deductions as a businessman or a professional or any other worker not entered on a payroll.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I have already said, in this house, that the worker has the right, just as anyone else, to file his income tax return at the end of the year without being deprived of the amount deducted each pay day from his gross salary.
I believe it was claimed, at the time, that this would be hard to do but I feel the difficulty has been overcome, due to the fact that the worker still has to file his income tax return at the end of the year to claim the excess money the government has taken from him. In other words, the government paid itself first, and once again the worker has to
Income Tax Act
defend himself, as best he can, against the government that dipped into his gross salary.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I ask the government to amend that famous Income Tax Act to allow workers, and members of the various trades, to deduct the cost of the tools they need to do their work.
I have in mind, for instance, service station mechanics, carpenters, lumberjacks, while professionals, such as dentists and others, are entitled to deduct from their taxable income purchase and maintenance costs for their equipment as well as travel and other costs related to their profession. I feel that this exemption is quite justified, and I approve it.
Similarly, large corporations engaged in developing our natural resources given over to them by our governments for practically nothing, benefit from tax exemptions on all capital equipment, which amount to millions of dollars.
I am not against such tax exemptions inasmuch, and I do say, inasmuch as the same tax privileges are granted to labourers for necessary expenses related to their work. That is why ever since I came to this house I have been asking for a similar exemption, particularly for the workers of the province of Quebec who have to buy a power saw and pay for the cost of parts, and God knows how many they need, for a small machine which works so hard. If one adds to that, the cost of gasoline, oil, and so on, one can easily realize that it costs about $1,000 to $1,500 per season for the purchase and the maintenance of that equipment.
There is also the cost of safety clothes which the governments force the loggers to buy and wear in order to protect their lives. Let us add to that travelling expenses for the long distance they have to cover sometimes to get to their work, and we shall easily reach expenses of at least $2,000 a year for an ordinary bush worker.
If the government wanted to do away with the present discrimination and be fair with that category of workers, it should consider at once an amendment to the Income Tax Act to make deductions possible to the extent I have mentioned.
I do not want to retain the house any longer, since I should like the minister to announce the good news today to the effect that he is finally determined to do justice to the working class, in particular to the bush workers in my area.

October 30, 1967
Income Tax Act
We expect nothing else from the minister but a categorical yes to the effect of amending the Income Tax Act.
I chose to proceed by way of a notice of motion to give the government the opportunity to present a bill amending the Income Tax Act.
Indeed, we all know by experience the fate of a bill introduced by a private member, and I do not want to run the risk of having a bill killed.
We have been too patient already; let the government give us proof of its goodwill.
Mr. Speaker, the workers in general, and the bush workers especially need an alleviation of taxes.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act so that workmen may deduct from their taxable income any expense incurred by the acquisition of hand or electrical tools required to perform their work.
The house is asked from time to time to grant employees tax exemptions for the cost of the equipment they need to do their work.
During the debate on the Income Tax Act in 1965, the then minister of finance, the hon. Mr. Gordon, was asked about that. He said that he was sympathetic to the requests and that he was not satisfied with the present provisions, adding however that because of the complexity of the whole matter he felt that a decision should be postponed until the government had at its disposal the recommendations of the royal commission on taxation.
Under the present act, employees cannot deduct the amounts spent on the purchase of tools needed for their work. It would be discriminatory to allow the bush workers to deduct the amounts spent on the hand, electric, or power tools they need for their work without granting the same deduction to all employees.
If such a deduction were allowed, it would imply a review of the whole question of deductions for expenses incurred in the course of employment, for instance, for the purchase of hand, electric or power tools, special uniforms, clothing and equipment needed by a workman to perform his work.
Even though several of those expenses must necessarily be made in the course of employment, in some cases it may be difficult

to determine whether a particular expense has been incurred for employment or personal purposes, for instance, in the case of the purchase of special clothing.
This whole matter should be discussed when the fiscal legislation is reviewed following the recommendations of the royal commission on taxation, instead of extending the provisions of the present legislation in a piecemeal fashion.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The proposed amendment, if passed, would be difficult to apply. For example, although the hon. member explained in part what is meant by the word "workmen", does this term include tradesmen, lumbermen, mechanics, carpenters, bricklayers, masons, electricians, plumbers, teachers and the other professions? Why is the proposed deduction limited to expenses incurred by the acquisition of hand or electrical tools? Why does it not apply also to mechanical tools?
In the United States, the employee is generally considered as being in business and, under clause 162 of the internal revenue code, he is entitled to the same ordinary and necessary business expenses as the businessman or the professional who works for himself. The main difference between the expenses of a businessman and those of an employee is that the former can deduct all his ordinary and necessary expenses and still benefit from the ordinary reduction, while the employee who wishes to benefit by the ordinary reduction can claim only expenses falling in the four following categories: Reimbursed expenses, expenses for travel away from home, transportation expenses and travelling salesman expenses.
However, the employee may deduct other ordinary and necessary expenses instead of taking advantage of the ordinary reduction. The returns contain minute and severe conditions.
Mr. Speaker, another aspect of the expenses incurred in earning one's life which should be considered is that of transportation expenses. Many people today have to travel 40 to 80 miles to get to work. Some may say that these people should move closer to their work, but there may be good reasons why they cannot do so: they may be taking care of their parents, they may be home owners, or there may be some other reason.
And so, one finds it harder and harder, in the big cities, to buy a lot at a reasonable price for home building purposes. If income
October 30, 1367

tax law gave a deduction of these expenses from gross income, perhaps many people would act and build themselves a house in semi-urban or rural areas, which would alleviate the administrations of those large cities of many problems and would also make it possible for more people to acquire their own house, at a more reasonable price.
Here, Mr. Speaker, are some observations and related proposals made by the royal commission on taxation in its report, and I quote from page 289 of volume 3:
We now turn to consider the deduction of expenses by employees. The principle involved is clear enough. All of the expenses incurred in the expectation of generating net gains, other than personal living expenses, should be allowed as deductions from all actual gross gains. Distinctions between the kinds and forms of taxable gains, and considerations of whether a net gain actually resulted from the expenditures, are irrelevant. The major problem would be to allow the deduction of all expenses laid out to generate employment income and yet to prevent the deduction of personal living expenses.
It would be obvious in most cases, Mr. Speaker, as stated by the Carter report, that a given item falls within one category or the other, but marginal cases would be difficult to solve.
In this regard, the Carter report states the following in volume 3, page 316:
Because of the stringent limitations in the present law, employees are unable to deduct many expenses that are deductible by the self-employed. Skilled manual workers and employed professionals in particular are unfairly treated relative to the self-employed.
On page 312, volume 3, of the report of the royal commission on taxation, we find the proposed rules for deductibility, and I quote:
We came to the conclusion that the most equitable course would be to treat employment income on the same basis as income from a business or profession.
Expenses would then be deductible if reasonably related to the earning of income. The prohibition against the deduction of personal and living expenses as set out in section 12 (1)	(h) of the
Income Tax Act would, of course, be applicable, as would the provision in section 12	(2) that
expenses must be reasonable in the circumstances.
The adoption of such a course would remove the unfair discrimination between the two kinds of income and should not lead to much additional litigation. As we have already stated, the United States does place employment income on the same basis as business income, and all "ordinary and necessary" expenses are deductible for both kinds of income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Rosthern rising on a question of privilege or a point of order?
Income Tax Act


Mr. Nasserden:: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether that section of Beauchesne which deals with the reading of a speech prepared by someone else could be drawn to the hon. member's attention.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot suggest that another member's speech has been written by a third person. He can bring to the attention of the Chair that an hon. member appears to be reading his speech. That is another matter. It is certainly not in order for an hon. member to suggest that the statement or speech of one of his colleagues is not his own personal contribution.
Having said that, I gather that perhaps the hon. member has been inspired by what are referred to as copious notes. The rule is that as far as possible hon. members should not read prepared speeches and I hope the hon. member for Labelle will take that into consideration. I realize, of course, that when we are dealing with a matter as highly technical as the one before the house, this should be taken into account by the Chair. This is what I am prepared to do in the case of the hon. member. However, I hope he will not overlook the requirements of the rules in this respect.


Gaston Clermont: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, but in answer to the hon. member who asked me that question, I would like to point out that I have heard several of his speeches in the house and I think that he should have written them down before they were delivered because they would have made a lot more sense.
As you stated, Mr. Speaker, I was quoting some extracts of the report of the royal commission on taxation, better known under the name of Carter commission, and I think that it would be risky to quote a 2,600 pages report dealing with various matters concerning taxation without any notes. I venture to think that you will still be indulgent and allow me to use these notes. I could discuss the matter under consideration without referring to these notes, but I preferred to get ready in advance, Mr. Speaker, so that my speech would not resemble those delivered by hon. members who asked me the question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: What are you reading?

October 30, 1987
Income Tax Act


Gaston Clermont: I am going to reply to the member who asked me what I was reading. I have the advantage of understanding him when he speaks English. But when I speak French, I wonder if he understands me.
I quote again from the Carter commission report:
However, because of the great numbers of taxpayers in receipt of employment income in Canada, and to obviate the need for processing numerous claims for relatively small items, we recommend an optional deduction of 3 per cent of gross employment income, up to a maximum deduction of $500.
Any employee whose deductible expenses exceeded this figure would be at liberty to claim them in lieu of the optional 3 per cent deduction, provided they were itemized and substantiated. The deductibility of particular itemized expenses would then be determined in accordance with the rules to be applied to business expenses. Employees, like the self-employed, would not be permitted to deduct travelling and entertainment expenses in excess of the limits discussed earlier in this chapter.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I trust that when the time comes to deal with the complete revision of the Income Tax Act, the government will give serious attention to the matter of granting to those who must travel, and to those who must buy tools to earn a living, the right to deduct those expenses, thereby placing him on the same footing as the self-employed.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I would find it easier to support the notice of motion put forward by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) if, after the word "hand" he would insert the word "mechanical", and I intend to propose such an amendment a little later.
When I think of the dissertation which has just been made by the hon. member for Labelle-

Maybe I should tell him that in French to assure him I can speak both languages.
When the Income Tax Act comes up for revision, I hope that the changes requested in this motion will be considered, and that the minister will make use of the hon. member's speech, as this will save him a lot of worry and time in making up his mind.
I do not think that the hon. member could give a similar answer in his own constituency, where lumberjacks, skilled men, have to purchase their own tools in order to earn their living. Clerical employees do not

have to pay for pens and pencils used in the office, whereas woodcutters have to purchase their own labour-saving, lightweight power saws-


Gaston Clermont: Would the hon. member permit a question concerning power saws? Have they been in use only in the past two or three years or were they not in existence when the party of the hon. member was in power? What did his government do about these deductions?


James Russell Keays: The question of the hon. member is easy to answer because I am not here to defend the previous government but to protect the interests of those who are not getting justice.
Mr. Speaker, the speech of the hon. member for Labelle could go on forever, in fact, it could go on until the study in taxation is completed, which as a result would delay for many years the decision that must be taken on this matter. If that is the way the hon. member wants to decide the question, I hope the government does not share his opinion. We have a current problem to solve and let us try to solve it.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, it is easier for the hon. member to criticize the government now than it was when he was sitting on the government benches and nothing was being done on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Russell Keays: I recognize the problems which would be inherent in the application of any such legislation, because of the operating expenses of such people as mechanics, electricians and service people, who in many cases are called upon to supply their own tools. In many cases this entails considerable, expense. However, I think the difficulty could be overcome by taking one industry at a time and granting them a flat deduction so long as these particular people practise their trade.
I made reference to the saws used in the forestry industry because this is an industry which, unlike other industries has been adversely affected by some legislation. I am referring to the Unemployment Insurance Commission which restricts the amount of contribution which is deducted from the wages of the forestry worker. This is not the case in other industries. I hope the government will consider the interests of these people, who in many cases, in areas where there
October 30, 1967

are no lumber camps, have to travel 40 or 50 miles in order to reach their place of work. They cannot deduct their travelling expenses, and sometimes they have to invest $600 or $700 in the purchase of saws. Often this must be done annually because these saws are so light that they cannot stand up to two or three years of operation.
The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) tried to defend the government. He would be better advised to defend the worker who, as he will find out, does not earn $5,000 or $6,000 but only $1,000 or $2,000 a year. Often this worker in order to earn $2,000 has to spend $1,000 and at the end of the year all he has left is misery, and a lack of sufficient money to keep his family. I hope the hon. member will realize that it is in the interests of all people that these workers be treated justly.


Gaston Clermont: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
When closing my remarks, I asked the government to take into serious consideration the feasibility of that deduction. I ask the hon. member, at least, to be honest about that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no point of order. The hon. member is attempting to assert what he considers as facts. Therefore, this is obviously a debate and the hon. member will have the opportunity later on, when the house again considers this notice of motion, to make a statement and establish the facts.


James Russell Keays: Mr. Speaker, I based my statement on the speech that the hon. member for Labelle has just made, when he said referring to the report of the Carter commission that, as recommended by the commission, the deductions should be subject to greater scrutiny and reasonable expenses only should be allowed. Those are the words uttered by the hon. member for Labelle, and I hope that if we implement the word "reasonable", the tools some workers use to earn a living will be included.

Mr. Speaker, before closing I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden):
That immediately after the word "hand'' be inserted the word "mechanical".
Income Tax Act


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should draw to the attention of the hon. member that if carried his amendment would not result in a logical motion. I wonder whether some additional words should not be inserted. The hon. member may review his proposed amendment. It is difficult for the Chair to accept an amendment which is inconsistent with the main motion and which, if adopted, would not result in a grammatically correct sentence.


James Russell Keays: I believe the word "or" should be added so that the sentence would read "by the acquisition of hand or mechanical".


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's amendment would therefore read:
That immediately after the word "hand" be inserted the words "or mechanical".
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion before us, both the original and as amended. If I have any criticism to make with respect to the main motion or the amendment it is that the motion is still not comprehensive enough. Certainly the inclusion of the words proposed by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays) does make the resolution more worthy. It seems to me that in addition to the inclusion of certain categories of tools and equipment mechanically driven, such as chain saws used by pulp cutters, one could go on to make up quite a list. The hon. member for Gaspe might have included one more feature in his amendment, and that would be certain kinds of work clothes that are necessary, such as hard hats, safety boots, and so on as used in certain occupations by construction workers. It is a matter, I suppose of making changes to the definitions in the Income Tax Act in order to cover certain types of safety clothes, helmets and so on.
In the little time available to me, I want to say that the point conjured up by the debate is the obvious one that the existing income tax law seems definitely to militate against the wage earner and salaried worker in this country. It seems to me the act obviously is of benefit to those who earn their income from fees and militates against those who earn their income from wages or salaries. In conversation earlier today the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said his interpretation of the income tax law could be set forth in a few words, namely that there is complete bias in the income tax legislation which has the effect of making it class legislation.

October 30, 1967
Income Tax Act
I am not for one moment trying to say that this was the intention, but it certainly has been the result. Our income tax law does not permit these people to deduct their expenses in acquiring the tools that are necessary for them to earn their livelihood. I believe the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) has already pointed out that the Carter commission report made specific recommendations in connection with this matter. It set forth three basic principles with regard to the new criteria which should be established with regard to determining in the future what expenses should be allowed.
I should like to put on the record these three principles, and I quote from page 83 of the Carter commission report:
The first general rule is that expenditures should be deductible only if they are reasonably related to the gaining or producing of income.
As a corollary of that first principle there is a second rule stated at page 85, which reads:
The second general rule is related to the first and would assert that expenditures otherwise deductible should not be allowed to the extent that they are unreasonable in the circumstance.
So we have injected into this consideration the premise of reasonableness of the amount of the deduction. Finally, Mr. Speaker, according to the Carter report, page 85, there is this third general rule:
The third general rule is that expenditures of a personal nature, that is expenditures made for personal use or consumption, should not be deductible.
No one is disagreeing with that in so far as the motion before us is concerned. Finally, on page 86 of the report there is in a sense a summary of the commission's thinking, which reads:
We have suggested that there should be a more liberal approach than currently exists to employee expense deductions.
I then add in parenthesis that when the commission uses the word "liberal" I take it the word is not used in a partisan sense.
We believe that the best way to achieve an equitable treatment of expenses related to employment is generally to apply the same rules to these expenditures as are to be applied to business expenditures.
I pause again to say that this seems to sum it up almost with perfection.
Thus, the present prohibition on the deduction of most employment expenses should be withdrawn, and the three rules outlined above should apply.
This report goes on to make reference to reducing the administrative problems of

accounting in connection with this matter. The report states that perhaps an optional standard deduction of 3 per cent of employment income, with a maximum deduction of $500, could be established. I believe some consideration of this matter indicates that most craftsmen, whether they be journeymen electricians or carpenters, make an initial expenditure of at least $300 or $400 for a basic set of tools necessary to their trade. Considering the inflation factor presently at work, it would seem that the figure put forward in the report is not unrealistic. In fact I believe the proposal before us, coupled with the recommendations in the Carter commission report, is very sensible and worthy of consideration. I cannot understand why these principles cannot be reflected in our legislation. As a matter of fact my colleagues, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) have almost every year for the past five years introduced private members bills or notices of motion calling for the same kind of change in our income tax laws as that proposed by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, as a layman in income tax matters, when one looks with some detachment at our income tax law he finds there are certain basic injustices. For example professional men such as dentists or doctors are allowed deductions from income tax for the purchase of equipment. Let us take a dentist, for example. When he buys an electric drill which is necessary to earn his income, that expense is deductible, but when a carpenter buys an electric saw, which is equally necessary for him to earn his livelihood, that expense is not deductible. I might add that while some dentists are quite gentle and soothing in their work, it should be said that others lack precision in the use of their drills, just as some carpenters do in the use of their saws.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I should like to sum up my contribution to this debate by saying that we should accept the principle that if occupational necessity demands the use of a tool or set of tools, the capital required to purchase those tools should be deductible for income tax purposes in the same way as are tools used by those engaged in a professional occupation. To do otherwise it seems to me is to help perpetrate an economic injustice today.
Ociober 30, 1967


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to agree that there has been unfair discrimination between the two kinds of income that we might refer to as, on the one hand, employment income, and on the other as business or professional income.
I think all the points which have been brought out so effectively by my colleagues who have preceded me have been considered in the past by the authorities, and the real reason that change has not taken place heretofore is the difficulty of administration, which is a very real problem.
However, Mr. Speaker, we appreciate that while the Carter commission does not declare government policy, it does open up this field to new and enterprising examination. Currently, the Department of Finance is studying all of the Carter commission recommendations, as well as comments made by citizens in relation thereto, which come from all possible sources. I am sure that the debate which has been introduced so imaginatively by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) will contribute to this consideration.
The only commitment made so far by the government as I understand it, is the implementation of tax reform. The actual nature of this reform and the direction it may take is something that is at yet unannounced. I suppose the only question before us is the timeliness of taking remedial action before total tax revision.
There is one aspect that I should like to touch on which relates to the type of equipment that might be deductible from employment income for income tax purposes-what we might call tools of the trade. The hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) suggested a maximum of $500, but personally I think the figure might well be double that.
I should like to mention briefly some of the kinds of items that today would be very appropriate for consideration. Circular saws of six pounds to 16 pounds, in sizes of from six inches to ten inches, range in cost from $80 to $180. Quarter inch to lj-inch drills sell for from $12 to $200. So you can see that two or three of these items alone amount to a fairly substantial packet. Jig saws range in price from $20 to $100. Routers, which are rated in horsepower from half-horse to 21, horsepower, can cost anywhere from $50 to $250. Sanders, belt-type or finishing-type, range in price from $20 to $200.
Income Tax Act
It is common knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that the best products of this type in the world are made by Black and Decker Manufacturing Limited, who have held a federal charter since 1922 and have their Canadian headquarters at Brockville. This company has plants all over the free world, in the United States, Canada, England, Germany, Italy, Australia and Mexico. They are now specializing in Canada and marketing their products by way of export to all parts of the world.
One might ask who are the end users of these tools. They are carpenters, plumbers, the heating, ventilating and air conditioning trades, the home improvement trades, contractors, the wood craft and light industry shops as well as heavy industry. All of these products to which I have referred are produced in Brockville. The only tools of this type that are imported into Canada at the present time are low-volume products, such as odd-sized machines which would be altogether uneconomic to tool and machine here. What a great advantage it is to be able to draw on the research facilities, expertise and occasional product direct from the parent company.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question before I rise on a point of order. The hon. member's comments are both interesting and informative, but how do they relate to the amount that is specified in the Carter report? I believe the hon. member used that as the reason for digressing.


John Ross Matheson: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if we are going to add something to our existing legislation we should know the type of deductible items we are talking about. During the course of this debate there has been reference to mechanical tools, and however meritorious they may be they cannot compare in today's modern world with the electrical hand tools to which I have referred. I think it is clear from the price of these articles that a deduction of $1,000-


James Russell Keays: Would the hon. member take time to tell us about Stanley tools and Snap-On tools, so as to give everyone a fair hearing?


John Ross Matheson: It just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is now specializing in the production of electrical power tools, and we produce the best product, a product that is now being exported to every continent. As a matter of fact, many of the principles that are inherent in current United States auto

October 30, 1967
Supply-Industry
pact agreements are now being introduced by this power tool industry. Indeed, as a result of a Black and Decker international directors meeting which took place in Brockville on October 19 last it is planned to expand their export production by the amount of $2 million worth a year.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the point taken by the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer) is relevant. It does seem to me a little difficult to relate the comments of the hon. member at the present time to the resolution that is before the house.


Mr. Malhescn:: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying that not only is there equity in the proposals of the hon. member for Roberval to reform the tax law, but perhaps more important, the proposals of the hon. gentleman would tend to make Canadians more skilful and competent and would tend to bring about that wonderful spirit of pride in quality ownership which is still the basis of Canadian society and growth.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour assigned to the consideration of private members business has now expired. It being seven o'clock the house will resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Nasserden in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,568,300.
Edward Nasserden: Order. House again in committee of supply. It being after 7 p.m. I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The house in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Industry. Shall vote 1 carry?


Richard Albert Bell: Where is the minister, Mr. Chairman.


Mrs. Rideout:: He is on his way down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What department did you call, sir?
[Mr. Matheson.l


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was understood that the Minister of Industry would be available until about six o'clock, and that the committee might wish to pass his estimates. If not, we shall go on with the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Minister of Industry was in the middle of a speech at six o'clock. I hoped he would complete that speech. We are glad to go on with the public works estimates. But the guillotine is operating and we have only a short time to consider the estimates of any department. I think the Minister of Industry ought to be here in this chamber tonight, to answer the questions of the hon. member for Kamloops and others. I do not understand why he is not here and why we must change departments.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The committee of supply will resume consideration of the estimates of the Department of Public Works. These were last considered on Thursday, June 29. Vote 1 is to be found on page 420 of the blue book, with the details at page 422.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $19,734,600.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall item 1 carry?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, the estimates of the Department of Public Works were considered by the standing committee on estimates. They were then presented to the committee of supply and discussion was begun on item No. 1. Since discussion was started in June in committee of supply I propose, if it meets with the general wishes of hon. members, not to make such remarks at this time, in order to make time available so that they may make such remarks as they wish and ask such questions as they wish.


James Russell Keays: On page 2134 of Hansard for June 29, when the minister's estimates were before the committee, he undertook to make certain additional information available to the house. Is that information now available to him? I do not know precisely what he was referring to, but I think the subject was the Northumberland crossing. At the top of the right hand column of that page are reported these words:
-an undertaking was given by me that when additional information becomes available later in the year on one of the main items an opportunity would be provided for the committee to get that information and deal with it,-
Is that information now available?
October 30, 1987


George James McIlraith: The reference there was to information about the Northumberland crossing. It will be recalled that we had not awarded certain contracts for which tenders had been invited. The reasons had been given in the house at about the end of May.
When these estimates were before the standing committee I gave an undertaking to that committee, wh.ch has since been repeated twice in the House of Commons, that I would bring the matter before the standing committee in order to permit those members who were interested particularly in that subject to get the most up to date information we had. The reason I said "when the information is available" is that we have named a co-ordinator to act on behalf of the department, to co-ordinate the consultant's work and supervise the contracting later. That was the reference, and that still stands. We are not yet in the position where it would be useful or helpful to recall the committee. As soon as information is ready the undertaking will be honoured.


James Russell Keays: October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works
Care should be taken however when awarding contracts either to engineers or to consultants on a free basis. These contracts should not be considered as political plums given for services rendered. And while I am talking about political plums, I think the minister will be interested to hear about an incident which happened recently in my own riding. Benevolent, generous and easy going as I am, I was embarrassed when I assisted not long ago at a function during which the Minister of Public Works was to have opened the deep water harbour in my constituency. Naturally, I had been invited to take a place on the stand, and the hon. member for Bona-venture was the spokesman for the minister who did not, in fact, attend. I have now received two intimations from the minister-one this year and one last year-that he intended to visit my riding but to date I have not seen him there. He has accordingly missed one of the most enjoyable trips of his lifetime. In addition to enjoying nature in the raw and nature in its cultured state he would also have been in a position to appreciate people who have been able to survive only after a tremendous struggle. I am sure that on his return from that riding he would have said: "The coffers of the government are open to the people of Gaspe."
Unfortunately, the minister delegated the hon. member for Bonaventure to represent him-and I am sorry the hon. member for Bonaventure is not here at the moment; he left the chamber a few minutes ago. I am sure he will be back. Throughout the ceremony I was seated in my place on the stand, listening to the speeches. The only person who got any credit for getting that deep water harbour constructed was the former member of parliament for the constituency, a man who unfortunately was defeated.
I know the minister would not approve of this. Had he been there he would not have said those things. He is not a politician.


An hon. Member:: A statesman.


James Russell Keays: However, I sat there listening to all the great things that had been done by my predecessor.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


James Russell Keays: I would like to remind the hon. member who was interjecting that if he had been in this house from 1958 to 1962 and seen the work done by the then hon. member for Gaspe he would be in a position to say today that it was a Conservative government which
[Mr. KeaysJ
approved the project, and that it was a Liberal government which delayed it for five years because it could not reach an understanding with the company involved.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
But hon. members opposite wanted to make a political issue of it. A political issue is made of everything that is done by the Department of Public Works in every riding. This is not the way in which the people of Canada should be treated. I hope that some day the minister will visit my riding and be able to show that he is non-partisan. I have wished to say this for a long time, but this is the first opportunity I have had to do so.
I believe that very soon the officials of the department should begin to prepare themselves for the enormous urban development programs which will be required in the various large centres of this country. This department has a great responsibility. I hope in these days when there is a cutting back on expenditures and the people of Canada are being asked to go easy in their demands, that the minister now at least will begin to plan for a future which is not too far away; because in the future there will be a necessity to institute large and extensive projects in the urban areas of our country.
To this point I have made no request of the minister in respect of any projects in my riding, because I consider this to be something which should be brought up under the different items. I would remind the minister however, that the members of this party believe that the large expenditures on the part of the government must be stopped at this time, and priorities must be established. These priorities must be established in such a way that our citizens will not be deprived of the opportunity to earn income. I could cite a dozen cases where an expenditure of $200, $300 or $500 was refused when this expenditure would have made available facilities which would have enabled our fishermen to practise their trade and earn an income, so that they would not be obliged to go to the social services for help. This is one area in which I believe the Department of Public Works is falling down. It does not seem to be concerned about the small projects. At the present time it would appear that the department is mainly concerned with the large construction projects because small ones, such as the expenditure of $200 or $300 for dredging in order that three or four fishermen might be able to earn their living, are turned down. The type of spending the department is doing
October 30, 19G7



is not priority spending; it is spending which is contrary to common sense.
I see the hon. member for Bonaventure has returned to his seat. He did say that I was generous and at that time I said nothing. Today, however, I have taken the opportunity to reply to the credit which has been given to a former member. If members on the other side would be as generous, credit would be given to those who really deserve it.


Mr. Bechard:: That is what I did.


James Russell Keays: October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works understand the jobs were finally accepted as completed some two months ago. The contractor who completed them does not have the means to pay his bills, and cannot afford to wait 90 days or longer for payment because his creditors are pushing him. He has not as yet been paid. The suppliers who came to the aid of the original contractor have claims against the department but are still awaiting some reply as to when and if they are to be paid. I directed this matter to the attention of the minister on three or four occasions in an attempt to get a satisfactory answer, but I have not yet received one, and that is why I have followed up my threat of last week to raise this matter in the house.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman, let me take the opportunity of making a few remarks tonight, during our consideration of these estimates, about a matter of considerable interest to the people of Vancouver. Before doing so let me congratulate the minister on the very fine job he has done this summer in making parliament hill a very gay and attractive place, with many flags and decorations during centennial year. I do not think Nelson at the battle of Trafalgar was more flag conscious than our Minister of Public Works when he decorated parliament hill this summer.
Over the past 20 years there has been a project being carried out by the Department of Public Works in the Vancouver area. This project, the Stanley park sea wall, that has cost very little but is of enormous attraction to the people of Vancouver, was discontinued during the course of this last year. I have received a great deal of correspondence, with respect to it, as have other hon. members who represent that city, from citizens of that area.
Stanley park is a body of land surrounded on three sides by water. It is actually an old piece of naval reserve property which was given to the city on a 99 year lease as a public park about the beginning of the century. Its name is virtually synonymous with the name of the city. Montreal has its Mount Royal; Ottawa has its parliament hill. I am not sure what Toronto has, but Vancouver has Stanley park. About 20 years ago the Department of Public Works began to build a sea wall and a footpath around the park along its shores. This was carried out each year on the suggestion that erosion was gradually chewing away at the cliffs of the parkland. Apparently it was decided that a

sea wall would arrest this erosion and justify the project.
Year by year the Department of Public Works in a modest way gradually extended one of the finest walks or footpaths in the world. This footpath extends through some of the most magnificent forest land in Canada, runs along the shore of English bay and around a corner in sight of Siwash rock. Many people who find little or no recreation other than walking have the opportunity of following this footpath and derive from it tremendous enjoyment. This area of Vancouver has in it a great number of older people in residence. The west end of Vancouver in which Stanley park lies is a haven for these elderly people, many of whom find their only activity and recreation in that park. It came as a shock to them this year to find that this project has been discontinued, on the ground, according to the department, that erosion was minimal. Let me suggest that no one in the city of Vancouver ever really felt that this path was being built because erosion was either maximal or minimal.
During this 20 year period Vancouverites have come to believe that the Department of Public Works was building one of the finest scenic footpaths in the world and that it would be continued. This path is something like two miles in length and, if completed, would join with footpaths along the inner harbour. I believe it is commendable to save money, but the Department of Public Works, apparently on those grounds alone, has decided to chisel on this project to the extent of the $35,000 which was to be spent this year. The department has used the excuse that erosion is minimal. I know of no other place where the work of the Department of Public Works or any other federal government works at such a low cost has brought more real pleasure to more people.
To complete this project would only involve the construction of a few hundred yards of sea wall and path. I should not like to think that the government, having almost completed this project, would really discontinue it and place a sign at the end, for the people to see to the effect that anyone who passes that point does so at his own risk. Having started this project 20 years ago I should like to think the department is prepared to complete it, because it is very attractive and has been constructed at very little cost, bringing tremendous pleasure to a great number of people.
October 30, 1367

Those are the remarks I wanted to make tonight. First of all I wanted to congratulate the minister for what I thought was a very fine display on parliament hill this year. Second, I urge him to complete the few hundred yards of this sea wall so as not to leave us with the idea in Vancouver that the federal government has let us down.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer some of the questions that have been asked. The hon. member for Gaspe spoke about protection walls, mainly on the St. Lawrence. I wanted to indicate that it is quite true that this type of wall has been constructed over very many years. There is in the St. Lawrence a situation whereby some erosion is caused by shipping. In those cases the federal government has felt it has reponsibility and has tried to continue the policy of erecting the necessary protection walls. There may be other reasons, due to the construction of a dock or wharf, where erosion may be caused and a similar rule would be applied. But where the erosion is from natural causes the federal government has taken the position that it is not a federal responsibility.
This is where the difficulty arises, because wherever there is erosion it seems that there is a tendency, and I can understand it very well, for those persons affected to feel that the federal government should immediately put in a protection wall, although the federal government does not have jurisdiction over the resource being eroded. In that case it falls with n the provincial or local field of responsibility. This is the reason for the difficulty on the subject of protective works.
The hon. member for Gaspe spoke about my not having been able to make the trip to his area. I regret that very, very much. I share his view about the desirability of making the trip, but so far it has not been possible. No one regrets that more than I do. As for the hon. member's remarks about the project at Chandler, that all-important project, I thought when he began his remarks, and indeed throughout more than half of them, that he was applying a delicious sense of humour and was making a humourous reference. But I fear that some of the interjections indicate that perhaps some members of the federal parliament have those sensitivities that some of us wish they did not have, and the hon. member was seeking to make sure that the people of Gaspe knew who had all the virtues and who had all the
Supply-Public Works vices. I myself would not want to indicate who has all the virtues and who has all the vices because my experience in life has led me to believe that it does not work out that one person gets them all. In any event, I have tried to examine the projects as they have come in from the Gaspe, and I would remind the hon. member, in all modesty, that he should not have made the claim that he did make about the Chandler project. It is true that this project was talked about for many years. It was a Liberal government that took the tough decision to go ahead with it. Whether it is a virtue or a vice, they did it, and it is not a useful exercise to claim here that a government that has been out of office for several years undertook the project, because the record simply does not support that thesis. I will leave it at that.
The hon. gentleman made a point that I think it is well to bear in mind at this time. He said that large government expenditures must be stopped and that priorities must be established. This is the situation in which we are working at the present time. No one knows better than I what is involved in curtailing expenditures. The matter of priorities comes into that consideration. We have had to set our minds very firmly on the path of curtailing expenditures, and we are doing this. It will raise questions of priorities. These have to be detailed very carefully so that those projects which will produce the most benefit to the area or the country are proceeded with, and the others, while important but of a less direct benefit to the community or the population as a whole, are deferred.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman indicate which projects in the present estimates are being deferred?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I can do it best by taking just one illustration which will make the point. I will give the committee a good example of it, namely, the parking garage on parliament hill. It was due for tender call for next month, November of this year. That is the best example I can give. I could detail others, but a good many were started and they cannot be stopped.


Thomas Miller Bell: Why does the hon. gentleman pick the worst example?


George James McIlraith: The hon. member for Carleton can imagine that this hon. gentleman had some feelings on the subject and adopted the course with very great reluctance. He can be

October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works very sure ol that. The hon. member asked a question, and that is the best way I can answer it. The hon. member for Gaspe referred to the wharf at Sandy Beach in his area. I will look up that particular reference. I will not delay the committee by dealing with it now, because I do not have the detail here.
On the matter of the contractor, I can only assume-and here I am not speaking from recollection of the detail-from the hon. member's remarks that the contractor, after contracting to follow and being obligated to follow the federal labour laws, did not follow them, and that there is a problem because he had his employees work beyond the number of hours prescribed by law and was thereby in breach of the federal labour code unless he paid higher wages.


James Russell Keays: He paid higher wages.


George James McIlraith: 
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I will be quite brief because I know there are hon. members here who want to raise certain points of interest to their constituents. In view of the limited time we have for the discussion of estimates I would like to make a suggestion to the minister. Instead of taking 15 or 20 minutes to answer the representations made by two hon. members-which I think is quite normal under usual circumstances-I suggest he listen to hon. members' representations and then write each one a letter later on, when he has more time.


Frank Howard: Or better still, change the rules to allow more time for the discussion of estimates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I rise to speak briefly
because I have been in close association with this department and I have known the officers in charge of public works in Kootenay for over 60 years. On numerous occasions I have inspected for them wharves which were built on contract, or breakwaters or piles which were driven in, and things of that sort. So this is familiar ground to me. I am more of a builder than an intellectual. What I will say is by way of representations made by an old backwoodsman after meeting his constituents in the summer holidays.
First of all I wish to say that I appreciate the minister's response to any matters I brought to his attention. The same is true of the senior officials in Ottawa, the district officials in Vancouver and the local officials in the district, until they retired a short time ago. I must say that I found the Department of Public Works very fair indeed. I cannot complain of partisanship.


Mr. Whelan:: Are they good for a new wharf?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Whether it was the Liberal or the Conservative government that was in office, I have always been treated very fairly. I go around and meet the various organizations and groups and find out what is required. I have never asked for things I do
October 30, 1967

not think are necessary. Then I go to Vancouver and talk it over with the district officers there. Finally I come to Ottawa and make a brief plea here. We treat public works on a non-partisan basis in my district.
I do want to mention to the minister that the development of the Columbia river has created an entirely new set of circumstances, so it is only possible to plan for two or three years ahead until the whole matter has settled down and the necessary improvements have been decided upon.
I do urge that in the rebuilding of these facilities a local employee be employed to look after the immediate maintenance of certain wharves and things of that sort. Recently a man who was in charge in the district retired, and someone from the Okanagan is now in charge of the Kootenay area. It meant that in some cases wharves became quite unsafe, a plank would go out on a wharf or a piling would go down, and there was no one to repair it immediately. I understand this matter is being given consideration, so that some local person who has experience will look after these immediate needs in the repair of wharves, the clearing of driftwood from wharves in high water, and things of that sort.
I am informed that a number of wharves have been flooded out on the Arrow lakes and the Columbia river and it is the responsibility of the British Columbia power authority to pay for the replacement of the wharves in the new communities that will be established. I suggest that the department work in co-operation with the British Columbia hydro and that it make certain before coming to any final decision that a wharf is required, because of the number of people left in the community. I have heard that in some cases there was no intention to build a wharf because only a couple of dozen people were left in that community.
I suggest that the departmental officials pay very close attention to the development going on at the present time, and before coming to any final decision make sure that any docks built are built where they are required, even though the population may be quite small under the present circumstances.
I suggest also that in the meantime the dredge on the Arrow lakes be maintained. It is not expected to dredge, in view of the rising of the water, when the High Arrow dam is completed, but I do suggest the department maintain the dredge in the meantime because when the High Arrow dam is completed there may be certain work
Supply-Public Works for the dredge to do in maintaining channels into the new wharves, or possibly dredging certain channels from one area to another. This dredge will also be very useful for rental at a per diem rate to organizations or communities which want to use it in the building of their own projects, such as launching facilities for clubs. It has been usual for the department throughout the years to rent this dredge for around $50 a day to non-profit community organizations developing community projects. I suggest the dredge be maintained at the present time which, under present circumstances, simply means keeping a watch on it, because it may be used when the projects are completed for the dredging of approaches to the wharves which will be rebuilt later under the department's jurisdiction and instruction, and for certain other breakwaters that may be required.
I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the development going on in our district will provide a great opportunity for recreational development, and the consequent development of the tourist industry because of the large amount of lake frontage available. I am told that in the Kootenays we have the largest area on the North American continent of front shore property on a lake or a river close to transportation. I can also quote the former leader of the official opposition, who spent several days in the Kootenays during the summer recess. When he left the district the hon. member for Prince Albert said he could not understand why the finest district in Canada was not advertised more than it is at the present time. This is my prelude to further suggestions.
As I said before, I go around and meet the village councils, boards of trade, women's institutes and other organizations. I must tell you that I like meeting women because I have always found them very constructive, especially if they are of the type that understand the things we are talking about. I met the Ainsworth boat club at Ainsworth Hot Springs. They have already commenced building a marina for the tying up of the boats coming in for tourist purposes. The tourist industry there is very large and I think they have already spent something in the neighbourhood of $10,000 or so. I understand that departmental officials have looked at this project and will give them some assistance. This is not a large expenditure. It is a small marina which will be of great advantage in developing the recreational


Mr. McQuaid:: I do not propose to take up too much time of the committee, but I feel I just cannot allow this opportunity to pass without urging upon the minister the importance of trying to impress upon the Minister of Finance that he should not make the Northumberland strait crossing a casualty of operation broadaxe. We know of course that every time the Minister of Public Works speaks on this subject he assures the people of Prince Edward Island that the crossing will not be abandoned. However, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that is not good enough. The people of Prince Edward Island want to know now when the project is going to be started and when it is going to be completed.
When this project was announced in 1965, the government committed itself to the spending of $30 million a year over a five year period until the project was completed. 
Now, Mr. Chairman, neither $30 million nor anything like it has been spent as yet and the people of our province are looking to the government to honour the commitment made to them in 1965. I agree with the hon. member for Gaspe and with the Minister of Finance that, under present circumstances, large public expenditures have to be cut back. I suggest, however, that some system of priorities must be established.
We have to argue the merits of this causeway, and one of the bases of this argument would be that our province requires it economically. I do not believe this would be difficult to establish. If one takes a look at the statistics he finds that Prince Edward Island has the lowest per capita earnings of any province in Canada. Something must be done to close the economic gap between our province and the other provinces of Canada. Everybody who has made a study of the economy of the Atlantic area over the past number of years has recognized that there is a large economic gap. They have looked for the key to close this gap. I suggest the key to close the gap is the construction of the causeway. There can be no real improvement in the per capita income of the people of Prince Edward Island, and that is what we need, unless we have easy and continuous access to the markets of the other provinces.
Prince Edward Island has fought long and hard for this causeway. Prince Edward Island stayed out of confederation from 1867 to 1873 mainly because her transportation problems had not been resolved satisfactorily. In 1873 we did enter confederation on the understanding-and this was written into the terms of union which I will quote-that we would be guaranteed efficient steam service for the conveyance of mails and passengers, to be established and maintained between the island and the mainland, winter and summer, thus placing the island in continuous communication with the Intercolonial Railway and the railway system of the dominion.
Up until the present time, these terms of confederation have not been fulfilled because the ferry service is not adequate to give us continuous communication with the mainland. At one time Prince Edward Island was so dissatisfied she felt she had an action against the federal government for a breach of the terms of union. The province actually sued the federal government for something like $17 million and was able to obtain a judgment for about a million dollars. This judgment is recorded and can be seen by
October 30, 1967

anyone who wants to take the trouble to look it up.
We consider that the terms of union have not been fulfilled. I suggest that this causeway has been a political football for too long, and for too long have we suffered by reason of the fact the causeway has been made a political football. Feasibility studies were commenced in 1956. When those studies were completed in 1962, the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker, announced that the causeway would be built. I am confident that had the Conservative government remained in power the causeway would be almost completed today. However, this did not happen. In 1962 we had a minority government, and unfortunately in 1963 the Conservative government was defeated and the Liberal government took power.


An hon. Member:: Good government.


Melvin James McQuaid: Good government? Let us see what happened to the causeway. On July 8,	1965, the present Prime Minister
announced that tenders would be called. He called a press conference and I should like to quote from the press report:
Prime Minister Pearson announced today that tenders will be called later this year tor a combined tunnel, bridge and causeway between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Construction is expected to start next April.
I do not know to which April he was referring, but apparently that April has not come as yet.
Construction is expected to start next April and Mr. Pearson said at a press conference he hopes it will be completed in late 1970.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister of Public Works to assure this house and the people of Prince Edward Island that the expectation expressed by the Prime Minister in July, 1965, will be fulfilled, and that this causeway will be completed in 1970. The press report goes on to say that when the Prime Minister made the announcement he was flanked by new mines minister J. Watson MacNaught, Prince Edward Island cabinet representative, and works minister George Mcllraith, the same man occupies the position of Minister of Public Works today.
Then, they picked the mines minister, Mr. MacNaught, up from the bowels of the earth, brushed the coal dust off his feet and sent him over to Prince Edward Island to announce to the people that the Liberal government was going to build the causeway. Mr. MacNaught flew to Prince Edward Island in a Department 27053-232
Supply-Public Works of Transport Viscount to make the announcement to the people of Prince Edward Island, and when making the announcement he was flanked by huge diagrams of the proposed project.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
We have seen these diagrams ever since 1956. I ask the Minister of Public Works to tell his men to put their crayons back in the boxes and give us something to walk on instead of pictures. We are sick to death of looking at pictures of the proposed causeway. Mr. MacNaught, flanked by these pictures, said at the time this was a proud moment for him to be in his native province and to indicate that finally the dreams of the people were about to be realized. He said a project of this magnitude was above politics and there was absolutely no connection between the announcement and any plans the government may have for an election in the near future. This was in August, 1965, and it just so happened there was an election in November of the same year.
Then, not satisfied with that, and perhaps believing the people of our province were not convinced, the government sent down the master of them all, the then minister of transport. He is a man who in opposition always championed the cause of the people of Prince Edward Island, but who when he joined the government was not listened to so attentively. However, the then minister of transport ran up and down the island like a dog looking for a telephone pole. Everywhere he stopped he assured the people that the causeway would be built. Then in October 1965, exactly one month before the election, he said in Kensington that there would be no further hold-ups. Mark that, Mr. Chairman-no further hold-ups.


Howard Russell MacEwan: He ran out of poles.


Melvin James McQuaid: He said that the work was being pushed ahead. According to him, this was not to be a gift to Prince Edward Island. This was not an election bribe, but a sound economic investment for Canada. We want to know now where this sound economic investment for Canada is.


George James McIlraith: It is growing very rapidly.


Melvin James McQuaid: If it was a sound economic investment one month before the November 1965 election, I suggest it is a sound economic investment now and must not become a victim of operation broadaxe.

October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works
Then the minister of external affairs-yes, Mr. Chairman, they loaded their big guns and sent them down-came to the island on October 26, two weeks before the election, and he told the people of the island that this causeway would do more to stimulate economic growth in Prince Edward Island than anything since confederation. And did that ever go over good, Mr. Chairman.
Then the minister of mines was sent down to the island with his bulldozer, a couple of days before the election, and he started the road; but that is practically all we have heard of this causeway since then.


Mr, Mcllraith:: The hon. member should get his facts straight.


Mr, McQuaid:: Nothing concrete has been done since. We want some action. Let me say to hon. gentlemen across the way: Come alive, get on to yourselves. They have no seats in Prince Edward Island, and they will get none the next time if they do not do something to build this causeway. We want the causeway before the next election; we want something to be done right away.
I agree there are people who argue against the causeway on the basis that it is too expensive. I am half inclined to believe that the government itself is coming to the conclusion that it will cost too much money. All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that that is not a valid argument. Some people would like to divide the number of people on the island into the cost of the causeway, and to point out that it will cost so much per capita; but I contend that this approach is ridiculous.
This is a causeway that will benefit not only the people of Prince Edward Island but all people in Canada. Even if it did benefit only the people of Prince Edward Island, they are still entitled to it. We are a province of Canada and want to be joined to Canada. There are provinces today asking to be separated from Canada; all we want is to be given the chance to be joined to Canada and to become part of this great country.
When people say the causeway will cost too much, did anybody complain about the $350 million to build the St. Lawrence seaway? For example, who today complains about the Columbia river development in British Columbia? Who complains about the Mactaquac in New Brunswick? Who complains about the atomic power establishments in Ontario and Manitoba. No one. These projects are all part of our national investment. Therefore, no one should complain about the cost of the causeway to Prince

Edward Island. We need it, it is necessary for our economic development.
Mr. Churchill, who apparently is now an agent of the Department of Public Works, set the thing out very clearly, I think, when he spoke in Charlottetown a few days ago, and I should like to place on record what he said at that time:
The cost of building and operating the nine mile Northumberland strait crossing could be recovered within 50 years.
That is true, Mr. Chairman. The ferry is today operating at an annual deficit of $5 million. At a loss of $5 million a year, within 50 years the causeway would be paid for. Mr. Churchill continued:
But even without such savings, the benefit to the isolated economy of Prince Edward Island, now joined to the mainland by ferry service, could be enormous.
"I am tempted to believe that there can be no real improvement in income and standards of living on the island unless easy and continuous access to markets is arranged"-
I say amen to that.
"As a Canadian project, the crossing will rank with construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway,"-
Although it would cost less to construct than the $550 million Churchill falls power project in Labrador, "the technical problems appear more difficult."
Despite the difficulties of building in the ocean and despite heavy costs to the federal government, "less tangible benefits might be found in the effect on the general business climate in eastern Canada and the renewed interest that might be shown in locating in the Atlantic region."
"I think these points are perhaps not given the weight they should have when people consider the economics of providing the crossing"-
"If the economy of this island is improved to the point where reduction of federal subsidies to the provincial government in the amount of only $5 million a year can be achieved, capital and capitalized operation of the crossing might well be recovered within 50 years-
Any difference that now exists between the wage earnings in Prince Edward Island and the rest of the region or of Canada will tend to be equalized during the period of heavy labour demand occasioned by the construction itself"-
That is what Mr. Churchill had to say, Mr. Chairman. As far as we can find out, Mr. Churchill is an accredited representative of the Department of Public Works, and he says that the causeway will be of terrific economic advantage to our province.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge upon the government as strongly as I can to delay this project no more, because if they do they will be in trouble with the people of Prince Edward Island.
Ociober 30, 1967


George James McIlraith: It has not been delayed at all.


Melvin James McQuaid: It has. The minister continues to say that the project has not been delayed, yet when the project was announced in 1965 the government of the day promised to spend $30 million per year over a five year period.


George James McIlraith: It did not. See the text of the press release.


Melvin James McQuaid: The government promised that $30 million a year would be spent. As a matter of fact, I have the press release here if I can take the time to look it up. The minister now says that the project is not being delayed. We cannot see any real, sincere effort being made to construct the causeway at the present time. Two years have passed since 1965, and although the minister promises that the causeway will be built we want him to announce now when construction is going to start in earnest. Then and only then will the people of Prince Edward Island be satisfied that this government has lived up to the promise it made early in 1965.


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three items on the public works estimates that I should like to mention; they are mostly constituency problems.
I am one of the members of this house who has respect for the Minister of Public Works, mostly because of the co-operation I have received from him in the many requests I have made in the house during the short time I have been here. I took the opportunity to say as much when I was given the job of introducing the minister at an official function at the opening of our new arena, a centennial project in Clinton this past year.
Might I say that the people of Bayfield are sincerely grateful for the reconstruction of the north pier, part of the cost of which appears in the estimates last year, the remainder being in these estimates. The job is either completed or close to completion.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The success of the project was marred by an accident in which two local boys lost their lives. We were all saddened. I am sure that the accident was not caused through any negligence on the part of the department.
Another item I wish to speak about is the reconstruction at Snug Harbour, in Goderich. This reconstruction was promised as an election promise in the election previous to that of 1965. Because of the publicity this 27053-2325
Supply-Public Works announcement received at that time I followed it through. I am happy to say that the contract, which was also on the estimates of last year, was finally let on May 17 of this year. It is to reconstruct the Snug Harbour pier, and the estimated cost was $130,000. The actual cost will be over $186,000. Work is under way and should be completed shortly, and for that I thank the minister. I also wish to thank him for another $270,000, to be set beside the original $130,000, which will make up the $400,000 to be spent this year on Goderich harbour.
Goderich is about 20 miles from where I live, is one of the largest towns in the riding, and has a fair volume of vessel traffic. The $270,000 is required for reconstruction of the outer end of the north pier. Steel sheet piling and reinforced concrete are to be used, as this section now is in a state of deterioration, and concrete sections along the south face occasionally are falling into channels. During the spring run-off the Maitland river flows partly underneath the existing structure. The proposed work will consist of reconstructing a 640 foot long section of the north pier in steel sheet piling and reinforced concrete.
I received a press release earlier with regard to the reconstruction at Snug Harbour. It advised us that the contract had been let, at an estimated cost of $270,000. I wish to know when the work is to be completed, or if it has been completed. I have faith enough in the minister to know that if he has not that information, he will advise me as soon as possible when he has it.
I wanted to bring this matter to the minister's attention. I realize that this item is in the estimates, but I am anxious to see this work carried out. I also wanted to take the opportunity of thanking the minister for the co-operation he has extended to me during the short time I have been a member of this house.


Mr. Hopkins:: I wish to address a few remarks to the Minister of Public Works, and to clarify something that has arisen recently. First of all, I may say to the hon. member for Kings that, in speaking on this matter for Renfrew county tonight, Renfrew county is larger than Prince Edward Island. If we had four members of parliament and four senators representing Renfrew county, we would have had a majority government from the beginning of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works


Mr. Webb:: Don't be too sure of that.


An hon. Member:: They might not have got in.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: During the past several
months several meetings have taken place between officials of the town of Pembroke, officials of the Department of Public Works and the minister. The intention has been to demolish the dock that was built shortly after the first world war, the estimated cost of the demolition being between $90,000 and $100,000. This demolition has been badly needed for the past few years, as the dock has presented a great hazard to the area.
Recent estimates show an amount of $50,000 set aside for the demolition of this wharf. So that the officials of Pembroke will be fully aware of the department's plan with regard to this wharf, I wish to ask the minister whether it is the intention to have an additional amount of money included in the estimates for the year 1968-69 to complete this job satisfactorily to both parties concerned.


George James McIlraith: The simple answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.


Harold Edward Winch: 
John Oates Bower: If in the remarks I intend to make I sound repetitive, I make no apologies whatever. On the contrary, I can assure hon. members opposite that I shall continue to hammer away at these subjects until the constituents I represent get some satisfaction and consideration in connection with the problems they are facing.
Speaking on the estimates of the Department of Industry I made an appeal to the Minister of Industry assuming he was as interested in keeping industries from going to the wall, or disappearing for lack of certain facilities, as he was in encouraging new industries. I got no reply. Then, sotto voce, I heard him mention my constituency when he said he intended to reply only to those members who were sufficiently interested to remain in their seats. I can assure the minister that I was in my place when he began his remarks, I was there while he was making them and I was still there when he concluded. I have not heard from him.
Accordingly I intend to start with another minister because it is my purpose to try, somehow or other, to get some co-ordination into the conglomerate government we have opposite-ministers who apparently do not speak to each other or who never bother to relate economic factors in the slightest degree.
Long before the Minister of Finance announced that expenditures should be curtailed, and before it became apparent to him
Ociober 30, 1967

that deficit financing would inevitably contribute to the inflation we are now facing, I was among the first to recognize the realities of the situation. However, when curtailing expenditure I maintain that cuts should not be made where the economy is feeblest. These are the areas which must be sustained, while cuts are made in the more exotic and less fruitful expenditures that I observe going on in the country.
The hon. member for Gaspd said he had hoped to see the Minister of Public Works in his constituency this summer but was disappointed because that hon. gentleman failed to arrive there. Well, I am informed that the minister did visit my constituency. I never saw him, though. When I learned he was there, and went to Yarmouth, he had disappeared although he had in tow a group of political lame ducks and other characters who were liable to become lame ducks because their constituencies would disappear as a result of redistribution. I hope this will ease the soul of my hon. friend from Gaspe in some sort of way: it probably would not have made a bit of difference, to have had a ministerial visit.
My constituency depends principally on the fisheries, on tourism and on the secondary industry which is slowly developing there. I want to place the emphasis now on fisheries. I should like to draw attention to some of the more glaring difficulties which we are at present disenjoying-there are many others, but time will not permit me to go into them-by putting forward a brief catalogue of these highlights in geographical succession. On Christmas day last year the new wharf at Saulnierville was washed out by a very bad storm. As far as I know, nothing has been done to repair it. We are now approaching another winter of storms. Having had some background in engineering and some experience in construction also, I would say this is a bad situation because the storm which wrecked the wharf in the first place may well be succeeded by an even more severe one this year and I hardly think that a damaged wharf will stand up to another severe attack.
I ask the minister what he is planning to do. I look at the estimates, realizing of course that the estimates for the year did not anticipate this brand new wharf going to pieces. I look at the supplementary estimates and I see not a cent for the repair of this wharf. Apparently the minister's motto is that of Wilhelm II of Germany-"Gott mit uns."
Supply-Public Works Mr. Chairman, this wharf is the basis upon which the fishing industry in the northern part of Clare operates. With its disappearance hundreds and hundreds of men will be deprived of an opportunity to earn their livelihood in the one business they know.
* (9:40 p.m.)
I drop down the coast now to the Mete-ghan river, one of the few semi-natural harbours on the exposed coast of St. Mary's bay. This is the site of a large shipbuilding industry. This port has been neglected. With a relatively modest investment it could be revived and placed in such a condition that the shipyard company would be able to rig their vessels after they are launched and conduct repair jobs. The company to which I am referring has had on the stocks at one time eight big ships, and employs about 180 men. I see nothing in the estimates, supplementary or otherwise, which indicates that any effort is being made to revive what once was a very fine little harbour. This harbour could play a very vital role in the economy of Clare.
There is another matter which I have mentioned previously to the minister, and in the house, and that is the situation in Yarmouth. Some two or three years ago a very fine public wharf was built at Yarmouth. Today it is dangerously overcrowded. Large purse seiners have been built in the last year or two and they are crowded in at the wharf seven or eight deep. If one of these should explode in the middle of one of these clusters, the whole fleet might go up in flames and there could be a real catastrophe. Certainly they are crowded to the point where effective operations cannot be carried out.
Here again we have an example of an industry in this constituency which, although on the point of being developed, is being restricted because of inadequate infrastructure. I have proposed to the minister and also to the house the idea of acquiring the old Evangeline wharf property which has been abandoned for a number of years. The wharf no longer is suitable but the site is one which could be used appropriately for another wharf. I do not see any evidence of any move being taken in this direction. The first thing to do would be to acquire the property. Then a wharf could be built which would enable the people in the area to take part in the fisheries which are being developed in the area. I am always told such things as: Oh, well, we are digging a basin out there. I

October 30, 1967
Supply-Public Works should like to read about this marvellous basin. This is an article in The Light Herald of Yarmouth dated September 28, 1967:
The dredging of the inner basin at the public wharf which began this spring, was expected to provide some relief for small seiners by deepening the basin to 12 feet. The depth was made 4 feet only which is suitable only for lobster boats. The construction of a retaining wall along the land side of the basin was to have provided a place where the boats could tie up and have space to work on their gear.
The wail is not yet built, and the bank of the basin is falling in with every tide and filling up the basin where the dredging was done. Not only is this a matter of too little too late, but the money spent on the improvement has been wasted by the filling in of the basin.
In the meantime the huge MacNamara dredge sits idle at the public wharf while fishing boats search for berthing space at the wharves, and sometimes find themselves crowded out into the narrow channel of the harbour proper.
In addition to not being dredged to a depth which would be adequate for the purpose of providing a space for the big off-shore boats to anchor, this basin is not satisfactory even for the smaller boats. The fishing industry thus still remains restricted.
The government has informed me that the policy now is not to have a "wharf for every fisherman" but rather to have a number of large strategically located fishing ports. Certainly Yarmouth is qualified to benefit from such a policy, but nothing is being done.
I should like to move on now to Cape Sable island which traditionally for many years has been one of the great fishing areas on our coast. Here there is a real need for a deep water wharf so that the plants on Cape Sable island may be supplied with fish by the big off-shore ships. Cape Sable island has 3,500 to 4,000 people who obtain their living from the sea. About 4,000 more people on the mainland derive their living from the Cape Sable islanders activities. This wharf has been the subject of a great deal of argument, but no appropriations have been made and no building projects have been undertaken. The whole matter has developed into the chicken and egg sort of argument, in which it is said that if the companies put in the plants the wharf will be built, and the companies say they will not build the plants until they see the wharf. In the meantime my understanding is that there is already a surplus fish processing capacity on the island and that this would warrant a start being made on the wharf. If this is done, then we will see the processors move in with additional plant.
In so far as Shelburne is concerned, it has one of the most magnificent harbours on the

Atlantic coast. At one time it was a great centre for yachting. Hundreds of yachts from the United States used to put in at this port. Supplies were purchased and this provided considerable business for the merchants in the town. At the present time there is a good public wharf there, but it is util, zed entirely by the fishing industry. There is not a wharf at which a yacht could tie up. A breakwater-wharf should be built on the west side of Shelburne harbour. The town has already acquired a shore property and this they would be disposed to turn over to the government if the government would put in the facility I have mentioned.
I should like to point out to hon. members that the constituency of Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare is the largest fishing constituency in the whole of Canada. The landed value of the fish is the greatest. We are speaking of a major industry which is being throttled because of the lack of repairs in some cases, the enlargement of existing facilities in other cases and the construction of needed new elements in the infrastructure. I should like to quote again from The Light Herald of September 28. While the statement which I should like to quote refers in particular to Yarmouth, it applies to all the areas I have mentioned:
The hopes of the town lie with the board of trade, and if their action is not successful in getting action from the Departments of Transport and Public Works for additional facilities along the waterfront, the government can look forward to having the fishing industry of Western Nova Scotia turn into another Cape Breton coal industry where the costs to rescue the area from economic ruin will far exceed that of aiding our fishing industry now.
e (9:50 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, there has been much conversation here about cutting expenditures and slashing the estimates. Apropos of this fact I think I should point out that part of the reason for these large government expenditures can be associated with certain cabinet ministers lauding as something virtuous, the large amounts of money under their authority and expended by this departments. I have read press statements in which cabinet ministers have from time to time extolled the tremendous contributions they are making to Canada because of the large sums of money they control. Let me hasten to add that I have not read any such press statements issued by the Minister of Public Works. Some of his colleagues have very hefty propaganda machines in their offices for this purpose.
October 30, 1967

The government is at fault here for not expressing concern about the value received from the money expended or from what has been accomplished. The members of the cabinet simply refer to the large amounts under their control. References are made to previous years to show the millions of dollars more to be spent by their departments in the current year. They do so in an attempt to develop some sort of political support for the degree to which they spend the public money.
We should expect a different set of responsibilities than those expressed so far, in that the government should cut back on the spending of some of these spendthrifts who are not so much concerned with the welfare of the public as they are in how much money they can spend, in the manner of the often referred to drunken sailor. These huge expenditures seem also to be associated with a claim for pol.tical support. The Department of Public Works falls heir to this sort of exploitation. Members of constituencies who happen to be representative of the party in government also laud the virtue of high government expenditure on public works within their own constituencies, and demand such expenditures on the basis of gaining additional political support.
All of this misuse of public funds leads to the situation we face today, in which the Minister of Finance is sharpening his axe to the proper hone in order to slash, slice and slit the estimates of every department; and one he is aiming at is the Department of Public Works. I am sure the minister knows this very well. His department may have relatively little impact upon some urban constituencies. Earlier I asked some of my colleagues in the house from urban ridings what effect public works spending meant to them. They had to grope and think, but eventually arrived at the answer that post offices and federal buildings represent the extent of public works spending.
The expenditures of this department have a tremendous impact on constituencies which I represent and the constituency represented by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare, as well as those of other coastal or maritime areas where the men work in the fishing or shipping trades. In these areas breakwaters, wharves, docks and floats are all of tremendous assistance, both to the economy of the area and the safety of the workers.
Let me give you an example of the value of public works projects to these areas, both
Supply-Public Works from the point of view of the number of projects and the value to politicians in the area. I am sure this is true in certain communities in Skeena and other parts of my constituency. Let me show one example of what I have in mind.
Prior to the 1962 election the public works estimates contained an appropriation for a breakwater at the Indian community of Kiti-mat. This project was approved in 1962, according to the officials within the department. You will remember that during that year the then prime minister returned following the election and said that things were in a terrible state, and that the government had to curtail public works expenditure. Apparently this had something to do with the extremely dangerous balance of payments situation. Various projects provided for in the estimates of the Department of Public Works and other departments were cut.
The Indian community to which I have referred depends to a great extent on fishing, and depends for safety upon adequate breakwaters. They had a breakwater almost within their grasp in 1962, but lost it because of some financial difficulties the federal government faced. The appropriation for that project did not find its way back into the estimates until this year, five years later. What sort of system of revision and priorities must exist within a department such as this? What sort of planning must take place? How can any community have admiration or respect for a department or government when they realize that a worth-while project such as this, having once been approved, is cut out because of financial problems of the government of the day? Perhaps they accept this as being one of those things which occur, but having to wait for five years before the project comes back within reach is something that should not happen.
Let me say that this project is being proceeded with at the moment, for completion sometime next spring. There do not appear to be any impediments in the way of its completion. Surely there should be greater understanding of the responsibility of government to communities such as the one to which I have referred. I am sure that the situation in respect of this project has been duplicated in many other areas. Many projects have probably reached a certain stage of priority only to be cut back for some financial reason, and presumably lost in the shuffle which goes on within the department.
October 30, 19G7
6	COMMONS DEBATES
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. It is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader what business we will take up tomorrow, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to take the Treasury Board estimates. Wednesday we will begin with the broadcasting act. On Thursday we are obliged to complete the remaining estimates, and on Friday we will continue with the Broadcasting Act. If it is completed or given second reading we will continue with legislation. On Monday it is proposed to start on the capital punishment bill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), in the absence of the Secretary of State (Miss LaMarsh), whether any consideration had been given in the city of Montreal to using the very fine Canadian broadcasting centre, the theatre and the administrative building, all having to do with the magnificent Expo '67, for the nucleus of the operations of the C.B.C. in the city of Montreal. First of all I would say that I am not one of those who criticize one five cent piece of the expenditure on Expo '67. I think history will prove this was a magnificent exhibition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That should be made clear immediately. Neither am I one who is against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation having a new building in the city of Montreal. It goes without saying of course,

because I have raised this question, that neither am I against federal expenditures in the city of Montreal, the most civilized city in Canada.


Richard Albert Bell: Don't forget Ottawa.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am mentioning civilized cities. I did not think the two were in the same sequence. But there have been doubts about the usefulness of the new building in downtown Montreal. These are not the doubts of those who are anti the expenditure of public money; they are the doubts of people who have seen the techniques of television production overleap the architects' plans for this very large building in the city of Montreal. In other words, the plans were drawn several years ago and the techniques of programming have advanced to such a stage in the intervening years that the architects' plans are obsolete, it is suggested, before the site is cleared or the construction starts.
I think also that there is a second question about the C.B.C. building in downtown Montreal. It is that there is far too much parking space in a very valuable site in downtown Montreal. I think that about one third of the 23 acres is for parking, and this I suggest is an uneconomic use of prime land. So that even without the austerity program that was described earlier tonight as the Sharp broad-axe, the C.B.C. construction in Montreal merits very careful re-examination.
I hope the minister realizes that this is not just a criticism of the plan, but is rather a seeking of information as to whether, in view of the advanced techniques of programming, it would not be a piece of very good housekeeping if we used the nucleus of the buildings which I have mentioned on the site of Expo before we build what may well be a white elephant in downtown Montreal.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, the building housing the International Television and Radio Center which was built at the Cite du Havre by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has not been designed__I
must say to the house and to the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather)-for the present or even the future needs provided for in the broadcasting complex now under construction in the eastern part of Montreal.
The present building, that is the International Television and Radio Center of the
October 30, 1967	COMMONS
C.B.C. has been built to enable the corporation to cover this magnificent and colossal event of Expo 67, so properly noted by the hon. member a while ago, and to also enable the various foreign radio and television outfits which came to our country, particularly to Montreal during Expo to broadcast to their country this tremendous achievement and its various events.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation required this permanent building to relieve the pressure on the various premises currently occupied in Montreal and which are scattered in various buildings, until the broadcasting complex is finished.
The C.B.C. intends, I think, to use this building as a training centre for personnel for both English and French networks.



FISHERIES-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF GEOGRAPHICAL CO-ORDINATES

Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my question on the adjournment proceedings arises out of a statement of the first list of geographical co-ordinates establishing the straight base lines for purposes of demarking our territorial seas and fishing zones. In this matter Canada has acted, in my view, in accordance with the practices and the conventions of international law, and throughout we have negotiated and consulted with the nations that historically have fished within the waters which we will be endeavouring to enclose within our territorial and fishing zones. In particular we have negotiated throughout with the United States and have assured them of their historic and treaty rights. But the United States has protested the Canadian position, and the United States protest and rejection of our position is in my view unacceptable. It is on this matter that my question arose. I hope it is equally unacceptable to the fishermen and the congressmen from the states of Alaska, Washington and Oregon who have as much at stake in the establishment of the concept of straight base lines and territorial and fishing zones as we in Canada have.
Canada has no alternative in this matter but to enforce the law as it has been passed by this sovereign parliament and enacted by regulation of the cabinet of Canada. However, coming from the west coast as I do I am particularly concerned about and interested in Canada's jurisdiction over the Dixon entrance, the Hecate strait and Queen Charlotte sound. First we are entitled to a full
DEBATES	3667
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion and frank statement from the government outlining the future of these waters, and second, before such a statement is made- and this is why I rose the other day-I want once again to impress upon the government that we on the west coast want the fisheries jurisdiction over these waters, and I am quite sure will be satisfied with nothing else. We are primarily but not exclusively concerned with our salmon stocks which spawn in our rivers and range far out to sea. It is essential in the long term that we have a treaty binding all the nations fishing in the Pacific, providing for the protection and conservation of those fisheries stocks. But I am not an optimist and I do not see such a treaty being agreed upon in the very near future. In the meantime we require as an absolute essential fisheries jurisdiction over the waters I have mentioned.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Some internationalists tell me that we will never be able to establish as a principle of international law that these waters can be the territorial waters of Canada. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are interested, and I speak for myself, really only in the fisheries protection aspect of these waters, and not the other aspects of sovereignty over these waters, such as the right to defence. We are solely concerned with our fisheries jurisdiction over these waters. If we cannot gain acceptance by international law of these other territorial jurisdictions over waters, may I suggest to the government that they attempt to work out a deal with the other nation involved under which we could draw base lines, including those waters for fisheries jurisdiction only. I believe this would be acceptable to me and to the fishermen at home whose livelihood is related to this question. I believe the Russians and the Japanese will be encroaching upon these waters. We are not so much concerned that they should be the territorial waters of Canada, but we are concerned that they be protected by Canada for fisheries purposes. If we cannot work out a deal one way, may I suggest we try to work out a deal by which these waters become protected for fisheries purposes only?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the hon. member referred to salmon stocks which, as he well knows, are found far beyond the bodies of water he mentioned. The approach which has been given to the introduction of co-ordinates based on headland to headland has been that it is for fishery purposes only.
October 30, 1967
3668	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The last part of the hon. member's question, therefore, has been well covered during the negotiations.
During his remarks the hon. member has been referring to certain bodies of water, and in some cases I must remind the house that if a line is drawn from headland to headland it would be about 100 miles out, which is far beyond the distance normally recognized by international law. At this time I can do no better than to quote the word of my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) when he appeared before the standing committee on external affairs on October 26:
The Canadian government entered into a series of bilateral negotiations with those countries that [DOT]would eventually be affected by any such establishment of base lines to ascertain whether or not the proposed straight base lines would be acceptable to them from the point of view of international law. Although the drawing of straight base lines is a matter that can only be undertaken by Canada, such a system cannot be implemented unless it is carried out in accordance with the applicable rules of international law.
My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, also referred to the fact that if agreement could not be obtained by the countries most directly affected, implementation by Canada could give rise to protests and possibly to international litigation. As we all know, this could lead to a *case for decision before the International Court of Justice.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs also added that further lists of co-ordinates will shortly be issued. Negotiations are well under way and we are looking for the eventual establishment of a more rational regime of conservation and exploitation of the living resources of the sea through which coastal states would receive greater protection.



FRETGHT RATES-CREAM-REQUEST FOR RESCISSION OF RECENT INCREASE

Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, if you had been in the habit of travelling from your apartment building by bus, how would you like it if one morning you were told that instead of paying a 25 cent fare normally charged, the fare would be $2.50? If you were in the habit of travelling by car, how would you like to drive to the service station and instead of being charged 45 cents for a gallon of gasoline be requested to pay $4.50 in order that you may continue to use your car? My question this morning was directed to the Minister of Agriculture


(Mr. Greene), although it did relate to problems which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) must resolve. I wanted to know what the government was doing about rescinding an order issued by the transport commission which allows the railways to charge a 1,000 per cent higher rate for the shipment of cream. From a charge of 65 cents to deliver a can of cream to the creamery and back, the railways are now allowed to charge up to $6.35 and more. After several trips to and from the creamery you might as well throw away that can. It costs about $11 or $12 for the can, and after four trips, as I say, you might as well throw it away.
They say that power corrupts, and the more absolute the power the more absolute the corruption. That may not be entirely true of the commission, but when parliament authorized the board of transport commissioners to permit a reorganization of the railways and dealt with the transportation bill, I stated at the time that it was not a transportation bill but a railway bill. The bill was not going to solve our transportation problems; it was going to try to solve the problems of the railways.
Perhaps the railways are going to be happy with this new rate, but I suggest that the commission has gone hog-wild in allowing the railways to charge such a ridiculous rate as this. If this rate proves exorbitant to the users of the railway, then what revenue can the railways possibly derive from it?
In Saskatchewan it is estimated there are between 1,500 and 2,000 cream shippers who will go out of business. They will not be able to ship their cream by truck; they normally depend on the railways. They depend on a few trucks to ship their cream and maintain their farm operation.
Many of them pay the fuel bills for their tractors and cars with money earned the hard way. They get up early at dawn to milk the cows, and send off their cream before the kids go to school on the bus. Then after the kids come back from school they milk the cows, well on into the night. These are the people who will have to pay $6.35 on their cream.
The members of the commission who have made this order arrive at their offices at eight or nine in the morning, even ten o'clock, and at four or five o'clock their day is finished. The man who allowed himself to be appointed commissioner receives $40,000 a year. I asked the former minister of transport last
October 30, 1987

July when he was going to appoint a commission which would put some teeth into a provision to retain some rail lines, and more particularly to replace the bridge which had been destroyed west of Chelan. The minister said at the time that he hoped this would be done some time in September. I am sure he was aware then that he was going to be appointed to his new post, and when I asked this question I did not realize that we were going to end up with a commission which had the fangs of a werewolf. I did not realize it would consist of people who were willing to sacrifice hundreds of farmers who were trying to make a living the hard way.
This afternoon we spent a lot of time discussing the estimates of the Department of Industry, a department that does not seem to be aware of Parkinson's law. These are the people who surround themselves with men, whether they are needed or not, to build an empire. In Saskatchewan alone between 1,500 and 2,000 people have been sacrificed; I do not know the figures for the other provinces. When I asked for the commission to be given teeth, I meant what I said.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
When the railways made their application they did not heed the needs of many small communities for rail service. The merchants do not want slow deliveries, incomplete arrivals, and payment for compensation. They want service. But when the railways, on top of everything else, apply for a tenfold increase, the only conclusion one can draw is that they wish to eliminate rail services-
DEBATES	3869
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mackenzie has brought a serious matter before the house. It is too serious to be discussed in the language the hon. member has used this evening. To indulge in personalities, as the hon. member has, will not solve any problem.
I wish to tell him that I, too, know something about rising at four o'clock in the morning and milking cows. I have had a good deal of experience in these occupations and am in complete sympathy with the farmers. But this is no way to solve their problems.
I wish to tell the hon. member that the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture of Canada back on October 5. Of course the minister has also corresponded with the farmers, who are still getting up somewhat earlier than the hon. member for Mackenzie gets up.
The matter has been taken up with the Express Traffic Association of Canada by the director of traffic of the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. The whole question of express rates on cream and returning empties was the subject of a review by senior express officials on October 24 and 25. The Minister of Transport hopes to be in a position to advise further within a week or ten days.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday. October 31. 1967