1967-06-20

PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CHAIRMAN. WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES

Mr, Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to draw your attention and the attention of the house to the presence in the gallery of Dr. Franklin Fry, Chairman of the World Council of Churches, and the titular head of the Lutheran Church in North America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that it is the intention of Canada to ratify, as soon as possible, the treaty on principles governing activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies. Order in council authorization for such ratification is being sought, as the house standing committee on external affairs was informed last Thursday.
Perhaps I should first of all say a word or two about the reason why ratification by Canada of this treaty is a matter of some urgency. This is because the three depositary countries, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and the Soviet union are themselves in the process of ratifying the treaty in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures.
It is expected that, following the precedents which were established for the limited nuclear test ban agreement in 1963, the three governments will soon agree on the date upon which each will deposit its instrument of ratification with the other two, as prescribed in the treaty, thereby bringing it into force. Once this has happened other countries will be able to deposit their own instruments of ratification with any or all of the three depositary nations, and thus bring the treaty into effect for themselves.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Canada, as a member of the 28 state United Nations outer space committee, played an active part in the negotiations which culminated in the adoption of the text of the treaty. Since Canada was one of the first countries to sign the treaty, on January 27, 1967, it would serve to emphasize the importance which we attach to it if Canada were also to be among the first countries to ratify it.
This treaty, three copies of which I am now tabling in English and in French, is intended to ensure that outer space, the moon and other celestial bodies will be explored and used only for peaceful purposes and that there can be no national appropriation of such bodies. Of particular significance in this respect are those provisions which state that parties to the treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the earth any body carrying nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction, instal such weapons in celestial bodies or station such weapons in outer space. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies are also forbidden. These terms incorporate the main ideas expressed in the 1963 United Nations resolution on outer space and represent a significant step forward in the achievement of multilateral arms control arrangements.
The treaty emphasizes freedom of scientific investigation on celestial bodies and in outer space. It also stresses co-operation among states, both in avoiding the contamination of outer space and in the dissemination of information on conditions which might cause harm to the health or affect the safety of astronauts. In order further to promote such international co-operation, states party to the treaty are to consider, on the basis of equality, requests from other parties to build tracking facilities on their territory for observing the flight of space objects which the requesting nation has launched. The treaty stipulates that if the request is considered favourably all the necessary terms and conditions are to be arranged by negotiations. Should these terms and conditions prove unacceptable to the host nations, however,
June 20, 1967
1710	COMMONS
United Nations Intention to Ratify Treaty there is no obligation to grant the facilities requested.
In conclusion, I should also point out that the treaty does not, by its terms, requii-e any legislative action on the part of those countries which become parties to it. It is, rather, a significant forward step in the codification and formalization of principles of international law, many of which were earlier set out in the 1963 United Nations resolution on outer space. It is because of this country's active role in the space field and in the international legal sphere, and because of the importance of the treaty for the development of the rule of law in outer space, that it would be particularly appropriate for Canada, by ratification, to be among the first countries that formally accept the principles which the treaty enshrines.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this is a forward step internationally. I recall, back in January 1958 I believe it was, speaking to the Canadian Bar Association on the subject of the need for an international control agreement in respect of outer space. The intervening years have not seen much progress in this direction. However, this forward step is beclouded by the fact that within the last few days communist China has been able to explode a nuclear bomb. Communist China is not a member of this organization, being outside the pale internationally. This underlines the necessity of controlling outer space against its potential use for war purposes; this is emphasized by what has taken place. It also underlines the need to ensure that communist China shall be in a position in which it will be subject to the control which civilized men and women everywhere desire over this powerful deterrent, having both hope and fear for mankind in the possibility of improper use, or use for warlike purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this treaty for the control of Mr. Speaker, this treaty for the control of armaments in outer space is a great forward step for the human race. I am very glad Canada is to be one of the first nations to attach its signature to it. However, the fact still remains that the republic of mainland China is not only not a signatory of the nonproliferation treaty, but also not likely to be a signatory to this treaty.
Surely this ought to point out the need for Canada along with other peace loving countries to use all the influence it can to bring mainland China into the community of nations, and to attempt to seat her in the United


Nations so she can become a part of the world community and be persuaded of the necessity, first of signing the non-proliferation treaty and also the treaty in respect of the control of arms in outer space. I think the governments concerned are to be congratulated in that we have taken the first step toward reducing the possibility of a conflict in outer space, and I hope they will now apply themselves with equal diligence to get peace on earth.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the statement the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) has just made on the ratification of an outer space treaty truly proves that men are spurred on by science. I trust the ratification of this treaty will be conducive to better results with regard to the control of nuclear arms on earth. I am proud and I think we should all be proud, of the part Canada wants to play in such control.
Although the minister smiled repeatedly during his statement, we have every reason to consider the matter as most serious, since a power on this earth-that is on the planet earth-has already started drainage works on the moon, even though it is said there is no moisture up there. The fact that the countries plan to solve space problems is a serious factor and Canada, in being one of the first to ratify the treaty, prove its interest in world affairs and its willingness to move ahead.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit party I join with those who have already expressed their commendation of the government on the fact that Canada has been one of the first to sign this international agreement for the control of nuclear armaments in outer space, including celestial bodies. We can only hope that this is the beginning of a more realistic approach to control in the over-all area of nuclear arms, and likewise to the lack of control we observed in the Middle East in recent weeks, which led to the conflagration there. We are gratified, along with other members of the house, that this small measure of progress has been made and that Canada has been able to take her share in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give leave to the hon. minister to table the documents to which he referred?
June 20, 1967


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour goes on with the next item of business perhaps the house would agree to having the treaty just referred to by the Minister of National Defence printed in Votes and Proceedings. This would be very useful to hon. members and other individuals who receive copies of Votes and Proceedings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is quite agreeable, Mr. Speaker, if that is the will of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of treaty, see Votes and Proceedings.]



HOUSING, URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouaia) moved:: That the second report of the standing committee on housing, urban development and public works, presented to the house on Thursday, June 15, 1967, be concurred in.


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


Mr. Gregoire:: On division.


Mr. Churchill:: On division.
<2:50 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, Premier Kosygin of the U.S.S.R. stated in the course of his speech before the general assembly of the United Nations that his country condemns imperialism and is opposed to anything in the nature of colonialism; he demanded the right of self-determination for nations all over the world. Will the Prime Minister consider having the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he speaks at the United Nations
Inquiries of the Ministry tomorrow call upon the U.S.S.R., in the interests of world peace, to carry out those principles and make available the right of selfdetermination by untrammelled vote to the peoples of Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and the other countries that today are under the iron heel of communism?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to discuss this matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is speaking on Thursday morning in the debate that is now going on in New York. This will give him ample time to consider the matter.


Mr. Starr:: If he says this, at least he will be saying something worth while.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received a telegram from the officers of district 26 of the United Mine Workers in Glace Bay regarding Bill C-135 which is now before the committee of the whole, in which they contend that the Prime Minister's statement of December 29, 1966, committed the federal government to acquiring and operating all the mines owned by Dominion Steel and Coal Company, and contending also that this includes the McBean mine which is operated by Acadia, a subsidiary of Dominion Steel and Coal Company. I ask the Prime Minister whether any consideration has been given to including the McBean mine in the legislation, as requested by local 26 of the United Mine Workers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I received the telegram only at 2.15 this afternoon I have not yet had much time to consider it. But I will consider it at once.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would be agreeable to allowing Bill C-135 to stay in committee of the whole until such time as either he or some of his colleagues in the cabinet could meet with the mine workers to discuss this question of including the McBean mine in the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this bill will be in committee of the whole until I have had a

June 20, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry chance to examine the telegram and, I hope, reply to it.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, following the question just put by the leader of the New Democratic party. My question is based on the urgency of passing this legislation. If the government considers the legislation so urgent that they cannot wait on this question, why has the Senate adjourned?


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which is further to the question that was asked of the Prime Minister by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. I wonder whether the minister, as minister responsible, and as minister who is piloting Bill No. C-135 through the house, will give consideration to this request made by officers of the United Mine Workers of America, district 26, to hold a meeting of federal and provincial government officials and officers of the union to discuss the possibility of including in the bill the McBean mine?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think if I were to quote what I said yesterday in the house on that subject, it would certainly lead one to the conclusion that we intend to take a very generous attitude and deal humanely with the McBean mine without including it in the legislation. We cannot do that because the legislation is concerned with a situation in Cape Breton which is of national interest and concern, not one outside of Cape Breton.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Would the minister answer the question and say whether he is agreeable to holding the meeting which has been suggested by the U.M.W. district 26 officers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the message is quite clear, Mr. Speaker. The union would like us to include McBean in the legislation. I pointed out again yesterday the difficulties of doing this. If we start making exceptions for other mines in Nova Scotia, there is no doubt that the federal government will forever and ever be in the process of closing mines in Canada, and I do not think that this is desirable.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

What exception is involved in the question of the McBean mine, which was included in the policy statement which was supposed to have been embraced by this legislation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the same statement referred very clearly to the situation in "Cape Breton".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the statement of the Prime Minister on December 29 last committed the federal government to acquire, reorganize and manage the coal mining interests of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether this would not include the McBean mine to which reference has been made?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure that all hon. members will recognize that we are to some extent reviving in the house a debate which is currently going on in committee of the whole. Perhaps we should proceed no further with this question.


Malcolm MacInnis: A related question to the minister of mines, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether he would correct the impression left on national T.V. last night that the Dominion Coal Company collieries are up for grabs for $5] million?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that this question should be put to the minister when we return to a consideration of the bill.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether an agreement was concluded recently between the federal government and the Quebec government concerning additional grants for the implementation of centennial projects?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: No, Mr. Speaker.
June 20. 1967	COMMONS
{English]



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that the federal power commission in the United States has approved the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines applications, could the minister advise the house whether or not Trans-Canada will proceed to the construction of this line immediately or are there some other requirements which must be met before construction can begin so that there will be additional supplies of gas in Ontario and Quebec for the coming winter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed pleased to confirm to the hon. member and to the house that the federal power commission, in a decision issued today, has approved the Great Lakes project and consequently rejected the alternative projects which were under consideration.
While we have not yet seen the text of the decision, we understand that the conditions attached to it are normal, and we are particularly gratified to know that there was a unanimous decision with respect to the beginning of the construction. I would not be surprised if Trans-Canada Pipe Lines and the Great Lakes company started their work this afternoon.


Mr.  M. W. Marfin@Timmins: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wording of the announcement made this morning would the minister consider that this decision was made in the interests of developing Canada, or with a view to making it a pool in reserve for the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is argumentative.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Finance but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that the Royal Bank of Canada and the Bank of Montreal are refusing farm improvement loans to farmers unless they can transact all their business with those particular banks?
DEBATES	1713
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisler of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board): Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this question as notice.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and I have given him notice of it. Has the minister received applications from persons in the town of Napanee and recommendations from the mayor of that town requesting departmental approval of cable television facilities and services within the corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon.
member that his question should be placed on the order paper.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL

[Stage Direction]
ISSUE OF MEDALLIONS TO SCHOOL CHILDREN On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can she advise this house and the many school children throughout the nation that, if their schools were not issued a sufficient number of centennial medallions for their total enrolment, arrangements will be made to see that no school students will be deprived of one of these medallions because of an error made by those who originally placed the order?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Records show that 6.5 million of them were ordered. They have been sent to the provincial departments of education which have been responsible for the allocation of the medallions to individual schools. If any school is short they should simply advise the provincial department of education, which will sup-phy them immediately, and if not we will be happy to see they get a sufficient number.



REQUEST THAT KOOTENAY RUSSIAN-CANADIAN CHOIR PERFORM IN OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the gallant Secretary of State. This is a matter of national significance, as it provides for the

June 20, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry infusion of Kootenay culture into our national capital.
My question is as follows: In view of the fact that arrangements have been made for the Kootenay Russian-Canadian Choir to sing at Expo, and in order that residents of and visitors to the national capital will also have an opportunity to hear this dazzling performance, would the minister consider recommending to the centennial commission that they invite the Kootenay Russian-Canadian Choir to give their centennial concert at an appropriate time on parliament hill?


Mr. Speaker:: This appears to be a very constructive and valid suggestion, but I would not think it should be asked at this time.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, has the Prime Minister received representations from the Canadian Council of the Blind, not only nationally but provincially, asking for the removal of the means test in respect of blind pensioners, and would he not give consideration to the removal of this unfair test which discriminates against one portion of our people to the degree that it does?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot recall receiving such representations, although I may have in the past few weeks. I will look into the matter at once.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United Nations security council voted yesterday to extend the peace keeping action in Cyprus for another period of time, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would assure the house that Canada is not committing itself to paying the cost of Canada's contribution, which is the major part of the peace keeping effort on Cyprus, for an indefinite period of time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to give the assurance that we are not committing ourselves to an indefinite period of time.


Robert Norman Thompson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. First of all I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not any assurance has been given that there will not be a repetition of what happened in Cairo when the United Nations took unilateral action in withdrawing the Canadian peace keeping force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have received that assurance from the secretary general. Indeed, if we had not, we would have found it very difficult, if not impossible, to vote for the resolution yesterday. We have been assured by the secretary general that if a situation arose where the government of Cyprus asked the secretary general for the withdrawal of the United Nations force, he would submit that matter to the security council.
The situation is not the same as that which existed with regard to the United Nations emergency force in Palestine, inasmuch as the force in Cyprus is there under a security council resolution, and the security council would be asked to consider whether or not that force should be withdrawn.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Middle East crisis has shown that buying time is of value only if some use is made of that time, is Canada pressing the security council to promote negotiations between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots with a view to securing a settlement which will eventually make possible the withdrawal of the United Nations force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are doing that. We have made it quite clear to our colleagues concerned that the purpose of the force in Cyprus is to help keep the peace while political negotiations are going on. If these negotiations are postponed indefinitely, then the reason for the force being there indefinitely has been eliminated.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Prime Minister who is mainly responsible for conducting these negotiations? Is it the officers of the United Nations, or has some committee or sub-committee been given the responsibility of bringing the parties together and seeking to work out a settlement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This has been discussed by the governments who have contributed to the United Nations force on Cyprus, and it has
June 20, 1967



been discussed by the United Nations officials as well.


Michael Starr: A further
supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the United Nations emergency force has been in Cyprus now for practically four years, can the prime minister say whether the reason the force is being kept in Cyprus is the same as the original reason which sent the United Nations force to the island? If not, what is the reason?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the
original reason still exists, namely that the force is maintaining stability on the island between the two conflicting parties. However, I do agree, as I have just said, that stability cannot be maintained indefinitely by these means, and that there must soon be a political settlement as a result of which the two elements on Cyprus will co-operate in governing Cyprus.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the complaints that I have received-and I am sure many other hon. members have similarly received complaints-concerning the delay in the government refunding overpayments of income tax, would the minister advise the house whether everything is being done to expedite the refunding of these overpayments?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform my hon. friend that we are well ahead of last year in processing income tax returns. To May 29, which is the last information I have in my mind, we had processed something like 4.7 million returns, compared with 4.2 million returns by the same time last year. I think at this point we are getting close to the end of the processing of returns, but I have not the very latest figure before me.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Labour. In view of the answer the minister gave me yesterday, may I ask him whether he has checked his correspondence to see if he received the letter to which I referred yesterday, written to him on June 14 by the deputy city clerk of Sudbury, a copy of which I sent to his office this morning? If so, would he now answer the question I asked yesterday?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of the letter from the hon. member this morning. On inquiry I find that the letter was sent by the deputy clerk of the city of Sudbury to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation office in Sudbury, and mailed on to me here, and the clerk was so advised. I received it in the second mail delivery this morning, I believe, after I had received the copy from the hon. member.
Dealing with the specific question, Mr. Speaker, on June 1 I announced that arrangements had been made for the building of 400 rental housing units in Sudbury this year in addition to the 400 already planned. These 400 additional rental units were being built in co-operation with the Ontario Housing Corporation, Falconbridge Nickel Mining and the International Nickel Company. The rental housing constructed by Ontario Housing Corporation will of course, be housing suitable for low income families; that is the purpose of that kind of housing. The funds provided by the mining companies and Central Mortgage and Housing will provide national housing loans for the construction of 300 rental units. These will be sponsored by private investors. Both the owners of the proposed rental projects and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, however, will be anxious to ensure that the rent levels achieved for family accommodation in these projects will be suitable for the additional personnel required by the mining companies.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE FURTHER REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON POSSIBLE PAYMENT OF PENSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Can the Minister of Justice now inform the house as to whether Mr. Landreville, formerly a justice of the supreme court of Ontario, has filed with his department a certificate of ill health so as to qualify for a $18,666 pension? If he has not, will the minister now give an assurance to
June 20, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry the house that in all the circumstances this bountiful harvest will not be reaped?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: do not know of any application by Mr. Lan-dreville to the department that a pension be granted on the grounds of ill health. The answer to the second part of the question is, no, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In his absence, and in the absence of his parliamentary secretary perhaps I should direct it to the Prime Minister who might give notice of it to his colleague. On June 5 I asked the minister whether in view of the late start of the fishing season in district 7B he would consider authorizing an extended season-a short extension. In his reply the minister said an announcement would be made at least ten days before the normal closing of the season. The season has now ten days to go, and many fishermen on the east coast are anxious to know whether they will be given an extension of a week or so.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand the importance of this question. I will take it up with the minister later today.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Does the right hon. gentleman expect to make the appointment of senior officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to positions now vacant before parliament recesses-that is, around June 30?


Mr. Knowles:: You hope.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As far as I know there is only one vacancy within the C.B.C. and that is the office of executive vice president.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he state without equivocation whether he has made representations, or a recommendation, to the Board of Transport Commissioners asking that any general conference on branch line abandonment which the board might convene should be held in western Canada? The minister did not reply to this question yesterday.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I can reply without equivocation by saying that since the Board of Transport Commissioners is a court, I have made no such representations. However, the board has advised me, as I think is proper, that they are giving consideration to requests which came from the government of Saskatchewan, from several members of this house and from a number of other interested parties, that the conference be held in western Canada.
Hon. V/. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):
There was to have been a conference held in Brandon on June 22-


John Whitney Pickersgill: A hearing.


Mr. Dinsdale:: A hearing, yes. I can assure the minister that the citizens of Brandon would be very happy to have the conference there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is giving assurances; he is not asking a question.



MARITIME PROVINCES-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['The hon. member will agree that this is not a matter of urgency, and I wonder whether he should not place it on the order paper.']
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: This question, too, is directed to the Minister of Transport. For the guidance of those who may wish to prepare representations, can the minister indicate on motions, some time before July 1, whether the Atlantic transportation studies are likely to be dealt with by way of legislation in the fall?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think I could possibly do that, sir.
June 20, 1967



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether he has any information to communicate about the bombings at the Yugoslav embassy in Ottawa and in Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will agree that this is not a matter of urgency, and I wonder whether he should not place it on the order paper.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Postmaster General whether before taking steps to increase the postal rates for the mailing of books by Canadian libraries he would consider increasing the rate on second class mail, which at present accounts for a substantial deficit.


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



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he will be in a position to indicate to the house some time prior to any recess the intention of the government with respect to the introduction of legislation concerning Indian claims.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I cannot say more than I have said to the house on numerous occasions. I told the Indians of British Columbia that I would give them a certain amount of time to sit down with me to discuss the British Columbia land question. I have told them we cannot wait forever. I will make further inquiries of their lawyer as to the present position, and we may possibly be able to make a statement soon with respect to the introduction of the other legislation.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



FURTHER INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF 1967 COINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as acting Minister of Finance? A week ago yesterday I brought up the question of the poor distribution of the new centennial coins throughout Canada; in the west there is a complete lack of them, whereas in the east they seem to be in evidence, even if they are not plentiful. I wonder whether the minister has had time to look into this matter. He said at the time that distribution had not been good. There are now only ten days before July 1.


Edgar John Benson: I will bring this matter again to the attention of the Minister of Finance and try to have him answer the question at the first opportunity.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to thank the Minister of Transport for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his announcement of today regarding improvements at the Winnipeg international airport? This is a welcome answer to my question of yesterday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for that comment.

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



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including the administration of the Explosives Act, and Canada's fee for membership in the Pan-American Institute of Geography and History, $4,315,000.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in
committee of supply. Estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 1. This vote will be found on page 78 of the blue book and the details appear on page 82.
1718	COMMONS DEBATES	June 20. 1967
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources


Mr. Peters:: We have been watching with interest for some time the machinations of Canada's oil and gas policy as it affects Trans-Canada Pipe Lines in particular. We are certainly not very pleased with the decision which came out of Washington through the federal power commission approving without strings the application of Great Lakes Power to transmit our gas through the United States.
It is important to note in this case the development of events over which we in Canada have no control but which in the long run may have an effect contrary to Canadian interests. I have been following these developments carefully. I do not intend to beat the subject to death, since the decision has now been made, but I am surprised at the position this government has chosen to take up. The Canadian people expect their government to act in Canada's interests. They expect we should not be a bad neighbour to the United States but that along with that we should think first and foremost of ourselves. The original statement made by the Prime Minister when this matter was first discussed early in October, 1966, was a good one, but the decisions that have been taken since have vacillated from bad to good and back to bad again.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I am particularly surprised that the minister has taken this course. One reason for my surprise is that he is a young, very capable and aggressive minister. He is a French Canadian, and in my opinion French Canadians have been more nationalistic than any other Canadians. As a matter of fact many of us did not really think about being Canadians until French Canadians raised the question of their brand of Canadianism being different from ours, thereby forcing us to examine what nationalism means in other parts of Canada.
Not many years ago the minister was going around saying that everybody in the province of Quebec should be a Quebec nationalist and that everybody employed by the national government should speak French. He advocated that we be nationalistic in a narrow sense. But all of a sudden the minister has adopted another position which eventually he will rue.
At the end of October, 1966, the minister went to the United States where he addressed the Independent Petroleum Association of America. I would like to quote from his address because in years to come people who look back on the decision taken now may find
[The Chairman.]
the background to it in the minister's address. On that occasion he said:
I read with great interest the objective of your association as it appears in summary form in the 1966 directory.
"The objective of the association, with full recognition of the interests of the consuming public and the general welfare and security of the nation, shall be to conduct research studies on such matters as costs, supply and demand, foreign trade, productive capacity, and secondary recovery; to provide information on economic trends and national policies affecting oil and gas production; and to advance the welfare of the domestic petroleum industry in the United States, to the end that the nation may be assured of adequate oil and gas supplies for our expanding economy and national security."
I want to draw particular attention to the next sentence in the minister's address, having in mind that this organization was established to look after the interests of the United States regarding oil. The minister went on to say:
I am tempted to suggest that with a simple addition of "and Canada" to the words "United States", we would be all set with a good bipartite institution!
Then he went on to say:
However, we do not have to await such a development in order to allow things Canadian to receive full and sympathetic consideration with the I.P.A.A.
It is interesting to note that the releases from Washington today by the federal power commission have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Great Lakes project is a good project but simply with whether it is in the interests of the United States, particularly the national security of the United States. One of the press releases says that the commission's decision also touched on a significant point in respect of future Canadian natural gas and crude oil exports to the United States. It did so in referring to United States national security and the importance of safe reserves of petroleum.
In other words, it does not matter about Canada. All that matters is whether the national security of the United States is protected because they got the hell scared out of them in the Middle East during the last few weeks. Now they have decided that their national interest overrides any consideration that the federal power commission previously had been discussing. In this connection it is interesting to note that last year the minister said:
I am tempted to suggest that with a simple addition of "and Canada" to the words "United States", we would be all set with a good bipartite institution!
June 20, 1967

If that is not continentalism a la Liberal party philosophy then I am surprised.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Is the implication of what my hon. friend is saying that we will always, systematically and unavoidably, have opposition between the United States and Canada? Are there not times when the interests of both countries could run along the same lines?


William Arnold Peters: I think in the main they do, and I think they can. I am not disagreeing with that statement, but I point out that in his address last October he quoted the objective of the Independent Petroleum Association which was established to protect American markets and national security in that country. To that objective the minister would add "and Canada," which carries the implication that we are not going to worry about Canadian national security and Canadian needs but are going to throw our reserves behind the United States which will then be in a much better position to protect its national interests, and I am sure the minister will agree they are not necessarily our interests.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If I may make one comment, I promise never to try to be humorous from now on. I was speaking to the Independent Petroleum Association of America. This association is traditionally opposed to Canadian exports to the United States. I was trying to demonstrate that the purpose of their institution could also be the purpose of Canada, and the humorous implication was better received in Dallas than it seems to have been received in this chamber this afternoon.


William Arnold Peters: The minister may be right. I have read the full text of his address, and he went on to say that Norman Chappell had been trying to work out an oil policy in such a way that it would be in the interests of both parties. My position is a very simple one, and this is why I am so violently critical of the decisions of the National Energy Board. Its decisions should be designed to cater to the needs of Canada and the foreseeable requirements of Canadian markets. The fact that we are in a very serious bind with respect to gas supplies this year is an indication that the National Energy Board either failed in its duty to protect our national interests by projecting far enough ahead the position that Canada should take or, worse than that, it has not had the authority or the power to influence to any extent the planning of Trans-Canada.
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
I have carefully read the position taken by Northern and Central in Ontario as set out by Mr. Bovey, president of that company. He has stated that we will be short 20 billion to 33 billion cubic feet of gas this year. I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that no matter what we do in Canada there would be some economic advantage in exporting gas to parts of the United States and in importing gas into Canada in other areas. I am sure he is also aware that the economics of our gas industry are interrelated between the United States and Canada.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In respect of Mr. Bovey wanting to go into the Montreal market, I spoke to him the other day and indicated that in my opinion he was as bad as the National Energy Board in his estimates because at the present time there is a 16-inch line I believe, between Ottawa and Montreal to supply that market. The market in Montreal is totally untapped. It can probably be estimated for a matter of two or three years by taking into consideration the market in Toronto and applying that figure to Montreal. In three years the market in Montreal can probably be as great as that in Toronto today. Therefore, to speak of a 30-inch line in Canada, as has been suggested by Trans-Canada, is unrealistic. It is also unrealistic for the National Energy Board to allow the company to consider a 30-inch line.
It is totally unrealistic to speak in these terms particularly when we are dealing with approximately 67 million cubic feet of gas and in five years, in order to make this project economic, will be exporting to the United States up to 500 million cubic feet of gas. Really we are bringing 200 million cubic feet of gas into Canada which is insignificant in respect of the needs of today when there is an immediate shortage of 20 billion to 33 billion cubic feet this year. If we are talking about going into the market in Montreal and the demand for the foreseeable future, we should be talking probably of a 60 or 70-inch line.
I asked Mr. Bovey why this had not been considered. He said that he had just recently returned from an international conference where the representatives of most of the countries had said that this was impractical. He said that they would not be able to handle this kind of a line and that most companies could not make it. I telephoned the Algoma Steel Corporation and was advised that they make plate up to 14 feet which would give something in the order of a 57 or 58-inch line. Such a line has not been built on the North
1720	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources American continent to date but we in Canada can conceive of a foreseable need for it.
Mr. Bovey told me that at the international conference which he attended he was advised by the Russian representative that Russia is in the process of providing the facilities for a pipe line which will be 100 inches in diameter. A 100-inch pipe line would probably be 20 or 30 times the size of the largest pipe line we have in Canada at the present time. I would think it would be able to operate on low pressure and could be installed economically with a view to meeting the needs 20 years from now.
The minister may be unaware of some of the things which happen when a pipe line is built. There is a very great degree of disruption no matter where the pipe line goes so far as the people are concerned. I remember a farmer in my area who said that he did not care if they paid him a million dollars. He said he did not want it going anywhere near his barn because it might blow up. If the minister would like to know the facts, we stopped them building the pipe line on that particular farm. They had to move the Trans-Canada line over one mile in order to find another place to build the pipe line. This person was able to stop it because he had a D.V.A. loan and the government itself was interested in protecting him.
The government should be looking ahead five, ten or 15 years. Trans-Canada has no money. I do not think it has a very good opportunity to raise money. Its stock is not very high, its dividends are low and it is going to have difficulty raising money. If it is going to instal a major gas transmission line the government likely will have to help in the development. We did this in 1956. We put up the money for the northern section. It was very difficult country in which to build and we allowed the Trans-Canada a ten year period in which to operate line, take the profit out of it, and then buy it at its original cost. This is a fairly lucrative way of constructing a pipe line.
If the war in the Middle East had not happened I am sure the minister would have had to come to parliament and ask for assistance to construct part of this line in order to meet the needs of eastern Canada. I have no objection to his asking parliament for such assistance. I would think, however, that there are very few companies which are less deserving of receiving help than this company. They have played cat and mouse with the Canadian government and even worse with

DEBATES	June 20, 1967
the Canadian people. But I think the Canadian government would have had to put up at least $200 million to put in the necessary loop in northwestern Ontario.
This is a company which is not respecting the monopoly we have given it. It is a monopoly which I do not believe it is the responsibility of the government to supervise but rather that of the agency we have established, the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board has totally failed in its responsibility in this and in other respects.
I do not know where the 100-inch pipeline to which Mr. Bovey referred is going to be or whether it is for gas or oil, but I presume if they are going to use 100-inch pipe it will be for a transmission line from their oil fields to the take-off point for their distribution line and that the line probably will not be utilized to capacity for some time. It seems odd that Trans-Canada is raising more money now to increase the capacity of a facility they finished less than ten years ago. It seems to me it is very poor engineering when you have long term debentures on a capital investment such as a pipe line that will not meet the supply requirements for the next 20 years to cover the period of the debentures.
I do not know whether the minister is happy about the fact that this matter now appears to have been settled. I have made inquiries of one of the interested parties and have asked whether the intention is to go through the court procedure. I understand that in the United States the court procedure has already been tested to some degree in this regard. Let me read a paragraph from the business and financial section of the Globe and Mail for May 25, 1967:
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Panhandle's application for renewed hearings of the Great Lakes scheme may well be rejected by the commission but such a ruling by the F.P.C. would almost certainly be cited by the company as one of its grounds for challenging the legality of any F.P.C. decision in favour of Great Lakes if Panhandle resolves to take it to the courts.
I understand other companies are interested in testing such a decision in the courts, and I wonder what position Trans-Canada would be in in respect of the work it might do if an injunction were obtained. I have no idea what the company intends to do in the next few weeks but if it does anything it will be in a ridiculous position should an injunction be granted. It might be in an even more ridiculous position that it would be if it waited four or five months to see what decision might be made.
June 20, 1S67	COMMONS DEBATES	1721
This whole situation leaves Canada with very little protection. I am sure the minister is not so callous in his regard for Canadian interests as to allow a situation to continue as a result of which we must depend on the whims of the federal power commission or the United States courts. Everyone is agreed that gas is not going to be made available this year from this project, but I am interested in this line going through my area of northern Ontario in 1968 or 1969. The hon. member for Timmins said that he does not care whether the line is built along old highway number 11 or highway 17 through Sault Ste. Marie. We do not have a real preference in this regard, but the minister must consider the fact that organized townships in the farming area of northern Ontario depend on the pipe line for 50 per cent of their assessment revenue. This may not be of great concern to the department but it is of great concern to these townships and municipalities because they require this tax revenue to provide education and other necessary services. If this line is not constructed along highway 17 or highway 11 the loss in tax revenue will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, and there will be a tremendous loss so far as construction employment opportunities are concerned.
I am not worried at all about the minister's position or whether the United States and Canada should pool their resources to meet the needs of this continent in the most economical way possible, but I think I would be a very poor citizen of the United States if I was not more concerned about the national economy of that country than whether or not the people of Iran have another slice of bread on their tables. The people of the United States seem to look at Canada in the same way they look at the Near East, as a reservoir of potential resources for their personal use and economic advantage.
It is not my concern that the National Energy Board or the government should decide how much of a reserve we must have in Canada, how much gas should be delivered to Canadian markets and how much exported. I was surprised at what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle said, and I usually have a very high respect for his opinions. In this regard he has been playing a very narrow and restricted game. In Sudbury he said he was the only one interested in having the line go through Sudbury. He has also said that his interest is in the economics of the routes through southern Ontario. He is interested in reducing the cost to that part of the province.
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
Various members from Alberta have been very clear in their position. They say that we have a surplus of gas and should sell it. They apparently do not care where we sell it as long as we do. I am not sure that I would not have a similar view if I came from that part of the country and knew there was a surplus of this saleable commodity. I think I would also want to sell it. Apparently the Alberta members do not care a damn who gets the commodity.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify what has been said, let me point out that the members from Alberta have been consistent in their position so far as gas is concerned in that Alberta should be considered first, then Canada and then the export markets. They have never said they do not give a damn who gets it.


William Arnold Peters: I stand corrected. Perhaps that was my interpretation of what I heard. Apparently I am not in disagreement with the hon. member for Medicine Hat who says that Alberta's needs must be considered first. All of us here have a political responsibility in representing different ridings. Leaving aside my interest in the particular area of the country which I represent and leaving aside the regional economic interests of other hon. members, it seems to me that whenever Trans-Canada says that more gas must be exported to the United States market to make the proposition feasible it is expressing a pipe line interest and not necessarily a Canadian interest. Surely this is a public commodity which is in the hands of one private operator. I have sometimes felt that there should be more than one operator in this field. However, one must remember what has happened to our transportation system as a result of the operation of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways.
I believe that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should make an assessment of our needs for the next 25 years and adopt a policy which will ensure that they will be met. Perhaps that department should put up the money to operate such a venture. Perhaps we should have a crown corporation to operate a pipe line company. If everybody is sold on the idea of another line, let us see that the money is raised and the line built so that all areas of the country can have the advantage of this commodity.
I do not think the Canadian people are going to be satisfied with the decision that has now been made by the federal power commission. That decision was made in the interests
June 20. 1967
1722	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources of United States security because of the Middle East situation. I think we will eventually have to do what was suggested originally, build a line that will serve the needs of the Canadian people rather than primarily export needs. In other words, we must meet Canadian needs not only in the foreseeable future but for as long as it is feasible to project such needs. I have talked to a member of the house who probably has more experience in this regard than anybody sitting in the gallery. He says it is quite possible to project the potential of the wells and the potential of the fields. He says that this kind of projection can be made, and in my opinion it is the only kind of projection that will satisfy the Canadian public.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: Mr. Chairman, there are two things I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. One is the pollution of the St. Croix river and basin. I know the minister is aware of this problem because I have received from his office copies of papers concerning the Saint John and St. Croix international river basin. The buck has been passed around for a good many years in respect of solving the pollution of this basin.
It has been possible to pass the buck around in this way because so many people are interested in the question. They include the International Joint Commission, the state of Maine, the federal government of the U.S.A., Calais, Maine, Milltown, Maine, Milltown, New Brunswick, St. Stephen, New Brunswick, the federal government of Canada, the province of New Brunswick, the fisheries department, and the Georgia Pacific Company.


Mr. Ricard:: All aboard.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: This basin is so polluted and the sludge is so thick on the banks of the river that if you paint a house white it is black or grey the next morning. This actually happens. It has been going on for years. The buck has been passed around not only in Canada but in the United States. I have before me a copy of a letter written by the water improvement commission of Maine which says:
As you know the Maine Water Improvement Commission submitted a bill to the 1963 legislature which was intended to give it the necessary power to require pollution abatement on international boundary streams such as the St. Croix river and
[Mr. Peters.)

portions of the St. John river. This was, for some reason never explained to the Water Improvement Commission, labelled unconstitutional by the attorney general and withdrawn from committee.
All of this left enforcement of any program strictly up to the federal agency, as the hearing commitee of the 1965 legislature to whom the bill was resubmitted gave it no consideration on the grounds that it would interfere with pending lederal legislation.
There was no federal legislation passed in this respect, and the pollution goes on and on. Some companies manufacturing food products in St. Stephen even claim that the fumes from the river basin are affecting their products. Somebody must take the lead in straightening out this matter. I think the minister is the man to do this. He could take the lead in this respect and see that the basin is cleaned out. I have here a copy of a letter written by John S. Bates, chairman of the New Brunswick water authority, who says:
The New Brunswick water authority looks on the accumulation of sludge banks between St. Stephen and Calais as a large-scale result of pollution by solids and solubles from Woodland-
That is the Georgia Pacific mill. I attended a meeting with the Georgia Pacific company and others at which this problem was discussed. They have done something about it but the money for what was done was in the main supplied by the federal government of the United States of America. However, the pollution continues. This was a great salmon stream at one time. The salmon come up a short way and die, so the fisheries department should be interested in the problem. They are interested in it, but somebody must take the lead. I hope the minister will look into the problem and do something about it.
There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. He is minister of mines and must be interested in the gold mines of Canada. At one time gold was the metal that brought us in more money than any other metal. However, we are now paying the gold mines $15 an ounce when the price used to be $35 an ounce. We were paying the gold mines $35 an ounce in 1934 and now, because of the decrease in the purchasing power of the dollar, we are paying them $15 an ounce. The governor of the Bank of Canada has indicated that gold is not only a monetary measure but is a commodity. Can the minister point to any commodity in Canada which had such a price in 1934 and where the price is now down to less than half? I think this situation is ridiculous. Further, the taxpayers of Canada are paying subsidies to the gold mines to get the gold out
June 20. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1723
of the ground. Last year we paid subsidies of something like $2,500,000 to a syndicate of Americans.
The Americans cannot buy our centennial gold pieces; they cannot buy our gold at all. But they can come up here and take over our gold mines. They do this by taking over one mine, stopping the dividends, taking the treasury, buying another mine, and so on. At the present time they own about 18 gold mines in this country. To this syndicate the government paid subsidies which last year amounted to $2,500,000. What happened to the gold? After we paid the Americans $2,500,000 to get it out of the ground, we sold the gold to the United States government for $35 an ounce. It probably cost us $45 or $50 an ounce to get the gold out of the ground. In my opinion this is an extremely silly policy and the minister should look into it. If we were getting the right price for our gold, instead of receiving $140 million we should be receiving $500 million or $600 million a year.
There is gold from coast to coast in this country. All we need to do is to dig it out of the ground in order to get international liquidity. Liquidity is required now in international monetary affairs. I understand that nine out of the "big ten" want to raise the price of gold in order to obtain liquidity.
I read a book by Sir Roy Harrod, the British economist who was adviser to Lord Keynes when we signed the Bretton Woods agreement agreeing to pay only $35 an ounce forever to our gold mines. We signed this agreement. Sir Roy Harrod said in his book that the International Monetary Fund certainly had to be revised and reorganized and the only way to do it was to double the price of gold as a preliminary and increase the drawing rights of the members. I understand the United States agreed to increase the drawing rights but refused and still refuses to increase the price of gold. In my opinion to do so would be to their benefit and it would certainly be to the benefit of Canada.
I hope the minister will look into this problem. He is minister of mines and should be interested in gold as well as other metals. It was once our most valuable metal and could still be our most valuable metal if the price was right.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the subject of the decision announced today by the federal power commission and raised in the house by the hon. member for Timmins and the hon. member for Timis-kaming. My version of what happened at
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources eleven o'clock this morning is quite different from the version of the two N.D.P. members. I believe this decision by the federal power commission of the United States is a great day for Canada. I want to state my reasons very clearly for saying this. It is a great day for Canada, it is a great day for northern Ontario, it is a great day for Quebec and it is a great day for the west. My only complaint about the decision announced today, June 20, 1967, is that it should have been reached a year ago. If it had not been for the cowardice of the present government it would have been reached last year, e (4:00 p.m.)
Last year the Alberta Conservation Board agreed that they had surplus gas. The National Energy Board recommended the acceptance of the Great Lakes application to the government, but for some reason which we will never know for certain the government turned down that recommendation. When some of us opposed that decision and gave our reasons for our opposition to a decision which we understood to be a purely political one brought about on the basis of the N.D.P. opposition in northern Ontario, the government changed its mind after a couple of months and agreed to the application. This gave our economic foes in the United States a new breath of life and they renewed their objections to the application under due process of law before the federal power commission. As a result there has been a long delay this year which has cost the consumers of central Canada large sums of money, has hurt the producers in western Canada, and has given a temporary additional market in Canada to the United States pipe lines.
The other day I suggested to the minister something which I thought should have been done last year. I said to him that the United States government should have been asked to request their court of record, the federal power commission, to expedite the proceedings of this hearing. There are many precedents for such a request, and I think our country should have thrown its weight behind the Canadian company which was battling for a Canadian market. I put this on the record last fall and I repeat it today. Who was opposed to this application? The United States coal companies were opposed because in the application they saw a loss of Canadian markets for United States coal. Likewise the unions of the coal companies were opposed for the same reason. The oil companies of the United States were also opposed to it because they saw a
June 20, 1967
1724	COMMONS
Supply*-Energy, Mines and Resources loss of markets in this area, and so were the gas pipe line companies in the United States. Several of the states in the United States were also opposed. All these groups were fighting on behalf of the United States economy. We cannot blame them for doing so, but when I listened in the house to Canadians joining the Americans to take away a Canadian market from Canadians I asked myself, who is the real Canadian?
The government does not have a leg to stand on. They wobbled, they twisted, but no one fought for Canadians. The essential fact of this proposal is that an economical looping of the pipe line will not only bring about the establishment of the shortest route in terms of capital cost but will also provide advantages because of the storage provisions in Ontario and in Michigan which would give us a high load factor and thus would reduce the wholesale price. Last fall I stated that by building the loop through the United States we would reduce the price for the industrial markets in Ontario and Quebec by approximately 15 per cent. For the first time gas prices in Ontario would be lower than they are across the border in the United States, and every person with half an ounce of brain knows what this means. It means that our cost of manufacturing would be lower than that of the United States, and when companies are planning future expansion of their business, whether it be in steel or any secondary industry, they naturally know where the costs are lower. Instead of building plants in Buffalo and Detroit they will go where the price is lower in Windsor, Hamilton or Toronto. This is the key fact.
The charge which has been made that we have lost control is nothing more than an innuedo because 50 per cent of the ownership belongs to the Canadian company and it is they who control it as long as they obey the laws laid down by the F.P.C. In the original application 90 per cent of the gas was to come from western to eastern Canada and only 10 per cent was to be dropped off in the towns along the way. So I have no choice but to say again in the house that the position of the N.D.P. has been harmful to every portion of Ontario and Quebec where natural gas is being used. It is the N.D.P. who have stood in the path of the development of the wealth of this country through the use of this great natural resource. In my eyes, and I hope in the eyes of all the people of Canada, they stand condemned for this selfish and outdated nationalistic approach.


I am aware of their arguments and I know how much these northern townships depend on the construction of a pipe line in their area. I know from personal experience how the motel operators and the people who run hotels and restaurants depend on new construction in their area. I say now to the N.D.P. that not only will the people of Windsor, Toronto, London, Hamilton and Montreal get cheaper gas as a result of the decision announced today by the F.P.C. but so will all of northern Ontario. Furthermore, very shortly northern Ontario will get a second pipe line and all the benefits that will accrue from it. Their motels will be filled and their assessment will be raised. They will have the best of two worlds. We have saved the Canadian market for Canadian products. We have not raised artificial barriers to save that market but we have achieved our purpose in a positive and economic way.
I also said that northern Canada would benefit for another reason and that is that more gas will be available this coming winter as a result of the decision announced today. In the last couple of years several companies and mills in northern Ontario had been short of natural gas. Whether we like it or not, the premium markets are in the big cities. With permission for the looping now having been given, this coming summer we will be able to hook up our storage fields near Sarnia in Lambton county to the storage fields in Michigan to supply the Ontario market. In this way more gas can be made available to the northern towns, mills and companies this winter. This is a great day for northern Ontario which will get more gas this winter, and when the loop is completed next year the gas will be cheaper. I say this is true, modern Canadianism, not the artificial restrictive nationalism which should have died in our country 40 years ago.
I have put these thoughts on the record because I believe them to be vital to the whole concept I have, and which I hope many Canadians have, of building our nation. We want to build it on the basis of positive, non-restrictive techniques. We have the basic resources, we have the energy and we have the water with which we can process in Canada so much more cheaply than any other country in the world. We should realize that this is a heaven-sent situation and that at long last we are able to achieve what we want in an economic way. We do not want to impose any restrictions on the Americans; we just want to do things better and cheaper.
June 20. 1967

I know that the large American gas companies in Louisiana and Texas want the market in Ontario and Quebec. It is a good market for the future. But at least this once we have won a victory. Our Canadian gas is just as good as the gas from Louisiana. Without the need for any subsidy from the government or any artificial restrictions we are able to reduce the price of gas below the United States price through the use of the storage facilities in Lambton county in Ontario and in Michigan. We are able to do in a positive way what we have tried to do in the past by using restrictive techniques. This is a good day for Canada.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I agree with my hon. friend from Timis-kaming that we as legislators should have been better informed about the sudden rise in the market in Ontario and Quebec two years ago. The crisis of the last 18 months should not have been allowed to develop. I hope that the words of the hon. member for Timis-kaming will be listened to and that an effort will be made to make some projections. Whether they be optimistic, pessimistic or mean projections, let us make some projections so that we can assess whether the needs of the consumer will be met. It is true that we have chosen this company as the instrument of the Canadian people to move gas from western to eastern Canada. But in giving this company a charter we have a responsibility to see that they meet their commitments. I believe that they can do the job better and at cheaper cost than a crown corporation or any kind of government organization, but we do need advice from the National Energy Board in regard to future demand for gas.
I said, Mr. Chairman, that this was a great day for Quebec. Those of us who have travelled through the province of Quebec realize the desperate need in Canada's interest for a greater variety of industrial activity to improve the economic health of that province. One of the things which has been denied the areas outside Montreal is access to natural gas. With the price reduction which will arise from this loop I see the wholesale price in Montreal going down to the point where we can now consider building a line from Montreal through the southern townships to Quebec city and later perhaps along the north shore to Quebec city. This will give those 20 or 30 counties access to a clean, efficient fuel which is particularly suited to modern types of precision operated industry.
1725
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
I know that a pipe line to Quebec city is going to run in the red for a few years and that under the old price structure which obtained it was impossible to build the line. But I hope that there is now a chance for the people living in the heavily populated rural areas between Montreal and Quebec city, both on the north shore and the south shore, to have the opportunity to benefit from the type of industry which will complement their agricultural activities. It will be a great day for Quebec if all of these things materialize, and I know they will.
I think I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, to make my position clear, but I still want to offer one or two words of advice to the minister. One of the important principles enshrined in the National Energy Board Act is the common carrier principle. In plain terms this means that all producers of gas have an equal right to pump their gas through a line and that all consumers have an equal right to buy their gas from the owners of that line. But it also means that price must vary with distance from the source, and this is extremely important in Canada. For example, if gas goes to the United States it is very important to realize that the common carrier principle of pricing the gas more cheaply closer to the source must be maintained.
I realize that the volume argument also comes into the picture. It is argued that if you take a large volume you should pay a lower price for it. However, I share with some of my friends in the N.D.P. this concern: If we want to build a better Canada, one of the ways we have to make certain that the national interest is protected is to see that the common carrier principle is maintained.
Second, Mr. Chairman, we have learned a lesson from the experience last year, and that is that Canada and the United States will increasingly have to work together to find a solution to our common energy needs. I think the principle should be that the consumer has the greatest right to the cheapest possible form of energy. Perhaps I should explain that first principle a little more. To make sure that the consumer is protected we should always supply gas at the most economical price. In other words, we do not just distribute it all around so as to maintain a supply in Canada or the United States. The most economic price and the shortest possible route is the end objective from the consumer point of view.
The second principle is that the Canadian interest must be protected too. I think that the Canadian interest can be maintained by realizing that under the terms of the National
June 20, 1967
1726	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources Energy Board Act, which lays down various criteria which must be applied when a company is going to build or operate a pipe line, the National Energy Board can be used as a sort of bargaining agent both on behalf of companies and on behalf of provinces which own the gas. This concept has been put forward very ably by a member on the government benches, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. I should like to see a public statement made by the minister in the form of a directive to the National Energy Board, in cases where a company is sending gas to the United States and is perhaps fighting for the big markets of North America, saying that in the bargaining the competitive price of other fuels in the areas in which the fuel is to be sold will be taken into consideration. In other words, it is not just a question of selling the maximum amount of gas possible; it is a matter of getting the maximum return for our resources.
Many of us, Mr. Chairman, have the suspicion that much of our resources which are owned by subsidiaries of United States companies return a very small emolument per unit sold, that the main profit on natural resources in Canada goes to the parent company in the United States which finally uses the product. Once again I compliment the hon. member for Coast-Capilano for bringing out evidence of this nature. I think this is the type of matter in which the National Energy Board should take an interest.
If I may go back to my first statement about this latter subject, we have learned the lesson in the last year that if we have to deal more and more with the United States there should be a meeting between the federal power commission and the National Energy Board, both in effect being courts of record, to lay down the terms of reference with regard to future across the border applications.
I accept the right of every American to due process of law in United States courts. But I also want to protect the right of every Canadian to make certain that Canadian resources do not become the tool of a foreign court. Because of the mutual interest of the United States in having access, even at a higher price, to our resources in Canada, terms of reference laying down how applications shall be heard in future will prevent the kind of long delays that have been taking place.
If as a result of this meeting, Mr. Chairman, an understanding were reached on the principle that we are entitled to the maximum


price that the market will allow for our products, the United States will have to accept that because the terms of bargaining are on our side. All of the reports and forecasts indicate the need for more energy as the years go by, and the National Energy Board is the agency that can protect us. However, the terms of the act of today would have to be enlarged.
In the meantime the situation requires a statement on the part of the responsible minister, speaking on behalf of the people of Canada, in the form of a directive to the National Energy Board. This was the technique which was used in connection with our national oil policy, and even though I am not going to speak today about that policy I would point out that this precedent could be applied to a natural gas policy. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, we sorely lack direction. Let the minister take all the time he requires to work out the terms of reference, but the United States should be told that we are giving our energy board this directive. Then the two energy bodies could work together to ensure that the right of Americans to due process of their law is not taken away from them, particularly in cases of border convenience, but that we in Canada should not be asked to continue to suffer the delays which have occurred during the last year.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Reid:: Before the hon. gentleman
resumes his seat I wonder whether I might ask him an unloaded question. Does he know of any other example of a Canadian company participating in transmitting a Canadian natural resource and "getting a piece of the action" in the United States instead of turning the middle-man operation over exclusively to the Americans as Trans-Canada is doing in this case with the Great Lakes Transmission Company?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am sure there are many types of arrangements. This point is bound to arise increasingly in the relationship between the two countries not only in connection with gas but in other fields. I know it is happening in the mining field. Because the Americans have not been quick to develop some of their mining resources, Canadian companies are moving in and getting substantial control of operations in United States areas. I hope this process will continue. When I hear Americans complaining that Canadians are taking over their country, I will know it has been successful.
June 20, 1967

I am not an authority on the legal arrangements involved in the Great Lakes application. It is a difficult legal operation under United States law. A United States corporation has been set up. Ownership is equal but management rights are in the hands of the Canadian company. I do not think there is any danger of our losing control over that fuel because the United States does not dare cut off the gas supply passing through their country while we are sending such large supplies to them for use by industry in California. If the hon. member's question was intended to indicate concern over the degree of control, I have tried to answer it. But if he merely wished to ask me whether I knew of any other example, the answer is no, I do not.


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Chairman, on Wednesday last I began to make some remarks with respect to the Nelson river project and how it affects Canadian industry, particularly the Canadian General Electric Company. I spoke of the opportunities which national resource development on this scale provides for our country. I should like to complete the remarks I was making on that day.
The point I was making when I was interrupted was that major projects such as the Nelson river project provide an opportunity for Canadian industry and, indeed, for foreign industry, to develop technology, to increase employment and to explore export potentials. I suggested it is imperative, when a decision is made as to who should undertake the work, that consideration go beyond the mere question of cost. Decisions of this character must be founded on a much broader basis than an inquiry as to which bid happens to be lowest.
We have a device which is used in this country as a measure of protection to ensure that Canadian content is taken into consideration when awarding such contracts. It is known as the 10 per cent formula and it may or may not be adequate. It seems to me that when making an assessment as to its adequacy this formula has to be examined in comparison with similar devices or formulae used by other countries. It would be a useful venture for the Department of Industry or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources to examine the conditions faced by the Canadian General Electric Company, for example, in bidding for contracts in Sweden, France or the United Kingdom. With such a study we could discover exactly what form of protection exists in those countries for their own industries.
27053-110J
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
If we were to undertake such an investigation we might find that our 10 per cent formula affords much less protection to Canadian industry than do comparable formulae or devices used by other countries. It is important when we are considering developments of this magnitude, the Nelson river project, for example, in which Canadian industry is likely to be competing with British or Swedish industry, that Canadian industry on its own ground should be in a no less favourable competitive position than it is when competing for contracts in these other countries. If this is not the case it should be the case, and we should take measures to make sure that Canadian industry is not exposed at home to greater competition than are indigenous industries in other countries. Since the Nelson river project can have an important bearing on the development of Canadian technology, on employment and on export sales, it is important that we give this matter urgent attention.
The federal government has decided to invest a large sum of money in the Nelson river project. This investment takes the form of building the transmission line, together with its associated terminal equipment, to make it possible for the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board to develop the resources of the Nelson river in northern Manitoba to supply the power requirements of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and to create an opportunity to export power to the United States.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has been appointed by the federal government to design and purchase the equipment for this major transmission system. It has selected a relatively new technique, high voltage direct current, as being the most economic and efficient means to bring this power south to the area of need.
All of the high voltage direct current systems built or being built to date use mercury arc valves as the main element in the terminals. New developments, however, in semiconductor materials, and their successful displacement of mercury arc valves in industrial applicants, suggest that they would bring the same benefits to this installation as they have to industrial users.
Canada is fortunate that this semi-conductor technology has progressed to the point where it can utilize this equipment on its first major high voltage direct current installation. It gives Canada the opportunity to lead the world in this field.
A prototype equipment has been built and proven. Canadian General Electric has anticipated this development by training people
1728	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources in the special requirements of electric utility applications, and also in building and installing systems using this same basic technology. Through its role in the Nelson river transmission project, and by purchasing the necessary equipment in Canada, the federal government has a wonderful opportunity in my view to achieve a number of important goals. By using Canadian equipment it would help to create employment in Canada. It would support and expand Canadian manufacturing capability and, above all, establish its manufacturing industry in a strong technological leadership position. This technological ability is necessary not only to supply our future domestic requirements but also to create opportunities for export.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In the decision that has to be made, and will be made by the Atomic Energy Commission, it is important to remember that the Canadian General Electric Company's proposal will have a Canadian content many times that of any other manufacturer, whether domestic or foreign. The Canadian General Electric Company plans to build approximately 80 per cent of the equipment in Canada. It is estimated that placing the contract with this company would probably result in 700 man-years of employment in design, manufacture and installation of the equipment involved, and would in effect create a new industry of considerable size which in turn would provide a livelihood for a considerable number of people in the trades, professions and the service industries.
In a decision on this matter it is well to bear in mind that the company I have mentioned has already made a large investment in developing the necessary skills, research and development programs, and the building of prototypes to prove out the technology involved. Without a contract to supply the equipment and services required this investment would be lost. More important, the technology would not be further developed and the technical and manufacturing leadership would have to remain with foreign manufacturers who would, of course, continue to supply both Canadian and world-wide requirements for high voltage direct current transmission for years to come.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, my submission today is brief and absolutely straightforward. It seems to me in a project of this magnitude that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the government of Canada have a very important decision to make which should be based in the final analysis on a

DEBATES	June 20, 1967
wider basis than simply the factors or criteria of cost. The ramifications of the decision will be important to many sections of our economy and many industries within our economy. This impact will be either negative or positive and I can only appeal through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister and to A.E.C.L. that a decision be made on the wider basis I have suggested, and that above all the national interest will be considered.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal briefly this afternoon with one specific project referred to by the minister in his introductory statement on Wednesday, June 14, found at page 1521 of Hansard. Part of the sentence in question reads:
-and we are negotiating with British Columbia a joint program for flood abatement in the lower Fraser valley.
I have indicated that my remarks are going to be brief but I hope no one is going to assume that because they are brief my concern is slight. I believe this is one of the most urgent problems that require attention in the Fraser valley because it affects the entire lower mainland of the province of British Columbia.
Although we in the lower Fraser valley hope that the immediate danger has passed for this year, the area annualy faces the danger of flood and disaster. In referring to natural catastrophes the explanation is often given that they are acts of God. Since it appears that we are being spared a repetition of flood conditions such as we had in 1948, in all fairness we ought to give credit to God who has to take the blame for many of the unfortunate situations that happen.
The problems we face in the lower Fraser valley are mainly occasioned by the sudden spring run-offs in the Fraser River watershed. Each year a careful assessment is made of the varying situations, the gauges on the river are watched very closely, predictions are made and warnings are issued, but the whole situation depends on the weather conditions prevailing at the period of the year when the run-offs take place.
This year in British Columbia we had a combination of conditions which made many people believe we would have a really serious flood situation. I remember speaking to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on one occasion and he felt that everything was just ideal, if one can use that term, for a really serious flood to develop in the lower Fraser valley. As I say, it now
June 20. 1967

appears that that danger has receded. Nevertheless, as the situation developed emergency plans were made and machinery was put into operation to meet the possible danger.
In the absence of an adequate agreement between the federal and provincial governments, the provincial authorities authorized emergency work on portions of the diking systems along the Fraser valley. We hope that federal assistance will be forthcoming to assist in meeting the financial outlay that was involved.
Hon. members will recall that on various occasions questions have been asked on orders of the day with respect to the situation on the Fraser River and in the Fraser River valley. Those questions were posed by myself and by members of other parties who were just as concerned and as interested as I was. We had the assurance that the federal government was prepared to render every possible assistance should an emergency arise. We appreciated that, but the point I want to make this afternoon is that even though we may appreciate the emergency plans that were in preparation and in readiness, it is going to take something more to satisfy the municipal authorities and the people of the affected areas in British Columbia.
Every year there is a great fear of what might happen, the inconvenience, the loss, even loss of life that might happen should the Fraser River overflow its banks and flood the lower Fraser valley. I was advised by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources that discussions were taking place between the provincial and federal authorities with respect to a long-term plan to eliminate this flood hazard and danger. It was my understanding that a tentative agreement had been reached with respect to the strengthening of the dikes and that consideration was being given to the implementation of the recommendations of the Fraser River Board, which were tabled in September, 1963. I should like to refer briefly to those recommendations but first I should like to read a very brief paragraph from the introduction to the report. It reads as follows:
[DOT] (1:40 p.m.)
The present report, developed within the remaining restricted area of flood-control possibilities, has pointed up a number of recommendations which warrant early attention. With each year's delay in taking protective action, the next damaging flood is that much closer. Accordingly, it is emphasized that remedial measures should be undertaken as early as possible.
Supply

Energy, Mines and Resources
I wish to point out that this document is dated September, 1963. Of course, we are now approaching September of 1967. What disturbs the people of my constituency and other constituencies which are involved in this problem is that in spite of the potential dangers it seems that nothing is being done to implement the long-term recommendations of the Fraser River Board. It is true that some work is being done on the dikes in the lower Fraser valley, and we appreciate this. I have been given to understand that in this regard they have reached a relatively high degree of efficiency and effectiveness.
I am advised by those who I believe understand the situation much better than I do that the work being done in the lower Fraser valley will not meet the need. They say that the only thing which will meet the need, solve the problem and eliminate the flood danger is the construction of reservoirs in the upper reaches of the Fraser River. These reservoirs would control the flow and enable it to be released slowly in order that it could be carried away. In view of the fact that the recommendations suggest it is an urgent matter, in view of the fact that the authorities and others in the Fraser valley say it is an urgent matter and in view of the fact that we have been presenting these recommendations for some years now, I earnestly request the minister to do his utmost to get the whole proposal and program under way. I realize, of course, that it is not his responsibility alone. The provincial authorities also have a responsibility. What I say to the minister I say also to the provincial government of British Columbia, namely, I hope that action will be taken immediately to implement these recommendations which I have been given to understand offer the only means by which the flood danger in the Fraser valley can be eliminated.
The suggestion has been made that this will be an extremely expensive proposition. Let me say that the implementation of the recommendations, although costly, will not be as costly as the damage and loss which could be experienced if another serious flood should occur in the Fraser valley. Therefore, on behalf of the people of British Columbia and the lower mainland in particular I appeal to the minister again to assist in expediting this program. If he will do this, he will have the appreciation of all those who are concerned about this problem.
June 20, 1967
1730	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources only in respect of one particular facet, pollution of international waters. When the minister, whose sincerity I admire and who I beileve takes the deepest possible interest in the affairs of his department, introduced the estimates of the department on June 14, he made several references to water pollution as coming within the purview of the new Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I have been looking at Hansard and at pages 1520 and 1521 on June 14 I find that the minister stated that Canada has been bountifully provided with water but that that does not mean that we have no problems. He said we have several of them, including pollution. Then the minister said:
If the water level of the Great Lakes drops or if their waters become more polluted, Ontario is not the only province to suffer-
On page 1520 we find several references to water quality being within the control of his department. This is particularly true, in my opinion, when we are dealing with the Great Lakes. The minister referred to the new Canada Centre for Inland Waters at Burlington on Lake Ontario and the water pollution abatement program.
On more than one occasion, Mr. Chairman, I have spoken in this house about the illegal filling of Lake Ontario, usually I have done so on the estimates of the Department of Public Works. During the past year I have noted there have been reports in the press and on radio and television that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been issuing assurances that he is going to devote a great deal of attention to the question of pollution. Within the last several months I have seen a letter-I have no other authority than that -to the effect that the Department of Transport will be looking after the enforcement of the Navigable Waters Protection Act which has been under the Minister of Public Works for the past few years.
I know that members of the cabinet talk about wanting to have a bill passed by the house relating to the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I suppose it will be a piece of legislation which will give authority to the Minister of Transport. As a private member I am told nothing and have to look to the newspapers to find out what is going on. I rather gather that the Minister of Public Works is still the minister responsible for the enforcement of this act, but yet we are told that the Minister of Transport will look after
[Mr. Patterson.J

it in the future. One only wonders when the change will take effect.
To my knowledge the federal government has never at any time taken a firm stand with regard to the illegal filling which goes on along the northern shore of Lake Ontario between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek. I should like to congratulate the minister sincerely and heartily for the contribution he is making to the Canada Centre. I know the Ontario government is also contributing to this project. This new centre will be about 22 miles from the district I am speaking of on the north shore of Lake Ontario. This should be the first problem that the Canada Centre is asked to investigate by the able minister and his department. Only yesterday afternoon I was walking on some of this illegal fill. I protest particularly in respect of two pieces of fill, one known as the Millgate fill near the mouth of Etobicoke Creek and the other lying to the south of what is known as Humber House, or hotel, or tavern on Lakeshore Boulevard west.
In the Toronto area recently some of the editorial writers for the daily newspapers have made sport of the council of the borough of Etobicoke because the council passed a bylaw in which they referred to the fact that the southern boundary of the borough is the middle line of Lake Ontario. This is an incontrovertible fact. The newspapers have been making sport of the borough council because it passed a bylaw zoning as parklands, open space or green belt all that part of Lake Ontario between the natural shore and the southern boundary which is the centre line of Lake Ontario. I say to this house, Mr. Chairman, that the borough council of Etobicoke had to pass a bylaw of that nature because the federal cabinet has taken no action to enforce the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The Millgate development over toward the mouth of Etobicoke Creek, to which I have made reference in the past and to which 1 will refer and keep on referring until the cabinet either declares it national park land or orders the fill to be removed by the people who dumped it there-there is authority for such action in the Navigable Waters Protection Act-projects out into Lake Ontario something like 330 feet, which is a full 110 yards, with a width of about 220 feet. This is earth that has been dumped into Lake Ontario. The waves are beating on it and around it and are wearing it down and scattering
June 20, 1967

mud east and west along the shoreline of Lake Ontario.
If the minister wants to see a fine case of pollution all he has to do is go to the point where Etobicoke Creek empties into Lake Ontario. About a quarter of a mile east he will see a prize example of illegal fill which is playing havoc with Len Ford park. It is on the shoreline and belonged originally to the village of Long Branch and now to the borough of Etobicoke which enveloped that village. He will find private owners along this shoreline who are protesting about the mud, the flotsam and the jetsam which is being washed up on the shore three-quarters of a mile east and west of this Millgate fill. Why cannot the minister responsible for pollution get either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works to enforce that provision of the Navigable Waters Protection Act which says that those who deposit illegal fill without having their plans approved prior to such action will be forced to remove them or the government may remove them and charge the expense of removal to those people who dumpted the illegal fill?
Let us leave the Millgate aspect for a moment and go farther east to the mouth of the Humber River, where I was 24 hours ago. The muddy water extends out into Lake Ontario for half a mile to three-quarters of a mile, and with the wind being from the southeast yesterday the muddy appearance of the water was evident for possibly two to two and a half miles west of the Humber River. If you stand on Lakeshore Boulevard you can count possibly 1,000 dump loads of fill on top of the illegal fill which has been placed there over the years. I say that you can count 1,000 dump loads of fill which have not been levelled off by bulldozers or other mechanical action and are conclusive proof that fill has been brought there and is still being brought there in order that lots can be created in Lake Ontario which will sell for at least $500,000 per acre.
The area of fill south of the Humber hotel is much larger than in the case of the Mill-gate fill farther to the west. It is so large that the people who developed it have even had the effrontery to go before the council of the borough of Etobicoke and ask to have the property zoned for an apartment house and hotel construction. The land that they want zoned by the borough of Etobicoke is created land that did not exist there until they started putting fill in Lake Ontario. It is interesting to note that the borough of Etobicoke recognizes that the land is there and is paying
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources attention to their demands that an unopened road allowance running from Lakeshore Boulevard down to Lake Ontario shall be closed. These people are illegally filling in Lake Ontario without any obstruction from the Minister of Public Works, or should I say the Minister of Transport, because I do not know who is responsible at the moment. I can only tell the house that neither of them is accepting responsibility. Neither of them has stopped this illegal fill being dumped into Lake Ontario. I am told that the council of the borough of Etobicoke is passing a regulation to close up that street allowance as it would separate the two pieces of fill these people would like to have as one big building lot rather than two small ones, in exchange for a promise that there will be another road allowance provided on the west side of the fill.
What I am drawing to the attention of the chairman and members of the committee is the fact that the federal cabinet simply stands by and does nothing to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stands up and talks about the great action he is going to take to stop pollution, but these people keep dumping mud, fill, broken concrete and cinder blocks into Lake Ontario. Three weeks ago there was fill dumped into the lake at the foot of Thirteenth Street in the former town of New Toronto which is now part of the borough of Etobicoke.
I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he will follow up with action his promises that he is going to stop pollution in Lake Ontario and all other waters that come under his jurisdiction. The people in the south end of the borough of Etobicoke know they cannot expect any action from the Minister of Public Works. He has had years in which to do something but he has done nothing. There may be some hope that the Minister of Transport will do something, but in view of the delay in bringing the Navigable Waters Protection Act under his jurisdiction I felt I should now ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to use his good offices to see that this illegal filling is stopped.
The property that has been created should be turned into national parks for the benefit of all the people, not just some would-be builders. The pollution should be controlled in the interests of all the people on the north shore of Lake Ontario. Anyone flying in or out of Toronto, if their plane flies along the
June 20, 1967
1732	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources north shore of the lake-sometimes you fly right along the north shore because of wind variation-can see that this All has nothing to do with the natural contour of the land. It stands out like a sore thumb in two or three places where the Department of Public Works does not interfere with the dumping.
In view of the legal connections involved in this illegal fill I can only state that if some cabinet minister does not take the necessary drastic action shortly the cabinet will have more on its hands than it can handle, because all the legal niceties tied up with this illegal All are well known to the people living in the south end of Etobicoke and to the members of the Etobicoke borough council.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take just a few minutes first of all to present my roses to the minister as a token of my admiration for the way in which he fulfils his obligations. I hope he will accept them, and to make them even more agreeable, I will make them "American Beauty".
Mr. Chairman, in his opening remarks on his estimates, the minister said that water was one of our most important resources. I think that no one questions this statement and we realize it even more when we are somewhat deprived. In fact, that is when we realize that water is of primary importance and that it must be used reasonably, since it is not an inexhaustible resource.
As the minister said, Canada is favoured, because we have a lot of fresh water for our population. If my information is correct, I think Canada owns approximately one fifth of the fresh water in the free world, and the province of Quebec has one third of the fresh water in Canada. As I said a moment ago, and as the minister himself noted, we have no assurance that it will always be this way and that our water resources will not, in time, create major troubles.
At various times, the alarm has been sounded by qualified authorities on the matter. For instance, I note in the newspaper La Voix de I'Est of November 2, 1966, that Mr. Peter White, president of the rural development of Brome county, sounded a warning that it may be proper to emphasize, and I quote:
-the Yamaska lake and river have become "a sewage lagoon".
Mr. Chairman, when it is realized that the Yamaska river supplies water to cities such as Granby and St. Hyacinthe, it is important


seriously to consider this warning by someone who is aware of the question. In the article mentioned here, the following is stated, and I quote:
Bacteriological contamination at St. Alphonse de Grandby, a small village nearby, is very serious. Animals have died through the years after drinking in the river. The river gives off a foul odour... the fish died some eight years ago.
The situation in that area is most alarming and it is imperative that we give it our whole attention.
On the other hand, Mr. R. L. Demers, engineer with the Quebec water control board, said, in an article published in La Presse on November 25, 1966:
It is later than we think as regards water pollution.
The premier of Quebec himself said, as reported in La Presse on February 14, 1967, and I quote:
If we do not use our water intelligently, if we misuse it, if we waste it unsparingly, and especially without any thought for the future, our water may not always constitute an inexhaustible resource.
As I am aware of the goodwill of the minister, aware also of his eagerness to help the population, I should like to have his co-operation, so that the threat to public health may eradicated from my area. I should also like to suggest that he use his influence with his colleagues, the Ministers of Forestry and Rural Development, of National Health and Welfare, and of Public Works (Messrs. Sauve, MacEachen, Mcllraith) so that a dike might be built on Yamaska River at Rapide Plat.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In the summertime, Mr. Chairman, the Yamaska river reaches such a low level, below the dike known as "Penman", that it becomes a menace to public health. Fish die and the decay gives off a most unpleasant odour for the shore dwellers, and this smell I am sure, is also a menace to public health. I do think that it would cost very little to each of the departments concerned, to build a dike which would meet the general approval of the people of Saint-Hyacinthe and the other villages which also get their water supply from that river.
The minister will work, in a more or less distant future, in some part of my riding, where he will probably find the thorns to match the roses which I sent him earlier, from a political point of view, and I should like him to take advantage of that opportunity
June 20. 1967

to start working on his reputation so that, when the time comes to ask for votes in that part of my present riding, he will already be welcome.
I think the minister could very easily initiate a study into present conditions and their continuing disadvantages, as well as the menace to public health they constitute. I am sure that the minister would not want to have a summer cottage in the vicinity of a river which, during dry spells in the summer, gives off odours which are far from pleasant.
Therefore, I leave this problem with the minister. I am sure he will want to give favourable consideration to that question of pollution not only of water but also of air which is a menace, as I said before, to public health.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Chairman, in just a few words I should like to express my disappointment at the news we heard this morning. I believe this is a very sad day for Canada and I think time will prove me right. The only thing that is perhaps not disappointing is that this will also prove to be a very sorry day for the Liberal party.
The fact that the decision announced this morning, as was pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for Timiskaming, was made purely and solely in the interests of the United States of America should also give the government and the Canadian people room for thought. In this respect we have experienced delay upon delay continuing for months and months. Suddenly, because the United States was given a real scare last week when overnight the Arab countries at least temporarily cut off their oil, the decision was made. I should like the Canadian people and the government to stop for one moment and consider whether this decision was really made in the interests of Canada.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle said a few words on this subject and put forward certain suggestions. I wonder whether he has really stopped to think about what he said. He proposed, for example, that the gas should be sold on a cost for distance transported basis. If the line was to be built completely in Canada I would agree wholeheartedly with him. But in supporting the move to build the line through the United States he was in fact saying that United States customers should in perpetuity pay a cheaper rate than Canadian customers who live farther along the line. He 27053-m
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources also reiterated-I believe the government shares his opinion-that this program will result in a much cheaper rate in eastern Canada. I am sorry that I do not share the optimism of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle any more than I share the optimism of the minister when he expresses the same view. Furthermore I defy either the minister or anyone else in the house to show one single instance where cost is a factor in our modern society. The cost factor does not enter into the picture at all. We all know or at least we should know that the only factor is what the traffic will bear, not what it costs to transport the gas.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle, who is attempting to build up a reputation as a great nationalist, seems to defeat his purpose whenever he happens to deal with either gas or oil. I suggest that he review his ideas in this field. I was called to the telephone during one part of the hon. member's speech but I am told that he had some rather harsh words for the members of my party and the stand we have taken throughout the whole debate. I believe the hon. member paid a recent visit to northern Ontario and attended a meeting in my constituency. He must have seen with his own eyes how much support the views of his party receive in that part of the country. In fact, if he needs any further proof all he has to do is to look at the results of the recent election in Sudbury and he will find that the Conservative party got less than 10 per cent of the votes. The same is true in my riding.
There are one or two other points I should like to make. I have found that it is practically impossible for university students to find summer employment this year all across northern Ontario. The same is true for high school students in the top grades who are looking for jobs to pay for their further education. The big surge which followed the Texas Gulf crisis has now reached a plateau. Construction work is over. The Hollinger mine has announced that it is closing down and the Preston East Dome mine is to close before the end of the year. There is no work in prospect for our young people. Perhaps the minister will say that they can go to the United States and get jobs in the construction of the pipe line through the United States. Is this what the government is planning for our young people?
The government has made that part of the country a designated area, which may or may not stimulate development and build up industry there. However, I will tell the minister
June 20. 1967
1734	COMMONS DEBATES
Supply

Energy, Mines and Resources once more, as I told him before, that the fastest way to stimulate the economy and build up industry in that area would have been to build the pipe line through northern Ontario. The government has dawdled, stumbled and procrastinated until the tragic situation in the Middle East has finally compelled the United States federal power commission to make up their minds for them.
In closing I warn the minister and the government that the battle may be lost but the war is not over. It is my intention to take a good cameraman on a trip with me to see the construction of the line in the United States and to take pictures of the development taking place adjacent to it. Even if I have to do it at my own expense, I will go on every television station in northern Ontario to show the people what has happened as a result of the sell-out by this government. This may not help the situation but it will prevent a similar sell-out in the future.


Mr. Ballard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a few minutes to bring a couple of points to the attention of the minister, particularly in view of the political developments which have taken place in the world in the last few days. I think that the Israeli-Arab war should make it fairly clear to the minister that we must take a new look at the oil and gas industries in Canada. I point out to the committee that the Canadian oil industry is one of the largest industries in Canada. In fact, in the last 20 years it has developed from a $20 million a year industry to one worth over $1 billion in 1967. It is an industry which has greatly contributed to the balance of payments problem in Canada and to the welfare and prosperity of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and in fact British Columbia.
I do not want to go into the effects of the oil situation in Alberta so much as to try to relate to the minister the political implications of the recent world events and to quote to him a section from the Carter report which directly concerns the oil industry in Canada.
As the minister is quite well aware, oil has been discovered and is being produced in many parts of the world. New discoveries have been made in North Africa, Nigeria, the North Sea, the Middle East, Russia, and many other places. In most of these areas production is sometimes subject to political pressures. Combined with ever-increasing discoveries of oil there is an ever-increasing demand for oil in the world. There is an insatiable hunger for energy. For example, in 1966

33 million barrels per day were used, nearly double the amount used ten years previously. However, the point which must be kept in mind is that for every barrel of oil produced a new discovery must be made. In other words, use must be matched with new discoveries of oil and also account must be taken of the contemplated increase in the use of oil in the world.
In so far as Canada is concerned, and possibly the whole of North America, the security of our sources of supply of oil must be guaranteed. The importance of this has been emphasized by the political unrest in various parts of the world in recent years A few years ago the oil industry was nationalized in Iran as a result of which there was an interruption in the flow of oil to the western world for several weeks. This was followed by the Suez crisis in 1956. When Egypt took over the Suez Canal it cut off all the oil supplies that normally travelled through there. It also cut off the Arab pipe lines. As a result of the recent conflict between the Israelis and the Arabs oil supplies to Europe, North America, Japan, and in fact all parts of the western world, have been cut off.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In considering the development of Canadian oil reserves, the security of our sources of supply must stand very high on our list of priorities. This was pointed out by the Borden royal commission. As a matter of fact, the Borden royal commission made this statement.
It is undoubtedly in the national interest that Canada should at least be in a position rapidly to make itself as independent as possible of imports which may be subject to interruption.
I do not pretend that there was an interruption in the supply of oil in Canada during the recent crisis but if the crisis had continued for a longer period of time it is quite possible that there would have been an interruption.
I would point out to the committee that Canada has relied increasingly on Middle East oil for use in the eastern Canadian market. In 1964 Venezuela, which up until recently has been our principal supplier of oil from overseas, supplied 71 per cent of the offshore supplies in eastern Canada and the Middle East supplied only 25 per cent. In 1965 Venezuela supplied 60 per cent and the Middle East 36 per cent. One can see that there is a decrease in the quantity of oil imported from Venezuela and an increase in the amount of oil imported from the Middle
June 20, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1735
East. The situation becomes even more pronounced in 1966 when Venezuela supplied only 50 per cent and the Middle East supplied 47 per cent. In two years the oil supply to eastern Canada from the Middle East has increased in volume from 25 per cent to 47 per cent.
It is worth noting that the considerable increase in oil imports which took place between 1965 and 1966 was of oil which originated in Nigeria and Libya. Almost the whole of the increase was represented by oil from Nigeria. The recent political disintegration of Nigeria is now common knowledge.
I bring these points to the attention of the minister principally because there is a section of the Carter report that could have a tremendous effect on oil exploration in Canada. I should like to refer the minister to page 326 of volume 4 of that report where it is said:
But if costs of conventional oil exploration continue to rise it is apparent that, if the tar sands are not now competitive with conventional crude, they will be competitive in the near future, and Canada's oil reserves, for all practical purposes, will be limitless. Devoting resources to the search for conventional oil is, or will become, unnecesary.
I should like the minister to look at that reference and give due consideration to it because the statement upon which the recommendations of the Carter report are predicated is an exaggeration. It does not take into consideration some of the political requirements of this country. For example, the statement falls short in at least three respects.
First of all, according to the statement the cost of conventional oil exploration continues to rise. As a matter of fact, just the opposite is the case. The cost of exploration for oil in western Canada is decreasing, and decreasing quite rapidly.
Second, it is stated that if the tar sands are not now competitive they soon will be. This is incorrect. The tar sands are not now competitive and it is difficult to see just at what time in the future they will be. It may be a very long period of time before tar sands developed oil will be able to compete with conventional oil.
Third, the statement totally disregards the fact that it takes at least five years to develop an oil project, particularly tar sands. It might also take the same length of time to develop a conventional flow of oil, build a pipe line and get the oil to the market. The statement made in the report of the Carter commission is quite premature. I do not think that the oil policy of this country should be predicated on such an assumption. I do not think that a 27053-1111
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources change in taxation as it affects oil companies should be predicated on a statement of this sort.
I believe that the time has now come to take another look at the possibility of making this country self-sufficient in supplies of oil. As the minister is quite well aware, we are capable of producing more than enough oil for our own use. Yet the fact of the matter is that we still import large amounts of oil for use in eastern Canada. This is all well and good as long as political relationships in the world are harmonious. But I think an advanced country like Canada should be prepared to face all emergencies so far as the supply of energy is concerned, and the minister should look at the possibility of using Canadian oil only for all our needs.
I hope the minister will take seriously the comments I made about the Carter commission. It will probably be to the advantage of Canada to continue to develop oil reserves against the day when we do need far more oil on a daily basis than we require today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:)
ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES A-Department-
Administration services-
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including common-use field survey equipment, $884,000.
10. Contributions to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council by Canada with the provinces, to assist in the development of roads leading to resources, $2,834,000.
15. Subventions in respect to eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $3,000,000.
Field and air surveys, mapping and aeronautical
charting-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including purchases of air photography, the expenses of the interdepartmental committee on air surveys, the expenses of the national advisory committee on control surveys and mapping, authority to make recoverable advances not exceeding the amount of the share of the United States government of the cost of binding annual reports and maintaining boundary range lights, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,425,000.
Marine surveys and research-
25. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international hydrographic bureau, $13,624,000.
30. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $9,880,000.
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
Geological research-
35. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in geological sciences, Canada's share of the cost of the geological liaison office, British Commonwealth scientific conference, London, England, Canada's fee for membership in the international union of geological sciences and grants as detailed in the estimates, $8,780,000.
40. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $555,000.
Mining and metallurgical investigations and research-
45. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the national advisory committee on research in mining and mineral processing, Canada's share of the cost of the Commonwealth committee on mineral processing and $100,000 for grants in aid of mining and mineral processing research in Canadian universities, $6,895,400.
50. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $686,600.
Geographical surveys and research-
55. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the Canadian permanent committee on geographical names, the national advisory committee on geographical research and the national committee for Canada of the international geographical union, Canada's fee for membership in the international geographical union, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,120,000.
Research in astronomy and geophysics-
60. Administration, operation and maintenance including the expenses of the national committee for Canada of the international astronomical union, Canada's fee for membership in the international astronomical union, and grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $3,209,000.
65. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,674,000.
Research and investigations on water resources- 70. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's share of the expenses of the international executive council, world power conference, a contribution to the Canadian council of resource ministers in an amount equal to one-third the aggregate contribution of the provinces but not exceeding $55,000, the expenses of the Saskatchewan-Nelson basin board and the Atlantic tidal power programming board including recoverable expenditures relating thereto, grants as detailed in the estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of the province of Manitoba and of the province of Ontario of the cost of regulating the levels of Lake of the Woods and Lac Seul and the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $12,364,000.
75. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the shares of provincial and outside agencies of the cost of hydrometric surveys, $2,489,000.
80. Contributions to the provinces towards the construction of dams and other works to assist in the conservation and control of water resources in 
June 20, 1967
accordance with agreements entered into between Canada and the provinces, $10,172,000.
General-
85. Polar continental shelf project, $1,791,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
90. Administration and investigations of the dominion coal board, $236,339.
92. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council in addition to the payments authorized for the current fiscal year by mines and technical surveys vote 75b Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964 as amended by mines and technical surveys vote 75d, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1966; additional amount required in 1967-68, $7,765,661.
C-National energy board-
95. Administration, $1,500,000.
Energy, Mines and Resources-
L25. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $25,285,000.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)

[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:)
Atomic energy control board-
1. Administration expenses of the atomic energy control board, $307,400.
5. Grants for researches and investigations with respect to atomic energy, $2,500,000.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
(Research Program) -
10. Current operation and maintenance, including expendable research equipment, $56,883,000.
15. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $9,617,000.
L5. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the construction of the Candu-BLW 250 nuclear power station in Quebec; to share in the construction of the Pickering generating station under agreement between the federal government, the province of Ontario and the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario; to finance the construction of manufacturing facilities and a laboratory for the commercial products division at South March; to finance the construction of housing and other works near the Whiteshell nuclear research establishment, $32,000,000.
Alfred Dryden Hales: One brief question. I understand that the purchasing of transmission lines and transformers in connection with the Nelson River project is being done through the Atomic Energy Board. If so, I hope the minister and the board will give due, thorough and thoughtful consideration to placing the tender with the firm which has the highest Canadian content. Can the minister give us any indication of the thinking in this regard?

June 20. 1967


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not want to belittle the importance of the point which the hon. member has just made, but it was already emphasized this afternoon by the hon. member for Peterborough. This is a difficult decision to make because it involves a choice between equipment which is already being used and tested in Canada and elsewhere, and equipment which is entirely new. Atomic Energy of Canada will, of course, analyse all the factors involved. If the hon. member feels the need for a guarantee, I can tell him that the Manitoba government will be there, looking over the shoulders of Atomic Energy of Canada while the decision is being made. All the factors which have been mentioned will be taken into consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES
L10. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the carrying charges on heavy water for the Douglas point generating station and to finance the purchase of Canadian-produced heavy water for resale to Canadian and foreign users, $10,500,000.
LIS. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in such amounts and on such terms and conditions (including the delivery to Her Majesty, in satisfaction of the advances, of obligations or shares of the company) as the governor in council may approve, to finance the construction of transmission lines in connection with the Nelson river power project, in accordance with an agreement between Canada and Manitoba to be approved by the governor in council: to authorize Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to construct, control, lease and dispose of the said transmission lines, $15,000,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-135, to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation-Mr. Pepin-Mr. Batten in the chair.
Cape Breton Development Corporation
Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose yesterday clause 16 was under consideration, clauses 2 to 15 having been agreed to. Perhaps I should point out to the committee that last evening when the discussion ended at ten o'clock the hon. member for Halifax had suggested an amendment. I do not think he had formally proposed an amendment.


Mr. Rapp:: My hon. friend from Cape Breton North and Victoria will be here in a minute or so. Perhaps we could delay the proceedings until he gets here.


Jean-Luc Pepin: All right.


Reynold Rapp: Thank you. We will co-operate with the minister but I think we should wait a couple of minutes until my hon. friend arrives.
On clause 16-Powers.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Chairman, last Thursday evening we on this side wished to Continue consideration of this legislation but apparently it was not the wish of the government to do so. Last night we did not carry on with it either. Despite the fact that we wished the bill to be presented to us again early this afternoon, rather than the estimates of the minister, the decision was made to present the estimates. We were then assured the bill would be brought up at eight o'clock tonight. The minister must have been in his usual good humour because his estimates were passed more quickly than we anticipated. If I recall correctly, last night there was an amendment to clause 16 (b). Could we not stand that clause for the moment?
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee agree to stand clause 16 and proceed with the discussion on clause 17?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
On clause 17-Duty to submit over-all plan for coal.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the key clauses of the bill and it gives some of us a great deal of concern. So far as I am concerned, the basic difference between a public corporation and a private corporation in the part of Canada with which this bill deals is that a public corporation ought not to be concerned at all times with financial and economic considerations as the top priority but
June 20, 1967


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 17 I
June 20. 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1739
fully subscribe to the comments which have been made by the hon. member for York South. I believe that as a legislative body it is our duty to take into consideration the statement made by the Prime Minister on December 29, 1966 and also the statement made by the then minister of labour on October 5, 1965. Here we are a year and eight months later trying to get around to doing something in respect of both the statements made by the two hon. gentlemen. As members we are only trying to improve the legislation so that we will get the best possible bargain for those who unfortunately are affected as a result of the phasing out by the government of the coal mining industry in Nova Scotia.
I am very pleased that the hon. member for York South has introduced this amendment. Actually I had one prepared which reads as follows:
To ensure that no displacement of employees would take place without alternative work being provided.
So we are not too far apart in respect of our amendments. I think it is our duty to improve the legislation, as I have already intimated, in the best way possible so that no one will be hurt any more than already has been the case because of having been employed in the coal mines of Nova Scotia.
Subclause (4) (b) of clause 17 reads:
(b) ail reasonable measures have been adopted by the corporation, either alone or in conjunction with the government of Canada or of Nova Scotia or any agency of either of such governments, to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom.
To my mind, and I believe in the minds of many members on this side of the house, this wording is rather vague. We would like to have spelled out a little more clearly what the government has in mind concerning what will be done for the workers who are to be displaced as a result of the phasing out of the coal mines. As we have stated, you cannot take a half dozen persons out of a coal mine and place them somewhere, and then take another 20 or another 50 tomorrow, without having a serious disruption of the operations of that mine. Therefore I believe it is up to the government and the corporation to make sure that something will be done en masse or in a similar manner so that no one will suffer any hardship. They should not be released from the coal mine when it is closed down and eight months later still be walking the streets trying to find employment.
Cape Breton Development Corporation
I should like to ask the minister whether he is in a position to give us his views in respect of this amendment or the one I would propose. I believe either would be agreeable to us, but, I endorse the amendment of the hon. member for York South.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not think I need repeat that this legislation is both social and humanitarian and that there is a relationship between the phasing in and phasing out. The principles are very clear. The amendments which have been suggested, in some ways are more limiting than the wording in the bill itself. If the hon. member will look at the bill again he will see that it states-and I shall not read the entire subclause:
All reasonable measures.. .to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom.
I should like to emphasize the word "any". So this includes those people whom the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria and the hon. member for York South particularly have in mind. Not only does it include employees but also other people who might suffer as a result of the phasing out of the coal mining activities. Therefore the wording as it appears in the bill is wider than what the hon. members have in mind. I think they should agree with the present wording.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot agree because in my opinion the wording, even though it has the meaning the minister suggested, is an invitation to the corporation to go ahead with coal production reduction even though this may result in unemployment. When I am told that it means to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or acute hardship, I do not know what is meant by "as far as possible".
The point I am making is that the general proposal in subclause 1 relates to the plan and when you are saying to the corporation when it may or may not undertake a substantial reduction in the production of coal all you are saying is that it must make sure there is as little unemployment as possible. That may mean unemployment for half the people in the mine.
Since it is six o'clock and we will probably have to turn to other business, I would suggest to the minister that perhaps a combination of the two might be appropriate. I am not wedded to the particular wording I have put forward. The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria had an alternative wording. I believe there should be a requirement that the corporation should not reduce

June 20, 1967
Private Bills
coal production until there is satisfactory alternative employment available for all the employees as a whole. This would reduce the possibility of there being unavoidable unemployment for some people.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
If the minister would like to give some thought to this point, then by all means I hope he will do so. I simply am not convinced that this wording is right. I emphasize that the provision which gives the corporation instructions concerning when it may or may not reduce coal production should again repeat in specific terms the idea contained in subclause 1 that it must have authority to take steps to deal with any unavoidable hardship. Personally I am not prepared to support the wording as it now stands with its emphasis on unemployment and economic hardship rather than on the basic underlying idea of alternative employment or alternative training before any reduction takes place.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. 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. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont), Agriculture-assistance required for potato producers; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Immigration-denial of landed immigrant status to Greek shepherd; the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack), Television-Napanee, Ont. -request for approval of cable facilities.
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 6, 1967, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill No. C-112, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, on two previous occasions I have spoken on the motion for second reading of this bill. Anyone who tries to follow those remarks will have a rather difficult time because they are scattered throughout Hansard for various dates from May 30 of this year going back to last session. This is one of the bills that had their roots in the previous session, but were not passed. Frankly, I do not think it should be passed on this occasion either because, as I have said on a number of occasions about this and similar bills, it contains within it no provision whatever to permit the company to comply with the enunciated policy of the government of Canada or the feelings of nearly all members of parliament.
The gist of our objection to the incorporation of Aetna Casualty Company of Canada is that this company should within a reasonable period of time become Canadian owned, and it has not done so yet. During the last session we had similar discussions and felt that this point of view had been fairly well set out by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) and had been supported by other members of the house. It was felt that when and if this company again desired to become incorporated it would be forewarned of the attitude which might be taken, namely, that it should become a Canadian owned company within a reasonable period of time.
The intricacies of the company and its relationship to a United States company have been clearly set out by the sponsor of the bill. I might point out that even if we reach the stage of voting the sponsor would regretably not have the opportunity of making any concluding remarks about our objections because he appears to be somewhere else. In any event, he set out very clearly the relationship between this company and the parent company in Hartford, Connecticut.
The sponsor of the bill also referred to the company's premium structure, the number of policies it sold and its income, but nowhere in his remarks was there any intimation that the company or the sponsor of the bill, who is a Liberal, had given any recognition whatever to the declared policy of the government as announced very forcibly and clearly by the Prime Minister and as supported by a number of members of the cabinet.
When government policy on a matter such as this is delcared by the first minister of the cabinet, the Prime Minister, individuals and their supporters who come to parliament
June 20, 1967

seeking company incorporation under the umbrella and protection of the parliament of Canada have a duty to see that their bill complies with the announced policy. This bill fails to do that and I submit that the individual who-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that many members of the house will recall that I view nearly all private incorporations of insurance companies with a jaundiced eye. I have a particularly jaundiced eye in respect of this company. I have been reading the statement the sponsor made on May 30, as recorded in Hansard at page 752, about the astonishing generality of this company. It is to be a subsidiary of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford, Connecticut. That company is a corporation carrying on a substantial general insurance business in the United States with its subsidiary, the Standard Fire Insurance Company, and writes business on all classes of insurance.
The sponsor told us that the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company was organized in 1907 and operated as a partially owned subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance Company until late in 1964 when a reorganization was conducted under which all the shares were transferred to and are now being held by a trustee for the shareholders of the Aetna Life Insurance Company.
The Aetna Life Insurance Company has had a similarly chequered career. It was incorporated and commenced business in 1853. The Aetna Life and Casualty organization now carries on business throughout the United States of America. The sponsor then tells us that the Aetna Life Insurance Company commenced business in Canada over 100 years ago. Apparently in 1960 the Aetna Life Insurance Company made an offer to the shareholders of the Excelsior Life Insurance Company of Toronto to purchase approximately 70 per cent of its outstanding shares. I suppose this is the way this company finally came into Canada.
There has been absolutely no concealment whatever that this is a foreign-owned corporation. It is owned entirely in the United States, and there is no suggestion that there are any other shareholders than those residing in the United States. At one point the sponsor of the bill had this to say:
All but four of the present employees are Canadians-
Private Bills
He was referring to the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford which has claim offices in Toronto, Montreal, Quebec city, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Calgary and Vancouver. It would be interesting to know just who those four employees are, because I suspect that they are not office boys or stenographers. I suspect that one might find these four employees sitting in the executive offices of this company in Canada. The rest of the employees, who may be Canadian citizens, are not holding the important positions that these four unidentified, non-Canadians are holding.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
There is another point I would have liked the sponsor to develop a little further. The hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) said:
A financing plan has been developed to provide the capital and surplus necessary without impairing the balance of trade position of either Canada or the United States.
I presume he means the balance of payments position, because this is a purely financial matter. I should like to know what this plan is. Does it mean that this company is not merely to collect the savings of Canadians through insurance policies but is to collect the savings of Canadians by means of loans, presumably, and debentures in order to finance its operations in this country? I imagine this is what it will do, because it is the time-honoured method by which foreign companies have been able to extend their holdings in Canadian development, Canadian industry, Canadian resources and, as we see in this bill, Canadian financial institutions. I should like to know just what this particular financing plan, about which the sponsor was rather coy, might be. The sponsor made another rather interesting statement:
The establishment of this Canadian company will create for Canada additional employment, additional capital funds and, as previously mentioned, additional capacity for the insurance market.
Let us deal with those three great advantages in allowing this foreign-owned company to move into the Canadian economy. It is said it will create additional employment in Canada. Well, perhaps it will. But I suggest that every policy written by the Aetna Casualty Company after this bill is passed will be written at the expense of an existing insurance company. There is, after all, a very definite limit to the amount of funds that are available for investing in the policies of this type of company. Therefore I doubt that there will really be any additional employment as a

June 20. 1967
Private Bills
result of the incorporation of this company, or if there is it will be additional employment which will increase the rates because it will increase the costs of insurance companies doing business in Canada.
The sponsor says that the establishment of this company will provide additional capital funds. I wonder how that statement can be squared with the statement about the financing plan that will provide capital without affecting the balance of payments position between Canada and the United States. Obviously, if this company is to provide additional capital it must come from somewhere outside the country, and if it comes from somewhere outside the country it is bound to have some effect on our balance of payments position.
The final praise for this company, the final argument in favour of our accepting it, is that it will provide additional capacity for the insurance market. I have yet to hear any insurance company complaining that it has not the capacity to service everybody who tries to buy a policy from it. In fact, I am sure we all know that the major expenditure of insurance companies is the commissions and wages of agents who go out and try to sell policies. I do not think any additional capacity is required in the insurance market in that regard. I am quite sure the present insurance companies can write all the policies that the people of Canada want to have written. I believe that the present insurance companies can carry all the load of insurance that Canadian business wishes to have carried. It seems to me a rather preposterous idea to suggest that this company will provide additional capacity for the insurance market. What it will do is bring about additional costs to the whole insurance industry of this country, as does every new insurance company incorporated by this parliament.
I would report for the benefit of hon. members of the house the words of the inspector of insurance when I asked him in committee whether in his opinion the incorporation of new insurance companies was calculated to create the sort of competition that would reduce costs for the insurance policyholder. I will always remember that the inspector of insurance, after carefully considering my question, said: Well, I admit that in my department they are beginning to wonder whether it is necessary to have all these new insurance company incorporations. This was, of course, as close as one could in fairness expect a civil servant to come to criticizing the policies adopted by the government and
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
the parliament of Canada. Obviously he had very grave doubts as to the benefits to be derived from incorporating more insurance companies.
I should like to stress again the way in which this bill completely flouts the announced policy of the government of Canada and of the parliament of Canada with regard to the foreign ownership of financial institutions. I am quite sure that the committee of which I am a member, and this parliament, did not take the action it took with regard to the Mercantile Bank of Canada as an isolated instance. It was a case in point which underlined the danger, in the view of the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), of allowing non-Canadian interests to get a grip on Canadian financial institutions. This is one of those institutions that to my mind should be firmly in Canadian hands.
Let us look at it this way, Mr. Speaker. These people are not in business for amusement or for entertainment. They are in business to make money. They are going to make money, and we have not yet been told who is to provide the capital and the surplus with which they are to make money. We have had a rather contradictory statement from the sponsor of the bill. But they are in business to make money. They are going to make money out of the Canadian economy. They are going to persuade Canadian people, Canadian businesses and Canadian groups of all sorts to gamble with them on casualty insurance.
It may be true, as the sponsor of the bill says, that it is the intention of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, the parent company, to leave any underwriting profits in the Canadian company to strengthen its financial structure. This sounds like a very noble and righteous attitude on the part of the company. It will be what I think the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) is fond of calling "a good corporate citizen"; it will keep its money in Canada.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that every large Canadian subsidiary of an American company has expanded its operations in precisely this way, through what are rather euphemistically called internally generated savings or retained earnings. In blunter parlance, of course, this means excess or surplus profits. This company will leave them here, of course, because it intends to expand its operations. It will expand its operations at the expense of the existing companies in this country.
While I hold no particular brief for any insurance company, domestic or foreign, if I
June 20, 1967

had to make a choice I would rather see my fellow Canadian citizens have the opportunity to make money out of the rest of us than have people from another country do so. I would be very strenuously opposed to the passage of the bill at this time, particularly when the government has taken a firm position with regard to another financial institution, a position which may well be challenged in a few years time, as I warned the Minister of Finance only a few days ago. When it is challenged I can hear Mr. Rockefeller saying to the government of Canada and the Minister of Finance that they allowed the Aetna Casualty Company of Hartford to come into Canada and set up a company wholly owned by American capital and asking why we are discriminating against him. This is what he said when he came here last time. We will give him an added argument to support his contention that the Canadian parliament was guilty of gross discrimination against the Mercantile Bank of Canada.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I feel very strongly on this matter because of my attitude toward the whole insurance industry, both domestic and foreign. I think that before long we will have to move very quickly in this field because it will become part of any program in the direction of investment, if we are going to develop Canada in the way we want to develop it. If we allow companies which have the privilege of collecting the savings of Canadians to be in foreign hands, our task will be rendered more difficult. So I am very strenuously opposed to the passage of this bill and I hope the house will reject it.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested in the comments that have been made on this bill both by the sponsor and by some of my colleagues. I hope the day will come when such statements do not have to be made, when a statement such as the one I made earlier regarding the national ownership of our resources will be taken for granted. I hope no one will consider allowing the ingress of United States businessmen into a field which affects the lives and aspirations of Canadians any more than they will allow a situation to develop similar to what took place today when the government showed no offence at the fact that an American board made a ruling which gave them an opportunity to get off the hook.
The Aetna Casualty Company is probably no worse or no better than any of the other
Private Bills
insurance companies operating in this field. It is true of this company, as it is of car insurance and crop damage insurance companies whose agents receive a percentage of the premiums that are paid by individuals, that the administration costs exceed the normal costs of good operation. As we learned last year, Aetna Casualty Company has been doing business in Canada for a number of years in several fields. One of their subsidiaries is the Excelsior Life Insurance Company which is owned entirely by them and has been allowed to grow in Canada until it has become one of the largest life insurance companies. They have also been operating a branch office in Canada under the agency of Dale and Company of Montreal. It is interesting to note that part of Expo was insured by this company. Perhaps at the time of the incorporation of the company I should have asked the sponsor what aspect of Expo was insured by them, whether they issued insurance against inability to meet the deadline for the opening of Expo or whether it was insurance against fire losses.
It is a fact that for a number of years now this company has operated in Canada in both the life insurance and casualty fields. It is also true that for many years the Aetna Casualty Company has been operating from Hartford and has been under the control of the Department of Industry to the extent that it is covered by the foreign Insurance Companies Act.
I had the opportunity of talking to some of the officials of the company whom I found to be very astute businessmen. In my opinion they are not unlike the type of people we would want to run a Canadian company. They were of the opinion that it was going to be very difficult for them to meet the commitment which I think most people in Canada would like to see met by companies coming into Canada to do business. I think there are two types of companies. There are those that come here with risk capital, are willing to put up their money to do business in our country and are prepared to offer a large employment potential. Second, there are the companies which offer very limited employment but which accumulate large sums of money in a very short period of time. This money is advanced to the subsidiaries by the headquarters located outside of Canada at very small risk, and it is only necessary for them to have this money available.
We find in the bill that the incorporation of the company is asked for by a number of

June 20, 1967
Private Bills
lawyers. It seems to me that the fact that a lawyer who is resident in Canada is being asked to represent a new company proves that they are not really establishing a company but are setting up a holding operation for some other group. With the exception of Melvin Kirkland Kenny, an insurance executive, and Albert Bruce Matthews who is listed as an executive, I would presume the others are only acting in trust and are in fact what are called, in fairly vulgar vernacular, "fronts" for other persons. If we are really going to carry out what has been said to be the intention of the Prime Minister and certainly of the former minister of finance, that is, put this type of operation under Canadian control to provide funds for investment in Canada, then we should seriously consider this matter.
Clause 6 of the bill lists the fields in which this company wishes to operate. It is obvious that the money which is put up in the various fields will never be collected. This may even be true of automobile insurance where the rate of payment is much higher than in other fields.
Many of us wonder how long it will take the Liberal party, or whatever party may form the government of Canada, to make up their mind to enter the field of insurance and provide what is obviously a necessary protection for Canadians through the establishment of a crown corporation so that the money invested in such companies can be used for other purposes. This field has been partly covered by the Canada Pension Plan. I believe we are developing a pension plan that meets many of the requirements which were not previously met by insurance companies. One of these was the need for sums secured by life insurance policies to bear some relationship to the need of the person insured. It is a fact that during the depression people found it difficult to keep up payments of premiums on policies, and in many cases were forced to abandon their policies. After saving and scrimping for many years to meet the premiums of an endowment policy for $10,000 or $20,000 which during the depression years was probably equivalent to $100,000 today, they lost everything.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
We have attempted to remove some of the abuse from the insurance field, particularly with endowment policies and pensions, and have appointed a government agency to administer the Canada Pension Plan. We have not done the same thing to cover such risks as hail, for example, or some of the other risks 
that other companies are covering, such as forgery, falling aircraft, explosions, earthquakes, automobile accidents, water damage, wind storms, and so on. These are risks which-involve, in my opinion, a large premium. It is almost like allowing a company to print money.
That alone would be bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but we even let these companies come into Canada and speculate against the interests of our own people, who provide the money for this speculation in the form of premiums. The corporation concerned at the same time accumulates a large profit.
It is all very well for the hon. member who is sponsoring the bill to say that this money will not be taken out of the country. Certainly, I am sure the superintendent of insurance will see to it that enough money is kept in Canada to meet the commitments that these companies make. Nevertheless, in view of the undistributed profits and the reserves that these companies accumulate, in my opinion the government should control this field in the interests of the general public.
It is interesting to note that if you want, for example, to build a house in my area Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not lend money if the house is to be serviced with a septic tank. They do not say that a septic tank is undesirable, but they do say that too many septic tanks close together are undesirable, which is probably true. However, this corporation was not set up to decide on a national housing policy for Canada. The officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation suggest that these people borrow money from insurance companies or trust companies if the house they want to build is to have a septic tank.
These corporation officials tell these people: "We are a crown agency set up to help you build a house. We will not let you build it where you want because, in our own small way, we want to restrict you or put a roadblock in the way of your building your house in this area". As a result, the insurance company enters the field and uses for mortgage purposes the money deposited with that company. The policy holders do not get any return from that investment unless, of course, they collect on their insurance.
Suppose I were to protect myself against forgery, Mr. Speaker. If someone gave me a bad cheque I doubt whether the amount would nearly equal the premiums I had paid to the company, particularly if I were a small businessman. Yet these companies are allowed to come into Canada and issue policies
June 20. 19S7

Private Bills
of insurance, collect these vast sums by way of premiums, and then plough this money back in the form of mortgages and other instruments.
I attended a committee for most of the afternoon which was sitting in camera and doing a very good job. I found almost total unanimity about most of the work the committee was doing. I can remember that during the last five years I have stood in my place during this same hour and was criticized, browbeaten, told that I was stupid, was a communist, was a fascist, and so on, yet the same people who accused me of these things were sitting on that committee agreeing to matters which we legitimately tried to persuade them to accept four or five years ago. At that time we had absolutely no support.
I should like to see some of the members who sponsor these bills have the gumption to tell these companies that we in Canada are not interested in having all these insurance companies. We do not need a proliferation of 10,000 insurance companies. We are not going to solve the unemployment problem by having policy holders all over the country starving to death. If only these members would do this these companies which abuse the needs of the Canadian public would not receive incorporation from this parliament.
Aetna is proposing to cover risks which are already covered. I am not saying they are being dishonest or that the sponsor of the bill is being dishonest. I give both of them the benefit of the doubt by saying that they do not know any better. But the sponsors of these bills are not telling the Canadian people what these companies are doing. This bill concerns the Aetna Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, which wants to set up a company in this country with a board of directors composed of four or five Canadians in order to comply with the terms which have been laid down for the incorporation of such companies. The bill says that the capitalization of this company shall be $5 million, divided into shares of $50.
Aetna Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, could set up a thousand insurance companies tomorrow on the strength of the companies they already own. They are not selling $5 million worth of stock divided in $50 shares. This stock will never be sold; it will probably never appear on the market. It does not need to be sold because the company itself could put up that sum tomorrow.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
They have already done so. They came here some years ago and established the Excelsior
Life Insurance Company. It grew into a very large and responsible company and it had no difficulty about raising money at any time. Surely hon. members should give some consideration to what is done with these large sums which these insurance companies accumulate. Suppose our old age pensioners were receiving $25 more than they needed, and put this amount of money away under their mattresses. I believe we should soon find ourselves in serious trouble. I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) say that the cost of raising old age pensions would amount to $800 million-a terrible sum. Well, we covered about three quarters of the amount proposed, and the cost amounted to about $200 million. As I pointed out, most of this goes back to the government in a very short time after three or four transactions. Suppose this extra money were placed in the hands of an insurance company. It would be the same as putting it into savings. It is true protection is provided, but much of the money has to be held. This money is reinvested by the companies. It is this investment which makes money, not the insurance.
The companies are not investing their own money. If the company which is making this application wished to come to Canada and invest on the stock market, it could do so. But it would have to put up its own money, and it has no intention of doing that. These companies intend to accumulate your money, and my money, and then invest it at the highest possible rate of return.
I believe the day will come when the government-and I can only look to the Liberal government-will really believe in what they have been telling us is their policy. They have stated they would like to buy Canada back but that they want to do it quickly and with as little disruption as possible. The only disruption in the banking world so far has been in connection with Mercantile. I sat on the committee, or, rather, I sat in at some of the hearings-I was not a member of the committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the house.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Ian Wahn (Si. Paul's):: My hon. friend from High Park, who is unavoidably absent, has asked me to reply to the points raised in this debate.

June 20, 1967
Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: It may be that we have not yet reached the point at which the hon. member will be called upon to perform that duty.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: I have just listened to the eloquent speech of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). He convinces me he has a deep grasp of this subject. In addition, I have read the speech which was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) and this, too, appears to me to be most penetrative and persuasive.
This places upon me and other members of the house a duty to explore this field much more thoroughly and therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett):
That this bill be not now read the second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.


William Arnold Peters: I would defer to the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) if he wishes to comment. Otherwise I rise to support the amendment which has just been moved.
Before this motion was introduced I was saying that I was impressed, after listening to the proceedings of the banking committee, to find that the government had no objection to limiting Canadian banking institutions to those which were under Canadian ownership and control. This attitude is understandable when we recall that during the last election there was evidence of considerable interest on the hustings in my riding and, no doubt, elsewhere, in the development of Canadian nationalism in economic matters. This particular banking institution was given only a short period of time in which to decide whether to expand, sell, and become Canadian, or take the other alternative. The situation somewhat resembled the situation in Cuba when the government there changed and the American Fruit Company found that some of its practices were no longer allowed to go unchallenged. The government said: You have the right to get out, and we will buy you out at our price.
The remarks of Mr. Rockefeller at the committee hearing indicated he felt there was a similarity between the methods used by the two governments, one a banana republic and the other a staid, responsible country like Canada. But let us consider the position of these insurance companies. Here is a well established company asking for permission to set up a Canadian organization under Canadian ownership and control. I am not

saying there is anything wrong about this; it is what we decide to do about it that matters. One of the hon. members opposite stands up here and says that the board of directors will be composed of Canadians. A small number will have voting rights and the others, presumably, will sit there and be unable to influence policy very much, if at all.
I wish I had been educated in the ways of the business world, for I have often wondered what happens in these situations when one or two people own all, or almost all, of the stock in a company. They are always on the board of directors, if they choose to be so. If they want to be presidents, they always are. And if they say "This is the way things should go", that is the way things are done.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I can think of some of the gold mines I have known where someone who was able to buy the largest block of stock called a shareholders' meeting and said, "We will close down this mine and distribute the money that is in the bank." I remember one little company which did this, Lakeshore Mining. 1 do not really understand this type of operation, but from my limited knowledge of the actual practices these four gentlemen from the United States will in effect be the whole company because they will make all the decisions. The hiring of Canadians to fill the rest of the spaces is just complying with our government's policy on matters of foreign ownership and controlling our own economy.
I also note that the people who introduce these bills are mostly lawyers. I have often heard it said that the legal profession-


Ian Grant Wahn: I rise on a point of order. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this speech is merely a continuation of the remarks which the hon. member made earlier. He exhausted his time before the amendment was moved, and I am sure in his usual straightforward manner the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) would admit quite cheerfully that the amendment which has been moved by some of his colleagues was moved merely as a device to permit him to extend his time beyond that allotted by the rules, and filibuster the bill before the house. In the circumstances it seems to me this is a device that is out of order, unless the hon. member for Timiskaming indicates that that is not his intention.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might remind the hon. member that he should not suggest that the member who moved the
June 20, 1967

amendment had ulterior motives. The amendment speaks for itself and I would think the speech which was being made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is quite in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, bear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was just pointing out that most of these bills are introduced by lawyers. It is a very closely knit little club. If I were a lawyer maybe I too would be in a position to move this kind of bill, or as many bills of this nature as I wished. I have noticed the number of lawyers listed as members of the boards of directors in the last two or three bills in which I have been interested. In this one we have Albert Bruce Matthews, an executive, Melvin Kenny, an insurance executive, John Hamilton Cameron Clarry, described as one of Her Majesty's counsel, which I presume means he is a Q.C. and lawyer, Granville Patrick Harcourt Vernon, also one of Her Majesty's counsel, Peter Greer Beattie, solicitor, and Stephen Clifford Smith, solicitor, all of the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario.
This must be a nice little game because each of these companies has four or five lawyers as directors. If I could make some use of this kind of operation and I was a lawyer, all I would need to do is to be appointed to a number of boards. I could attend their meetings if I wished, but I would not have to attend because I would not have anything to say. I would only be on the board because I was a Canadian, owning ten shares or something like that. Possibly some hon. members may be thinking that they will be defeated eventually in an election and it would be nice for them to be considered in this group.
The point I am making is that we are not interested in merely having Canadians on the board of directors. We, in this group, would like to have Canadians on the board because we believe that eventually the Canadian business community must have the overriding interest in things Canadian. When an insurance company such as this makes an application for a charter to collect money, that money should be used for the benefit of some Canadian enterprise, be it in the mortgage field or insurance protection field.
Obviously the money that is collected does not all go into protection. Any insurance company that collected $1 million and paid out $1 million in claims would not be coming to Canada or anywhere else. If it is a business
Private Bills
operation it collects $1 million, pays out much less than that in claims, and invests the rest.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), the first in his book on economic prospects and Canadian development, and the second in speeches in this house, have said that companies must be good Canadian corporate citizens. I think the Canadians being appointed to many of these boards are not necessarily good corporate citizens. They are citizens who are being employed for a specific purpose.
The day must come soon when we strengthen our Department of Insurance and make it responsbile for recommending what insurance companies should be added to the present total. The Aetna Casualty Company will not do one thing in Canada that cannot be done by some company already established. If it were to offer one kind of insurance that nobody else offers, it would serve a need and would deserve consideration. But I think we must all agree there are hundreds if not thousands of insurance companies in Canada today supplying exactly the same kind of insurance that this company will provide. Thus we are not doing a good service by incorporating this company.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business has now expired.

The house will now revert to the business interrupted at six o'clock.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-135, to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation-Mr. Pepin-Mr. Ryan in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ryan):: As it is
seven o'clock the committee is suspended until eight o'clock.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-135, to
June 20, 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation, clause 17 and the amendment thereto by the hon. member for York South.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, may I say first that I am in agreement with the amendment put forward by the hon. member for York South in that it goes to the heart of the subject which I have presented to the minister on previous occasions, when the bill was before the house at the resolution stage, on second reading and in committee. The wording of the amendment is:
-to provide alternative employment for employees of the corporation who may be laid off as a result thereof.
This is the wording which is suggested should be added to clause 17 (4) (b).
If the mine in the constituency which I represent, which is one of the Dosco mines, had been included by the minister in this legislation, if the wording as suggested by the amendment of the hon. member for York South should be adopted, the employees of that mine of course would be ensured of the protection which would be provided by the amended clause.
As has been pointed out earlier in the debate-and this bears repetition-a telegram dated today was directed to the Prime Minister and undoubtedly also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well as to members from the area, from the president and other officers of the United Mine Workers of America, District 26. I think this should be put on the record. It was referred to earlier during the question period. I will read it quickly:
United Mine Workers of America District 26 shocked and dismayed over federal Bill C-135 to exclude McBean mine in the proposed crown corporation.
What follows refers to something I mentioned during the resolution stage:
This action completely contradicts Prime Minister's statement December 29, 1966-
The quotation is taken from the minister's statement.
-when he said and I quote:
Assured of the participation of the government of Nova Scotia, the government of Canada is prepared to ask parliament to establish a suitable crown corporation-the composition and powers of which will be defined by the two governments at an early date-to acquire, reorganize and manage the coal mining interest of the Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation.
That is the end of that part of the quotation. The telegram continues:
[The Chairman.]
This automatically includes Acadia, which is a subsidiary of Dosco.
Then there is another quotation from the Prime Minister's statement:
The government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia believe that a rigid adherence to a fixed timetable to reduce the level of coal production might involve unnecessary hardship on the dependent communities. Consequently the rationalization of the mines will be related to the success in the introduction of new industries.
That is the end of that quotation.
So that McBean or any other colliery would have to be kept in operation until new industries were introduced to provide alternate employment as promised by Prime Minister Pearson. Further on in the Prime Minister's statement he indicated that the government of the province of Nova Scotia would be held responsible for the smaller independent operations and the federal government would be responsible for the Dosco mines which automatically again includes McBean.
Then the telegram concludes in this way:
The officers of District 26 United Mine Workers of America urgently request a meeting of representatives of the federal government, provincial government and the United Mine Workers of America District 26 to clarify this misunderstanding.
May I repeat that if this mine had been taken in along with the other Dosco mines as was promised, this clause, of course, would apply and, if the amendment of the hon. member for York South is passed-I hope it will be and I commend it to all members-the workers at this mine would be guaranteed alternative employment.
When I asked the minister a question about this mine he said at one point that it would cost approximately $2 million to continue it to the end of 1967. At another point he said that perhaps this money should be used to continue the mine and at another point he said that perhaps it should be used for another purpose.
We do not know whether he will be the minister, but he has also stated that perhaps it will take close to three months or five months to get the corporation working. As I said before, the Donald report suggested that there should be resources from this mine until 1970. We are not clear what the minister has said, but if this mine were taken in under the terms of clause 17, as was promised by the Prime Minister on December 29 of last year, then these miners, the men working on the surface and, the office staff would be protected.
Yesterday I referred to a telegram from the New Glasgow and district labour council which suggested there should be alternative
June 20, 1967

employment. Today I received a telegram from the president of local 8672, which is the United Mine Workers sub-district 3 at Thorburn. This telegram is signed by James A. Murphy and it reads:
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
On behalf of the membership of local 8672 United Mine Workers sub-district 3 this is to protest that the McBean colliery was not included in the taking over of the mines by the federal and provincial governments according to the Chronicle-Herald.
I also received a telegram from local 510-A of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railroad Transport and General Workers which represents some of the officials at this mine, including shotfirers and examiners. It is signed by the president who points out that 400 men are relying on myself, this house and this government to provide alternative employment and to give some clear picture of what will happen to these men.
For this reason I submit that the McBean mine should be included for coverage under this legislation and that this amendment should be carried by a strong vote.


Robert Muir: Before the dinner hour I stated I was fully in accord with the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South. In the interval I had an opportunity to look over some documents and I should like to place one of them on the record to further enlighten the minister as to what the United Mine Workers think about this situation. Let me first of all endorse the representations put forward so ably by the hon. member for Pictou regarding the inclusion under this legislation of the McBean mine.
The hon. member for Pictou quoted from the Prime Minister's statement of December 29, and I think at least a portion of it bears repeating. He said:
Assured of the participation of the government of Nova Scotia, the government of Canada is prepared to ask parliament to establish a suitable crown corporation-the composition and powers of which will be defined by the two governments at an early date-to acquire, reorganize and manage the coal mining interests of the Dominion Steel and Coal corporation-
When the minister replies I hope he will advise when the McBean mine became an orphan of the Dosco family, or when this division took place. I understood the McBean mine was operated by the Dosco corporation or the Hawker-Siddeley group. We now are receiving telegrams from representatives of the unions concerned, and for the information
DEBATES	1749
Cape Breton Development Corporation of the minister, in case he has not heard of this previously, I should like to read him a news item from the Cape Breton Post dated Tuesday, June 13, 1967. It is headed "Marsh is Critical" and it reads:
U.M.W. president Bill Marsh said Monday he was disappointed the union was not consulted prior to introduction of legislation establishing the Cape Breton crown corporation. The legislation is scheduled to go before the House of Commons this week. Speedy approval by all parties is anticipated.
"We are pleased of course the legislation, at long last, is ready for approval," Mr. Marsh said. "However, we also are disappointed the union was not consulted, particularly after we learned that the company's general manager was called to Ottawa on Monday."
The article then refers to the opening of a new colliery at Lingan, which of course has been assured by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on a number of occasions on political broadcasts and telecasts. This has also been repeated and reaffirmed by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport. Only the other evening he nodded his head in agreement when I asked whether we were going to have a new mine opening at Lingan. Yesterday evening the minister of mines said that if the Cape Breton development corporation saw fit, it might open a new mine at Lingan. We hope that this new mine will be opened.
Is it correct that representatives of the company were called in to discuss this legislation, and is it correct that no invitation was extended to the district officers of the United Mine Workers of America, district 26? I am sure that had they been invited they would have made their point very clear in respect of the McBean mine. In that event I am sure we would not be having this discussion tonight.
When the minister rises to answer the criticisms and representations in respect of the McBean mine and the amendment that has been proposed, I hope he will advise us why representatives from the United Mine Workers were not called in for consultation regarding matters to be included in this legislation. After all the statements which have been made by the people who are supposed to be in responsible positions, I fail to see how this government can make statements such as were made prior to the federal election which took place on November 8, 1965, particularly when they are now backtracking and weasel-ing out of their commitments.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I should not like to appear to be scolding hon. members because that is not my intention, but if we keep on repeating the same arguments, I dare say
June 20, 1967
1750	COMMONS DEBATES
Cape Breton Development Corporation we will be here tonight, tomorrow and the day after. Those who will suffer are not in the city of Ottawa.
I have been as explicit as I can about the McBean mine. I repeated my position at noon today, and I suggest the hon. member for Pictou now understands the situation. The economic situation in Pictou county is not the same as the situation on Cape Breton island. We are intervening in Cape Breton because there is a situation which is of national concern and importance. As I said at noon, if we are going to pick up mines all over Nova Scotia and possibly New Brunswick, why not in northern Quebec and northern Ontario where some are having some difficulties too? While we are at it, why not pick up a couple of coal mines in Newfoundland which are also in difficulty?


Howard Russell MacEwan: You do not know much about mining.


Robert Muir: What about the Dosco mine?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The point I am making is simply that the federal government is not in the business of taking over coal mines which have come to the end of their reserves. That is not the purpose of this program. The purpose is to remedy the situation which exists on Cape Breton island. If parliament feels we should do something elsewhere in Canada, we will do so on some other occasion, but at this very moment the dramatic situation on Cape Breton island is our problem.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
This afternoon the hon. member for York South was questioning the value of the words "as far as possible" in the legislation. I think he is splitting hairs. Even in old, medieval French law there is an axiom which says:
"A Timpossible nul n'est tenu."
I am quite sure the hon. member for York South does not want to hold this corporation to the impossible. I think it is quite enough to hold it to the possible. The corporation will do whatever is possible to help the people of Cape Breton. The corporation will improve on the situation and rescue what is rescuable in the coal mining operation. It will do whatever it can to develop, improve and modernize the industry.
We are going to have an industrial division which will be busy attracting industry to the area. It will have a certain amount of money for this purpose. Twenty million dollars will be given by the federal government and $10

million by the government of Nova Scotia to assist in this action. If this is not enough, the house will see to it that more money is made available. We are establishing the principle that every dollar saved on the coal mining side will be devoted to economic development.
The legislation has been drafted to provide for whatever is possible. We made it as flexible as is humanly possible so that the corporation might attract good men. I have already given the guarantee that we will obtain the best men possible in this field. We have to trust these people. We do not have to tell them tonight, item by item and comma by comma, what to do. This is not the kind of people we want to have in the development corporation. They might not even look too closely at the legislation but will use their common sense. The legislation is just to help them get the message the government has in mind.
I am quite sure it is impossible for the corporation, to quote what the hon. member for York South said, to make sure that every worker leaving the mines will find a job at the same place the very evening he is laid off. This is not possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I believe that the amendment now proposed will have the effect of confining the industrial approach vis-a-vis the coal mining work force. The present wording of the clause fulfils the concept of the bill in that it relates employment opportunities to the entire area, including the young people coming onto the labour market. The hon. member for York South would like us to specify the coal employees who would benefit from this legislation. We are even more ambitious than that. We want this corporation to have a direct influence on the economic development of the island, which will make it possible, "as far as possible," for young people born and raised in the area to stay there and find worthwhile employment on the spot.
I really beg hon. members not to start splitting hairs and try to add a comma and a word here and there. Professors of law say that the spirit of the legislation is more important than the word. My hon, friend from York South is a good lawyer and should understand that. We are not here tonight to dissect this legislation as Benedictines used to do in medieval times with the Bible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
June 20, 1967


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is not a medieval study of the Bible; this is a piece of modern legislation. The purpose of the legislation is to do whatever is possible to help the people of Cape Breton; and the good Lord knows they are in need of help-and now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the minister has allowed his eloquence and exuberance to carry him away.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: He is debating now like a high school student-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -when he tells us that the spirit of the legislation is what matters and it is not the words that matter. The minister is asking this house to approve legislation, and the words are important because the words set down the terms and conditions under which this corporation will operate. The words determine the powers the corporation shall exercise. We are not trying to obstruct the minister; we are trying to see that the powers given to the corporation carry out the spirit of the undertakings which the Prime Minister gave to the people of Cape Breton, to this house and to the country in his speech of December 29 last and the promises that were made by the member of the cabinet who represents the province of Nova Scotia.
This bill has been a long time coming. The minister need not complain about the few hours we have taken to discuss it. We have been waiting for months to get some action in this regard. It is more than a year and a half since the Minister of National Health and Welfare made very sweeping promises to the people engaged in coal mining in Cape Breton. We have been waiting ever since for the government to do something. Therefore, the minister need not complain now when after this long delay he brings before us a piece of legislation and we want to know exactly what the government has in mind. We want the legislation worded in such a way that we will not be told afterwards that because of the wording of the legislation the Cape Breton Development Corporation is not able to do the things we were given to understand it would do.
I am not going to belabour the point to the minister if he is adamant that he will not change any of the wording of the bill. But once again I make the plea in respect of the
Cape Breton Development Corporation McBean coal mine. The minister says he does not want to go grabbing mines all over the country. I do not think he is grabbing any mines when he takes over the mines in Cape Breton. He is relieving Dosco of a very serious headache, presumably for the purpose of making it a little easier and lessening some of the hardship which would otherwise fall upon the people employed in the coal industry of Cape Breton.
We are not asking the minister to grab mines all over the country. What the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the hon. member for York South and others have been pleading with the minister to do is recognize that the McBean mine is part of the Dosco operation. It is no secret that Dosco has been phasing out its coal operations in Cape Breton. Has the minister any reason to think that Dosco will continue to operate the McBean mine at full capacity, or is it going to be phased out too?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the hon. member wants an answer; but I know one thing, that we have offered Dosco a continuation of subsidies at the present level. The decision is, of course, theirs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That the subventions will be continued?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the McBean mine? But the subventions, of course, have been available for the mines in Cape Breton and this has not kept them from being slowly phased out. All we are saying is that surely the government ought to look ahead, and if the McBean mine will be in a similar position to the mines in the Sydney, Glace Bay and New Waterford areas, would it not be advisable to include that mine in this program? It is not likely that Dosco will keep this one orphan operating at full capacity, when it has managed to dispose of its other coal mines to this Cape Breton Development Corporation.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
For that reason I think the minister should give serious thought to the advisability of including the McBean operation under the auspices of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. I do not know what discussions district 26 of the United Mine Workers had with the government, but certainly judging from the telegram from which I quoted during orders of the day they were under the impression that the McBean mine was going
1752	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation to be included. They seemed to be surprised and shocked at the fact that the government has not kept its commitment. Certainly, if one reads the press release which was issued from the Prime Minister's office on December 29 one gets the impression that the new Cape Breton Development Corporation was going to deal with all the mines owned by Dosco in the general area of Nova Scotia.
I hope the minister will give serious thought to this. There is nothing much one can do if the government is adamant, although I had hoped the government would have given the coal miners an opportunity to make representations before making a final decision. I hope the minister will propose, before we come out of committee of the whole, some all embracing clause in the bill which would enable the government at a later date to include the McBean mine, if it is not prepared to include it now.
May I say to the minister that what I greatly fear, if the bill passes in its present form, is that the government may well find within six months or a year men are being laid off at the McBean mine. We will then be told, when we raise the matter in the house, "the bill is passed, there is nothing we can do about it." I wish the minister would give some thought to the possibility of an all inclusive clause which would allow the Cape Breton Development Corporation to extend its operations to any other mine in the general area, by order of the governor in council, if it were thought advisable to do so.
May I say a word or two about the matter of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South. He is not suggesting for a moment that we ask any corporation to do something which it is not possible to do. I think the minister must recognize that this committee is most anxious that the guide lines laid down for this corporation shall be most explicit. Certainly, one of the guide lines that is in keeping with the promises made by the government, as contained in the statement of the Prime Minister of December 29, is that there should be a direct relationship between laying men off from the coal mines and the establishment of new industries.
On page 3 of the press release which the Prime Minister's office issued on December 29 I read:
The government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia believe that a rigid adherence to a fixed timetable to reduce the level of coal production might involve unnecessary hardship on the dependent communities. Consequently, the rationalization of the mines will be related to the success in

DEBATES	June 20, 1967
the introduction of new industries. The Crown Corporation will be instructed to give full consideration to the need for orderly adjustment, including the implementation of a generous early retirement plan for the miners as recommended by Dr. Donald.
I draw particular attention to the phrase "the rationalization of the mines will be related to the success in the introduction of new industries". That is all the hon. member for York South is asking, that there be a rigid adherence to the principle that mines will not be phased out until the corporation has assured that new employment opportunities have been created in that community to provide jobs for men who are laid off from the coal mining industry.
So far, apart from a considerable display of emotionalism, the minister has not given us any reason for not accepting this amendment.


Allan Marcus Atkinson McLean: Would the leader of the New Democratic party favour an increase in the price of gold in order that our gold mines may be kept open and the miners employed for better wages?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
take two or three minutes to reply to the very charming and irrelevant remarks which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made with regard to the amendment which I laid before the committee. The minister attempted, and he did it very well as he has always done, to teach me something about the law. I am sure I can learn a great deal. When he made the statement that it is the spirit of the law that matters, or even when he said that it is even more important than the word, let me tell him that it is the words of the law which create the spirit. The spirit does not come out of somebody's pocket. When he tells us that it is not necessary to dot every "i" and cross every "t", let me tell him that I am not asking him to do that.
When he tells me that we have a group of men who will be good, then I say we are always faced with this. When the men and women are already appointed and we suggest that some guidance should be given to them, we are accused of lacking confidence in them. When the men and women have not even been appointed and we do not know who they are, we are asked to act on the assumption that they will have not only common sense but the wisdom of the Almighty and that this legislation need not give them the guidance that is required. In any case surely the speech which the minister made was a contradiction of his own law. If he had used his excellent mind as well as his silver tongue and if he was
June 20. 1967	COMMONS
right, then why is there any need for subclause (4)? What is the need for this subclause if he is ready to leave it to the common sense of the board of directors of the corporation? Why does he need to tell them that they should follow the plan? I say to him that one purpose of a law is to give to the people with whom the law is concerned confidence that they are obtaining right and just treatment under the law. When the direct and specific instructions to the corporation, instructions which are to govern the reduction in the production of coal in the Cape Breton area, are understood by the mine workers and members of the community to mean that the corporation is to be concerned about the reduction so far as possible of any unemployment or economic hardship, then people in Cape Breton have a right to suspect, as I must admit frankly I suspect, that the board of directors of the corporation is instructed to follow the usual commercial criteria in deciding whether or not coal production will be reduced. I say to the minister that this is what the corporation should not do, and in his announcement the Prime Minister said that it was not to do that.
I told the minister that I am not particularly wedded to the language I placed before the committee. If his advisers can produce better or other language, I would not quarrel with them. I say that the instructions to the corporation should repeat in specific language the principle which the Prime Minister stated lies behind this and the principle which is included in subclause (1) of this clause, namely that the reduction in the production of coal must be geared to the creation of alternative job opportunities for the people affected thereby.
This is what my amendment seeks to do. The emphasis is not on ensuring that there be as little unemployment as possible but on ensuring that there will be job opportunities for the people who are affected by the reduction of coal production.
* (8:40 p.m.)
I do not need the lecture on the meaning of the law from the minister, nor does the committee. What this committee needs from the minister is acceptance of-to me-the obvious necessity for the inclusion in the bill of specific instructions to the corporation which embody the general principle that there is not to be any phasing out in the coal industry except when job opportunities have already been created. There may be a few workers in any given situation who cannot be accommodated, but this contingency is, of course,
DEBATES	1753
Cape Breton Development Corporation met by the opening words of the subclause-"all reasonable measures".
May I come back to the words of the minister, which are important and were sufficient to get his party stalwarts to bang their desks. If the spirit of the law is important, the spirit of the subclause that he has put into the law is, I submit, the wrong spirit. This is a spirit which emphasizes unemployment and economic hardship, instead of the right spirit which is to emphasize the importance of providing alternative employment. This, Mr. Chairman, is what we are talking about.
If the minister is as concerned as he says he is about the general conditions in Cape Breton, and if he is as determined as he says he is that this corporation is to gear new jobs to phasing out, why does he refuse to accept this amendment, not necessarily the present wording but the principle of it, which would give specific instructions to the corporation? His refusal to do so strengthens my conviction that this amendment is necessary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, my conviction that the amendment is necessary has also been strengthened. I have listened very carefully to the debate that has been going on about this matter. I listened to the impassioned outbursts of the minister, who, waving his arms and hammering his desk to arouse his followers, expressed his sentiments of interest in the people who are going to be displaced from their work in Cape Breton. But impassioned outbursts are not what we want with legislation of this nature. What is required is a much more realistic view of things. Never mind these eloquent speeches about what the Liberal government is going to do; let us have a realistic appraisal of the very sensible amendment that has been proposed.
We must not forget, Mr. Chairman, that this bill has been produced by the Liberal government, and that anything that the Liberal government produces by way of legislation must not be altered. Fortunately, there are one or two members of the present government who do listen to reasonable suggestions from this side of the house, but just look at what the minister has done with this bill. He has written into the bill that there will be unemployment, and he has written into the bill that there will be economic hardship. This is what he is telling the people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia, that there is going to be unemployment despite the corporation that is to be appointed to take over certain mines and attempt to rehabilitate the coal mining
June 20, 1967
1754	COMMONS DEBATES
Cope Breton Development Corporation industry; that there is going to be economic hardship.
That is a message oi despondency and surely will not be of any comfort to the people living in that area. The proposed amendment puts things in a positive fashion and, as has already been pointed out, there is the safeguard that all reasonable measures have to be taken to provide employment for people who are displaced by reason of changes that are made in the coal mining industry.
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, does not alter at all the general purpose of the bill. If this amendment were adopted it would express the intention of the house as a whole to give assistance to the coal mining industry and to the employees of that industry in Cape Breton. That is what we are attempting to do through this legislation.
I, therefore, ask why the minister cannot go a step further and use positive terms, instead of proclaiming to the people of that area that they are going to face unemployment and economic hardship? They are familiar with these things, and we are hoping to lift them from their shoulders.
The minister would certainly gain much greater acclaim from this side of the house as well as from the claque behind him if he would take this further step and embody this positive affirmation, instead of stubbornly insisting on phraseology which was carelessly put into the bill in the first instance. Just why a government cannot change its mind and accept suggestions from other people in the house always amazes me. This suggestion has been made in good faith, not with the intention of embarrassing the government. This amendment has been made with the intention of improving the bill and having the bill express what is the intent of the House of Commons.
I have never been impressed with repeated statements on the government side that everything that they intend to do should be taken in good faith, that we must trust them and that those who are put in charge will surely do everything for the betterment of the people who are under their jurisdiction. Why not write this statement into the bill, Mr. Chairman?
Consequently, Mr. Chairman, despite the eloquent plea of the minister, which I dismiss as lacking argument and as being only an emotional outburst, I propose to support the amendment.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I rise at the risk of incurring the wrath of the excitable and temperamental minister, but I find it necessary to say something in reply to his remarks.
I was really touched when he burst out in his full eloquence and crocodile tears flowed because of his worry for the coal miners, their families and others on Cape Breton Island. Nevertheless, I draw his attention to what was said one year and eight months ago when the cabinet representative from Nova Scotia made the initial statement in connection with this policy. To be explicit, the original statement was made on October 5, 1965, and then on December 29 the Prime Minister issued his policy statement. In effect, this is what we are debating, and I might point out that we have only been discussing this bill for a few hours. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that when the Liberal party forms the government it is a shocking thing for someone to criticize them or even suggest that a piece of legislation be changed.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This is the whole theory-we know what is good for you; we have written this and no one must question it. We are not trying to delay legislation. We have only been debating this subject for a few short hours. The minister himself has said that this legislation is unique, that it is something entirely new. For this reason I do not see why he should not at least listen to us, and listen to us with a good heart, rather than become very excited and think: "I will lecture those creeps; they do not know what it is all about." As to some of those behind him, they are like the Minister of Fisheries' seals-they flap their flippers just because the minister raises his voice and gets excited. Surely, there is nothing wrong about the hon. member for Pictou or the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam or the hon. member for York South or any other hon. member suggesting that there could possibly be some slight error in some part of this legislation.
Subclause 1(d) of the clause we are now discussing contains the words "to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom". As I understand it, the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for York South sought to substitute the words "to provide alternative employment for employees or members of the corporation who may be laid off." As I said before the dinner hour, I had an amendment prepared which
June 20, 1967

would have replaced the present wording by the words "to ensure that no displacement of employees will take place without alternative work being provided."
Regardless of all the quotations the minister makes or how far back in history he wants to go, or the loud voice he uses, we are only trying to ensure that those people who will be removed from their positions as a result of this legislation shall be assured of alternative employment-not six months from the day on which they are removed, or two weeks afterwards, but as soon as possible, or immediately. Let hon. members opposite remember their slogan in recent elections-"We have the answers". All right. Let them produce the answers, now.
I appeal to the minister to give consideration to the amendment which is proposed. He must realize that the unemployment rate in the maritime provinces is double the national average. In addition there will now be further displacements. Every year on an average 1,500 people newly seeking employment come on to the labour market. This, in turn, increases the problem we face. I believe it was President Eisenhower who said that in politics everything should be taken seriously-except oneself. I would commend that advice to the minister. Up to the present the hon. gentleman has shown himself in all his dealings with us to be most reasonable and courteous. Tonight he goes off into the deep end, as if to say: Stop your talking; you are only saying what you have already said before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Muir: It must be wonderful, of course, to have the capacity that the minister thinks he has. He possesses all the brains there are in this chamber and no one else must suggest even one little change in the legislation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Robert Muir: I hear hon. members over there continuing to heckle. The miners of Cape Breton and their families, together with all the other people who are not directly involved but whose sympathies belong with the miners, will not be concerned about their heckling and sneering. They know we are trying to do something effective, that we are trying to do something which will assist them. They will know, from Hansard, that you are not interested in trying to help these people by making any changes.
Cape Breton Development Corporation
The government sets itself up as knowing what is best for the people. The Walter Gordons, and the people who write books, say "We know what is best for you; it is best for you because we say so." The minister may be a professor of political science but I am afraid he has got a hell of a lot to learn about human nature.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: yeas, 42; nays, 54.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif):: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Paul Tardif: Shall we revert to clause 16?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 16-Powers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Before I make my proposal, one which I think is very modest, I should like to compliment you, sir, on your presence in the chair and I should like to thank the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, as well as the minister, for holding up this clause while I was at the joint committee on divorce this afternoon and unable to be here.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I proposed an amendment last night and I think the minister accepted it in principle. It was to make absolutely sure that the corporation could open new coal mines if necessary. Unless the minister indicates otherwise now, I do not intend to speak further, but simply propose the following amendment:
That clause 16 on page 8, line 10, be amended by adding the word "open" after the word "improve",
This clause would then read that the corporation could rehabilitate, improve, open, operate and maintain any coal mines.


Paul Tardif: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, we are agreeable to the amendment. We are very ready to accept amendments that clarify and that do not try to minimize the extent of the legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Paul Tardif: Shall
clause 16 as amended carry?
1756	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Gordon Minto Churchill: Clause 16 (a) says that the corporation may:
-by agreement with any party to a contract for
the sale or delivery of coal-assume all rights and
obligations of Dominion Coal Company, Limited-
Does this mean that present contracts may lapse or would be subject to renegotiation when the new corporation is established?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This part provides authority for the corporation to take over the coal sales contracts of Dominion Coal Company, of which two are long term-one with Ontario Hydro and the other with the Nova Scotia Light, Heat and Power Company. There is also a coal shipping contract with the Upper Lakes Shipping Company. There is also something in the agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia which says Nova Scotia will endeavour not to disrupt the market pattern which presently exists for these coal mines in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: May I ask the minister if he would be so kind as to advise how long the contract has to run that is held presently with Ontario Hydro? I am referring to the one negotiated by the late Hon. George Nowlan and the Chairman of the Dominion Coal Board some years ago. I think it was for a period of five years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand it has one more year to go, with provision for another five year extension. It is quite obvious this is one of the most assured markets that the corporation will want to protect.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
On clause 18-Pension arrangements.


David Lewis: Clause 18 requires the corporation to provide pension plans, first for employees and dependants, and second for former employees of these companies, or in other words, those who are now on pension. As I understand it, the intention is that there be no break in the pension of those who are now on pension.
On the basis of some experience in the field of pension negotiations, what concerns me is a tendency in many quarters to put the pension for former employees at a lower level than the pension for present and future employees. Normally, there is a tendency for an employer to say, and understandably so, "I was not the employer when these people were given the pension. I do not see why I should carry the responsibility to treat them in precisely the same way as I am prepared to treat
[The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tardif).]
DEBATES	June 20, 1967
those who now work for me and who will in the future work for me." I am not saying that the corporation will necessarily take that kind of view, but the legislation should make it impossible lor it to do so.
I have a very simple amendment drafted and if it were acceptable to the minister I think I would be prepared to let his advisers submit a better draft of it. I suggest that subclause (lXaXii) contain a provision that the pension arrangement made for the class of employees covered by it, namely, former employees, shall be no less favourable than the pension arrangement made for present and future employees. This could be simply done by including after the word "arrangements" in the 19th line the following words, "shall be no less favourable than those provided under the immediately preceding paragraph," or "paragraph (a)(i)."
I feel certain there is no difference on principle between the minister and myself with respect to this point, and I urge him to accept this as a necessary precaution which the law should contain.
Naturally, I suppose that when the corporation is set up the minister and government will be anxious not to interfere with its work. They will tell us, and quite properly so, that it is an autonomous corporation which makes its own decisions, particularly with regard to employees' remuneration, employees' pension plans and the like. That was the basis upon which I moved an earlier amendment, and is the main reason I urge the minister to give consideration to the suggestion I have just made.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Before I deal with this particular question I might be permitted to give a little background on the pension system. The Dominion Coal pension plan as it exists now is not funded and is non-contributory. The pension is paid out of annual operating revenues to the extent that such revenues permit.


David Lewis: It is a gratuity.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, it is a gratuity. One could analyse the history of this but it would take too much time. The company says that when it offered this to the employees they did not want it, but I do not think it is useful to go too deeply into that. The company recognizes no obligation to keep on paying these pensions and therefore this is a liability that the government is accepting through the corporation.
June 20, 1967	COMMONS
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The pension payment by Dominion Coal Corporation in 1966 amounted to $908,235. We indicated that it would cost about $1.1 million next year to cover the whole group of people now being pensioned.


David Lewis: On the same level of pension?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. I should say also that under the same article there is a generous early retirement scheme. I am making these points in order to show that the legislation is not without generosity or humanitarianism. With regard to the specific question asked, once again regretfully I must say that I do not think we can accept the amendment because it would be establishing a principle that people already pensioned are entitled to increases-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -to bring their pensions to the level of the pensions of people who are pensioned now. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as I expected, would have been delighted had I fallen into that trap, because then he would have brought up scores of other cases and would have justified them by invoking this as a precedent. Of course, it is expected that the corporation will maintain the level of the pensions at least to the level at which they are now.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, in respect of this clause, I should like to say that I was down in Cape Breton early this year where I met some of the miners. Lest hon. members should wonder why I, coming from the west coast, am interested in this, I would remind them that the minister himself said this is a matter of national concern.
Some of us have been very deeply concerned for a long time about the problems in Cape Breton, whether directly or indirectly. Shortly after I came back, having met a number of the miners down there, I received a letter from the miners in respect of this situation with which the amendment is intended to deal. They enclosed a copy of a resolution endorsed by the central council meeting of all Cape Breton pensioners assembled at the town of New Waterford. They outlined the fact that the Dominion Coal Company had reduced the voluntary non-funded pensions which had been paid for a number of years. I imagine this was the result of the increased old age supplement which was paid, because 27053-112
DEBATES	1757
Cape Breton Development Corporation it was just about that time that the reduction was made. They also outlined the fact that the pensioners had been trying to have this reduction restored to all pensioners in this bracket, the ones who had been cut down. They requested that when the new working conditions for the miners were worked out under this new agreement-the agreement under the corporation-the pensions of the former employees be considered at the same level as the pensions for those who are going to be employed.
I know the minister has said that it is not necessary to put this sort of thing into concrete form in the legislation and that it should be left to the good sense of those who are appointed to the corporation. I should like to say that when I received that letter from the miners 1 wrote to the hon. Minister of Industry thinking that this would come under his jurisdiction. He kindly passed my letter on to the proper minister. In that letter I said that while I urge that everything possible be done to try to restore the pensions of these miners, non-funded as they were and the only thing they had to live on, I quite recognize that it is impossible to require that the Dominion Coal Company restore their pensions to the former amount. I went on to say that I also recognize that the federal government will not be able to intervene directly in the affairs of the new federal-provincial corporation which is to be set up in Cape Breton to take over the functions of the Dominion Coal Company. Of course, as my colleague from York South has already said, when this corporation is set up the government wifi not be able to intervene in the day to day operations of the new corporation, and quite properly so. This is the reason it is exceedingly important at this stage that there be embodied in the regulations a direction so that there will be no need for interference later.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in his reply to me said the following, and I wish to read it because I think it is the best indication why the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South is absolutely necessary for the protection of these miners whose pensions have been cut back:
-it is not possible to commit either Dominion Coal Company or the. new crown corporation to any specific future course of action in respect to those former employees of Dominion Coal Company who are presently in receipt of pensions from Dominion Coal Company Limited. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the present Dominion Coal Company pension plan is a non-funded, noncontributory plan and is paid out of current annual operating revenues to the extent such revenues permit.
June 20. 1967
1758	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation
This I believe is the very best reason in the world for the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South, because the minister says it is impossible to commit the corporation to any specific course of action in respect of these former employees. It was impossible to commit the corporation when he wrote to me. I agree that at that time it was impossible, but it is not impossible to commit the corporation under this legislation.
If this legislation is drafted to include the amendment on my colleague from York South, then the new corporation will, under this legislation, be committed to see that those employees who have given good service in the past are not now placed on a lower standard of living because of having their pensions cut back. I believe this is very necessary.
One of the miners who wrote to me said this:
But for your information, we also know this coal company pension is not paid from current annual operations. Is it not a fact that this company pension is paid out of subventions over a number of years or money granted by our government to the coal company which to my mind makes it all the more reason that we should not have been cut back in our pension.
Since the crown corporation is going to take over the coal mines, the government should do something in regard to this matter by placing all on the same level.
You can call it what you like; call it guaranteed income or common justice. But, to me, it is not the right thing to have these miners, who were receiving a voluntary pension payments when the supplementary old age security pension was granted, cut back and having to remain at that level to the end of their days in the face of the rising living costs. To me, it is just a matter of common justice to accept this amendment which has been suggested. My colleague is not worried about the exact terms, so long as there is a guarantee that the pensions of the former employees will not be less than the pensions which are to be provided for the employees of the corporation when it takes over.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway referred to the amendment and suggested that it had been moved. It has not been moved and I rise to do that now. I intended to do it. No one could have persuaded me not to, especially after the statement by the minister to the effect that he did not want to establish the principle that the pensions of former employees should be on the same level as the pensions of present or future employees.


[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
That is precisely the principle I want to see established in this legislation. I am not suggesting that the principle should be embodied in the act dealing with labour relations generally, although I would prefer that. I want to make clear that I would prefer that but I realize there are differences between industries. I cannot for the life of me see why we should set up a corporation with public funds to take over mining operations and be willing to let that corporation treat former miners in this way. These men have had their pensions cut and been the victims of a company which had no pension plan at all but paid a gratuity from time to time at the level it wished. These miners have suffered enough at the hands of this insatiably greedy corporation that has bled Cape Breton island for decades. I cannot for the life of me see why we should set up a public corporation with public funds without making sure that these retired miners, who have already taken enough from their former employers, are treated on a decent and equal basis with new employees of the corporation.
Therefore I move:
That paragraph (ii) of subclause (1) (a) be amended by inserting the following words after the word "arrangements" in line 19, page 9, namely:
"which shall be no less favourable than those provided under paragraph (i) of subclause (1) (a) of this clause"-
All this means is that the pension arrangements to be made for former employees, to be provided by the corporation, are to be no less favourable than the pension arrangements provided for present and future employees.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to support the amendment. There is nothing wrong with it and there is a lot of good in it. I regret that the minister has already stated he is not interested in accepting such an amendment. However, I was very pleased to hear the minister, along with others, refer tonight to this so-called pittance that was received by retired coal miners, some of whom have spent from 50 to 55 years working underground. I was very pleased to hear the minister confirm that this was a gratuity.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South, the hon. member for Pictou and myself have spent a great deal of time over many months both in and outside this house trying to point out to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of National Revenue that this small pittance received by
June 20. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1759
retired coal miners was a gratuity. I do not know whether the minister is using Webster's dictionary tonight, but I should think a gratuity is a gift. A little booklet sent out by the Department of National Health and Welfare states that gifts are not classified as income in qualifying for the guaranteed income supplement. Many Cape Breton island miners have not been able to qualify for the full amount of the guaranteed income supplement, and many have only qualified for a very small portion of it because, although the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said in this house on many occasions there would not be a means or needs test but only an income test, this gratuity has been regarded as income.
Obviously the minister was making a play on words because we find that these retired miners are not getting the benefit of the so-called guaranteed income supplement. Let me give a little more background of the pension or gratuity arrangements made by Dosco. I think it was in 1952 or 1953 that the amount they were receiving was reduced from $75 to $35 when the miners became eligible for old age security. It was not a result of the guaranteed income supplement that their gratuity was cut, because most of them have not had the opportunity to qualify in his regard.
I hope that the minister will talk to his colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in an attempt to persuade them that this is in fact a gratuity and not a pension resulting from any funded pension plan. I fully endorse the amendment and I hope the minister will now get back to his old self, with the usual smile on his face and will say, I think you have a good idea and I endorse the amendment also.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before the vote is called on this amendment I should like to add my voice by way of appeal to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to reconsider his position on this matter. If he does not feel he can accept the exact wording proposed by the hon. member for York South,
I suggest that he come up with some other wording. I ask him not to leave the pensioners in Cape Breton in the position they have been for many years.
I need not repeat the facts of the situation which have been set out so well by those who have spoken in the last half hour or so, but let us remember that we have here a group of pensioners who have been at the mercy of the 27053-1121
Cape Breton Development Corporation corporation and have seen their so-called pensions or gratuities cut back at every opportunity there was for the corporation to do so. It seems to me that their position should be recognized as part of what the minister says is a matter of national concern. I submit that it is a matter of national concern to us not only that the coal mining operations in Cape Breton are in difficulty, but that the people who have worked in those operations are as well facing a very difficult situation. I appeal to the minister to make up, in part at least, for the way in which these pensioners have been victimized, by seeing to it that from now on their pension position will be better than it has been.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I am sure the minister was not surprised that I got to my feet after the remarks he made a moment ago when he objected to the principle of doing for those already retired what we are prepared to do for those who retire now or hereafter. If the minister wants to provide some kind of difference let him come up with a different wording for this clause; but let him not freeze these retired people at the pension levels on which they have to subsist at the present time.
To argue that it is not fair to increase the pensions of persons already retired just does not "go" any longer in this house or in this country. There are many jurisdictions and many employers who have found ways and means to increase the pensions of their former employees. I think of most of the provincial governments in this country, they have done it. I think of my own city of Winnipeg and other municipal bodies across the country which have found it possible to increase the pensions of their employees already retired.
A few days ago we read in the press that the Presbyterian Church in Canada had taken steps to increase the pensions of its ministers already retired. Some of the automobile companies do this. Many of these things have been won, let it be said, by collective bargaining. But nevertheless the principle that people who are already retired have a right to compensation for the increase in the cost of living, and a right to share in the increased standard of living, has been established in this country. The government itself has recognized this principle in at least two pieces of legislation. The Canada Pension Plan has in it a provision under which from the year 1968 on increases to compensate for the increased cost of living are automatic. This principle is also to apply to old age security. Starting in
June 20, 1967
1760	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation January, 1968, old age security pension payments will be increased in accordance with the increases that have taken place in the cost oi living, subject to a certain formula that is in the act.
I hope there will be no slip with respect to the question of retired civil servants. Something was done for these people back in 1957 and 1958. This, again, is in support of the contention that it can be done and has been done. I still believe that sooner or later the government will have to implement the report of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada, which recommended on May 8 that there be an increase in the pensions of civil servants already retired. As far as I am concerned, this is already long overdue and it ought to be done without fail this month. In any case, the point I am making is that it is not breaking new ground at all; it is not a new principle to recognize the right of persons already retired to an improvement in their pension position.
I assert that if there is any group of persons in Canada that deserves to have its pension position improved, it is the pensioned miners in Cape Breton. They have been the victims of a heartless policy on the part of the corporation. They have seen their so-called pension, their so-called gratuity, cut back time and time again. We are taking this industry over now; we are bringing these miners under the umbrella of a public corporation. We are doing this because we say it is a matter of national concern. Let us show a little national concern not only for bailing Dosco out but for the retired employees in that area.
I therefore urge that the minister either find some other wording to meet this problem or that he cease his opposition to the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South. I suggest that to oppose this amendment is a heartless act. I believe the amendment ought to carry.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question for clarification. Clause 18 (1) (a) (ii) provides:
The corporation shall by bylaw provide for the establishment, management and administration of... pension arrangements for the benefit of persons, and dependants of persons, formerly employed by the companies-
I take it that refers to companies in the Dosco group. I do not know the numbers involved; perhaps the minister has that information or could get it. Could the minister tell


me what will happen with respect to employees retired from the Acadia Coal Company, one of the Dosco chain, in my area? What will happen with respect to those who worked at the McBean mine and those who received a gratuity from the Acadia Coal Company, from Dosco, who formerly worked in mines which were closed down? There are a number in our area. What happens to the gratuity of these people? Will the gratuity be continued? Many people in my area want to know the answer to this question. I do not know how many people in my area would be involved, but the answer to this question means a great deal to them. Not very much money would be involved. I am sure this is a question which was raised in the negotiations between the officials, or the minister, and Dosco.
Second, Mr. Chairman, the minister pointed out that the McBean mine in my constituency did not have very long to operate. He said the resources there were being depleted. Would the minister consider taking the employees-this has been done in the past-who are at retirement age and including them in the pension arrangements under this clause? This mine is part of the whole set-up. I think the minister is a political scientist, but if he needs a lesson in geography I would tell him that this mine is not too far from Sydney. I hope the minister will consider this problem.
In Cape Breton and Pictou county there are a great many Scots. I hope the minister is not punishing us because we are not island Scots but are mainlands Scots. Could the minister enlighten us on these very pointed questions? I think they should be answered before this commendable amendment is put to the committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, my ancestors also came from that area. The hon. member keeps asking me questions to which I must give him the same answers. The Acadia Coal Company's McBean mine it not covered by this legislation. Should it close, I would be almost as concerned as the hon. member to try to help.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Has the minister any information about past employees, those employees who are now receiving the gratuity? I refer to employees of Acadia Coal, Dosco, on Cape Breton Island. Are they washed out in respect of this program?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know, Mr. Chairman, but the company says it has no legal obligation. I can only repeat what I said, that if the
June 20, 1967	COMMONS
mine closes-it is not certain that it will because there are all sorts of other possibilities, some of which were indicated by my hon. friend the other day-I will be as concerned as he is to see that the blow is as light as possible.


Howard Russell MacEwan: What about the people who have already retired and are receiving this gratuity from Acadia Coal, Dosco? What is to happen as far as they are concerned?
Mr Pepin: I cannot really say what Dosco will do.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, since the minister turns a deaf ear to the arguments that have been put forward by the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and others, I feel it necessary to make some further comment in connection with the amendment before us.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I think it is evident that this government is prepared to extend any degree of solicitude and concern to the preferred shareholders of Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation but it is not prepared to extend it to the former employees of the company who now have to live on pensions that are inadequate in every respect. It has been argued, I think with clarity and convincingly, that over the course of the past several years there have been cut-backs in the amount of pensions paid to the former employees. It does not seem logical or fair to make an arrangement under the terms of this legislation which would have the crown corporation pay a pension which merely comes up to the pension presently payable by the corporation. My understanding of the matter is that in the course of the past year or two the market value of shares of this corporation has increased somewhat. According to my interpretation of clauses 9 and 10 of the bill, the government will negotiate with Dominion Steel and Coal to arrive at a settlement. It would hold in reserve the power of expropriation in this bill and would not exercise it before a certain specified time.
In that period of time it is not inconceivable, and in fact very likely, that an attempt will be made to manipulate the book value of assets and the market value of shares.


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I say to the hon. member that we are not buying shares, we are buying assets.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I did make reference to the fact, and I do believe it to be a fact, that
DEBATES	1761
Cape Breton Development Corporation attempts may be made in the interval now and during the period of actual negotiations to manipulate or change the book value of assets. The negotiations will be quite prolonged, I am sure.
The point I have been making is that throughout this legislation, and in particular in clauses 9, 10 and 18, the government is showing a degree of solicitude for the preferred shareholders of this company which it is not prepared to extend to the former employees of the corporation.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I am impelled to take part in this debate after having listened to the astonishing statement of the minister a few minutes ago in reply to the hon. member for Pictou. He said that he did not know what he could do about the other employees of the Dosco corporation but he would do what he could. If ever there was proof positive that this bill should have curbed all the operations of this reprehensible corporation, it is in the minister's extraordinary statement. Why does he distinguish between the victims of Dosco in Cape Breton Island and the victims in Pictou county?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is exactly because it is difficult to make a distinction that I intend to do everything that is possible to help.


Colin Cameron: The minister was dealing with the coal properties of a certain corporation, yet Acadia coal mine is part of those coal properties. How does he distinguish between the two of them? Why does he make flesh of one and fowl of the other?


Jean-Luc Pepin: One is in Cape Breton and the other is on the mainland.


Colin Cameron: They are both in the province of Nova Scotia.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of the mines in Newfoundland and in Manitoba are also in trouble.


Colin Cameron: But these happen to be in Cape Breton and there is a causeway which connects Cape Breton Island-


Jean-Luc Pepin: We have not taken it over from the province of Nova Scotia.


Colin Cameron: The mine is a holding of Dosco in the province of Nova Scotia and not all that
1762	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation far from Cape Breton Island. I would like to know how the minister, having this rather limited concern for the victims of Dosco in Cape Breton Island, can give such an airy dismissal to the equal claims of the former employees of another property of that company in the province of Nova Scotia and give us the really factuous answer that he does not know what he could do but he would try to do something. What will he do? Why does he not give us some idea of what he will do? Why does he not inform some of the people now employed in those mines in Pictou county, as well as those who have been laid off in the past and who have been receiving a gratuity from this wretched company that has never established a proper pension plan, what his intentions are? The government is apparently not prepared to make adequate provision for these men. I would like to know what the minister intends to do about them, and I am quite sure the people in Pictou county would like to know also.


Robert Muir: I should like to say one word or two to the minister on the question of pensions. I have before me a copy of a resolution that was sent to the minister, dated April 7, 1967, from the central council meeting of all Cape Breton pensioners assembled at the town of New Waterford, signed by the chairman, William McKenzie, Glace Bay; the vice chairman, Emerson Campbell, Sydney, and secretary Wilfred L. Wilson of Dominion, Nova Scotia. The resolution reads as follows:
Whereas the Dominion Coal Company has reduced all old age miners pensions from year 1953 to December 31, 1965 below colliery manager to pay corporation tax and
Whereas the pensioners union has been trying to have this reduction restored back to all pensioners in this bracket to its former amount without any retroactive payments and
Whereas the United Mine Workers executive board will be entering into negociations with the Crown corporation some time in May of this year to arrange a new contract covering wages and working conditions for the miners.
Therefore be it resolved that this central council meeting assembled at New Waterford request mine workers executive to take this matter up with Crown corporation to have cut pension restored back to its regular amount and the system of reducing pensions be discontinued and all pensions be worked in under the miners agreement.
At that time we communicated with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and in reply the minister very kindly wrote to me on May 17 and also enclosed a copy of the letter that he had forwarded to Mr. Wilfred
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands) .1
DEBATES	June 20, 1967
L. Wilson, the secretary. I should like to place it on the record. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Wilson:
The Prime Minister has passed along to me your letter of April 7 and the accompanying resolution endorsed by the central council meeting of all Cape Breton pensioners assembled at the town of New Waterford.
Although the matter with which the resolution deals will be one which will fall within the responsibility of the new Crown corporation, I think I can assure you that the legislation setting up the Crown corporation will empower it to continue the payment of pensions to those former employees of Dominion Coal Company.
That was very enlightening, I must say. The second paragraph reads as follows:
I am certain that you are aware that the present Dominion Coal Company pension plan is non-contributory and unfunded and does not contain any legal obligation for the payment of pensions; payments are only made out of operating revenues to the extent such revenues permit. The enabling legislation which I plan on introducing into the house shortly will ensure that the Crown corporation is empowered to continue the payment of pensions to those now in receipt of pensions from Dominion Coal Company.
Here again, I presume it is on the same level. This is a big deal. The minister has pointed out that it is non-contributory and unfunded, but he is going to introduce legislation which will allow this pittance to be continued. The final paragraph reads as follows:
With respect to the specific matter raised in the resolution, i.e., the level of pension payments, I would recommend that you bring the resolution to the attention of the Crown corporation once it comes into being.
Yours sincerely,
Jean-Luc Pepin.
* (9:50 p.m.)
Along with other hon. members, I feel rather distressed that a few minutes ago the minister was able to say it was not his policy or idea that anybody who is now on pension should be brought up to the level of those who are going on pension at the present time. Surely, he must have heard something in his years in this house about the increased cost of living, the increased cost of everything that one has to consume or use. So, why should these people be enslaved and have to live on a small pension which has remained fixed for many years? Almost daily the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has talked about retired civil servants, and other hon. members have brought this to the attention of the chamber. I believe the Minister of National Revenue said that he was working on the matter. The Prime Minister is also interested
June 20, 1967

in it and the matter is being given consideration. Everybody is interested in the question but no legislation is introduced.
A similar situation exists for these coal miners who were put on pension some years ago. Surely, the minister is not so hard as to refuse to consider such a suggestion as that enshrined in this amendment. As I have already said, some of these men have spent 50 to 55 years in the mines. Some of them started work in the coal mines when they were 13 or 14 years of age. They have been beaten and broken by many years of work underground for this vast corporation, working under terrible conditions. In spite of this, we in this chamber are not realistic enough to appreciate the situation.
The situation is so serious that surely the minister can bend slightly and give consideration to this amendment. I make a final appeal on behalf of the retired coal miner pensioners on the island of Cape Breton and on the mainland, for whom the hon. member for Pictou spoke so eloquently. All appeals up to the present time made by members on this side of the house have fallen on deaf ears. Again, I appeal to the minister to rise and give us a logical reason for not considering this amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) negatived: Yeas, 31; nays, 51.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19-Payments by Minister oj Finance.
Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I believe this is the only clause on which I can ask the minister this question. Clause 19 gives authority to the Minister of Finance to pay millions and millions of dollars to the corporation out of the federal treasury. What I cannot find here under the financial arrangements made or in any other clause of the bill, is provision for a watchdog over how this money is spent. In other words, I cannot find anywhere in the bill the appointment of an auditor. I am not referring to a general auditor under a business procedure; I am referring to the Auditor General of Canada who is the watchdog of the federal treasury.
There are two types of acts which make provision for auditors. In one type no specific reference is made to the Auditor General. As a result, those of us who have been members of the public accounts committee find that
DEBATES	1763
Cape Breton Development Corporation very often the Auditor General tells us that he does not know exactly where he stands under this type of act, and this means that his actions in watching over the spending of the government can be challenged.
In the other type of act, many of which refer to crown corporations, specific reference is made to the jurisdiction of the Auditor General, with the result that he is what you might term a supervisory authority. However, no matter under what authority he carries on his work, he has to report to parliament on any matter that he thinks should be brought to our attention.
In view of this, Mr. Chairman, and because in many acts, such as those in respect to the Polymer Corporation and other gigantic crown corporations, the Auditor General's powers are set forth, I find it strange that in this bill there is not only no mention of the watchdog of parliament, the Auditor General, but there is no mention of any other kind of auditor.
Because of my past experience on the public accounts committee, and in view of what I have just said, does the minister not think that this bill should be changed so as to give the Auditor General authority to act as the watchdog of parliament?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should not like my words to be considered as a lack of confidence in the Auditor General, but clause 31 (1) of the bill provides that the corporation is a proprietary corporation within the meaning and for the purposes of the Financial Administration Act. Section 76 of the Financial Administration Act defines a crown corporation to include a proprietary corporation, and section 77 of the act provides as follows:
(1) Where, in respect of a Crown corporation
(a)	no provision is made in any Act for the appointment of an auditor to audit the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation, or
(b)	the auditor is to be appointed pursuant to the Companies Act,
the Governor in Council shall designate a person to audit the accounts and financial transactions of the corporation.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Notwithstanding any other act, the Auditor General is eligible to be appointed auditor or joint auditor to a crown corporation. The effect of this is that the Auditor General may be appointed as the auditor or joint auditor in exactly the same way as in the case of any other proprietary corporation listed in schedule D of the Financial Administration Act.

June 20, 1967
Business of the House


Harold Edward Winch: As usual, the minister proves precisely the point which has been raised, without doing anything about it. The Auditor General is eligible to be auditor or joint auditor but there is nothing here which says that he shall be appointed and that he shall examine the books and report to parliament. The only way to make sure of this is to write it into the bill. It is not in the bill, and this is the very point which has been raised by the Auditor General before the public accounts committee year after year. He is eligible, but unless something is done here he has no authority. It is this very aspect that I urge the minister to deal with. We ought to make it clear that the Auditor General has this responsibility by making the necessary provision in the bill itself.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I wish to support what has just been said by the hon. member for Vancouver East. In my opinion it should be stated expressly in the bill that the Auditor General shall be auditor to this crown corporation. I also think the province of Nova Scotia should be included. Nova Scotia has a part to play in this legislation and I believe their auditor should be included along with the Auditor General of Canada.
The minister is asking parliament to approve amounts in the neighbourhood of $75 million yet no provision is made for this money to be accounted for by the Auditor General of Canada and the Nova Scotia auditor. Possibly members might be prepared to sit a little longer in order to continue the discussion on this point. I have an amendment to clause 33 which would cover this very point. Perhaps the minister would prefer to leave it until we reach that clause.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the leader of the house would exercise the same type of courtesy as was shown by former house leaders by informing the house each night whether the business for the following day is to be the same or whether there is to be a change. If the business is to be the same, why not record it in Hansard?


Mr. MacEachen:: I will be glad to revert to the former system. I changed the system at the request of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) some time ago, who asked that the house leader give information as far in ad-

vance as possible. That was done last Thursday, and the business of the house was announced last Thursday for all this week up to and including Friday. The business of the house tomorrow will be the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I will accept the suggestion of the hon. member and in the future announce the business on a day to day basis.


Robert Muir: May I ask the house leader when he expects to call again the bill with which we have been dealing tonight?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot at this moment indicate when that legislation will be brought back.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I just say to the government house leader it is not a question of simply announcing on a day to day basis, without prior notice as to what is in store. A week's outline of the business is very helpful to us, but there are alterations. There was an alteration today, and the house was not notified officially last night that there would be a possible change in the program.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I undertook that if there were to be alterations I would notify the house. There was an alteration today as a result of consultation with other parties, and notification was given to persons participating in the debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gaston Clermont (Labelle):: On June 12, 1967, Mr. Speaker, as recorded in Hansard on page 1397, I put the following question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene):
Since March 22, 1967. has his department negotiated with the agriculture department of Quebec on assistance to potato producers? If so, what are the results?
And here is what Mr. Speaker said as to the acceptability of my question:
It is difficult for me to determine whether the question of the hon. member for Labelle is urgent. I am inclined to think that this question should be put on the order paper, but, if the hon. member
June 20, 1967

feels this is an urgent question of national importance, he could bring it up on the adjournment motion.
I raised this question, Mr. Speaker, because it is very important for thousands of potato producers in Quebec as well as in the other provinces.
I believe the 1966 potato crop in Canada was the best in 40 years. As of March 1, 1967, our warehouse stock showed a 43 per cent increase over that of the preceding year, in spite of a high volume of sales to foreign countries.
On March 22, 1967, the federal Minister of Agriculture announced the adoption of a program authorizing the Agricultural Stabilization Board to provide a support price of $1.65 per barrel of Canada No. 1 potatoes sent to starch plants.
In areas where there are no starch plants -as in the province of Quebec-and where there may be an important surplus of potatoes, the associations and groups of producers wishing to participate in the federal support program were to submit the terms of their propositions to the Agricultural Stabilization Board.
I am told that potato growers and other groups interested in that farm produce made certain proposals to the Agricultural Stabilization Board.
The hon. member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron) and I accompanied such a group in April when they met representatives of the Department of Agriculture to discuss the problem.
Another program was offered the Quebec potato growers, whereby surpluses would be used in feed rations intended for cattle. This alternative did not seem to please the growers, most of whom did not own boilers or Choppers and, moreover, were afraid to destroy their feed system based on balanced rations.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In a press release published in La Presse, of Montreal, the minister of agriculture of New Brunswick announced, on April 21, 1967:
The potato starch assistance program already in existence is being supplemented by the hog feeding program.
Mr. Levesque indicated that he discussed the possibility of a further assistance program in Ottawa on Tuesday, and that federal authorities are now considering his proposals.
Mr. Speaker, if this program was that of assistance to disaster-stricken people, I wonder why, at this stage, and considering that 27053-113
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the season is well advanced, potato growers in the province of Quebec could not also have such a program?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Clermont) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the house and to the attention of the government. It is true that in 1966 we did have a remarkable crop of potatoes and at the moment are labouring under the penalty of abundance. So, the crop of 1966 has brought about some problems and it has been necessary for the government to institute a program to bring about some relief.
The level of assistance available under the Agricultural Stabilization Board is 75 cents per hundredweight and in addition the feed value of the potatoes, which is estimated at at least 25 cents per hundredweight, would accrue to the producer. This program is in effect in five other provinces and to date in excess of one million hundredweight of pota-toese have been committed under this program.
It may be true that there may be areas in which the livestock feeding program is not of immediate assistance. I understand from the minister and from his officials that consideration is still being given to alleviating this particular hardship. I know that if any relief is available in this regard, the announcement will be made by the minister at a later date.



IMMIGRATION-DENIAL OF LANDED IMMIGRANT STATUS TO GREEK SHEPHERD

Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, on June 13 I directed a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I said:
I have his letter denying landed immigrant status to a Greek shepherd, and I should like to ask the minister *whether Moses, who looked after sheep for 40 years, or King David, who was also a shepherd, would have been admitted to Canada under the present regulations.
I did not receive any answer to this query of June 13 and I should like to elucidate further on the matter. This question was discussed at some length during the adjournment debate on June 12. At that time some remarks were made about this man, Mr. Sistanis, who is under order for deportation after having appeared before a special inquiry officer of the immigration branch and the appeal board.
June 20, 1967
1766	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I based my remarks which I made on June 12 entirely on the fact that on April 21 there had been a revolution in Greece and this young man, who came to Canada in 1966, did not wish to return to that dictatorship country. I have in my hand clippings from the Ottawa Journal, the Ottawa Citizen, the Toronto Star and other papers referring to the fact that since April 21 Greece has been under a martial dictatorship. An editorial in the Toronto Star of May 12 referred to a statement that Canada was going to devote $1.5 million as aid to Greece. This was severely criticized. A paragraph in the editorial reads:
The sum of $1,500,000 is not much by modern budgetary standards. But we can think of better uses for it than pouring it down a dictator's gun barrels.
I should like to point out that this man, Mr. Sistanis, is still in the country although he has purchased a ticket back to Greece. He is waiting for a seat on an airplane because he has been told he must get out.
I want to emphasize that we are forcing upon a Greek citizen something that we did not enforce in respect of the Polish art treasures which came into Canada in 1940. This morning I spent some time looking up the historical facts in connection with these Polish art treasures. They were sent from Poland to France by way of the Black Sea and Rumania before the advance of the Germans in 1939. When it looked as though France was going to fall in 1940, these Polish art treasures worth millions and millions of dollars were sent from the south end of France to Canada and were stored for a short time at the central experimental farm in Ottawa. Following the breakdown of the established Polish government in 1940 these Polish art treasures were moved to other places in Canada, and I do not believe for a moment that their destination was unknown as intimated at the time.
When I read references in Maclean's magazine, the Canadian Forum and Hansard for 1945, 1946, 1947, 1953 and 1958 I did not And a pretty picture of Canadian diplomacy. We held on to these Polish art treasures in Canada and kept telling the Polish people who were asking for the return of their prized possessions that we could not send these back to them because the government that sent them to us was no longer in power.


We continually told them that it was impossible for us to return them to the new government of Poland because the government from which we received them was no longer in existence. We kept this up for a period of years.
One of the documents I have in my hand here is a letter dated February 13, 1948, from the under secretary of state for external affairs, one L. B. Pearson, to a Dr. Bielski who was charge d'affaires at the Polish legation in Ottawa. In part it reads:
As we agreed with your solicitors, we are communicating the information to you for any further action you and your solicitors may wish to take.
That was dated February 13, 1948, and the established Polish government of 1945 had been asking over and over again where the treasures were. For three years we held them back. If we were willing to send these Polish treasures to various areas in Quebec and keep them away from the new Polish government I do not see why we should have to inform a genuine, genial Greek that he has to get back to Greece and get back there as quickly as possible, despite the fact Greece has a new government, a military dictatorship.
A week from Thursday we are going to be welcoming a Greek to this country, and as far as I know he has not even got a work permit. When he is here he will be opening hospitals and laying cornerstones, and we in the house here will have to shake him by the hand and tell him how wonderful we think the Greeks are. If we are to greet him with open arms here at parliament hill I can not understand why we should order this Greek shepherd to be deported.
This is supposed to be a classless country. Are we going to kick this Greek shepherd out of this country and welcome a Greek prince and welcome the Greek King and Queen on September 4? I say to you that this country should have a reputation for political asylum. This young lad of 23 does not want to return to Greece under its new government and does not want to be forced to go back.
Only since supper time tonight, June 20, did I receive a printed form from Ministre de la Main-d'Oeuvre et de l'lmmigration, which I suppose means Manpower and Immigration. It is stated that there are new selection policies for immigration. At page 5 it is stated that this is a summary of the new selection policy for immigrants, and there is a suggestion that no longer will a man have to have
June 20, 1967	COMMONS
seven years education as set out on page 21 of th.e white paper on immigration, but that he may have slightly less education if he has a job to go to, if he has relatives in this country and if he is under 35 years of age. Nicholas Sistanis has all these qualifications. He has six years education and in April the minister said that apprenticeship time will count; that three years apprenticeship will be taken into consideration. This man was five years a shepherd and three years a housepainter in Greece.
This young man qualifies under the apprenticeship clause, so far as the statement is concerned, under two headings, agriculture and housepainting and because of his youth and his ability I suggest he should not be forced to go back to Greece. We are welcoming a Greek prince here next week and the Greek King and Queen on September 4, and I say we should welcome a common ordinary Greek who wants to stay here with his uncle and aunt and his cousins in the town of Weston in the riding of York-Humber. He is qualified in every way under the new immigration selection policy as set out in the statement received by members of parliament this evening. If they opened their mail boxes at supper time they will have this statement. If they have not, they will get it tomorrow.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I simply ask that the Department of Manpower and Immigration allow this man to remain in Canada. I sincerely ask that he be given the same kind of treatment that was given to the Polish art treasures. That is, that no speedy action be taken in respect of this young lad who should be allowed to stay. He is here now. He has not worked since he came here. I sincerely ask that he be given the same kind of treatment as the Polish art treasures; that is, that no speedy action be taken on him at all and he be allowed to settle in like the Polish art treasures which were in this country from 1940 to 1949 or 1950 before any action was taken to send them back to Poland.
Let us treat a genuine, genial, Greek, who is a human being, as well as we treated those painted Polish pictures. At least they stayed in Canada for years before we returned them to their home country. We should treat this Greek better by allowing him to stay in this country, where he wishes to settle, where his aunt, uncle and cousins reside, and where he 27053-113J
DEBATES	1767
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion has secure employment the moment he is granted landed immigrant status.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, there is not much to add to what we said when this question was raised on the late show about two weeks ago. The minister then informed the hon. member, through myself, that this man about whom the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) speaks did not comply with the immigration conditions and was asked to leave Canada. He was here as a visitor; he did not comply with the conditions and he was asked to go back at the end of his stay.
There is another factor to consider when we talk about fairness. Perhaps the hon. member for York-Humber would like to consider this. If all visitors, or a good proportion of them, who come to this country were allowed to remain, it would certainly be most unfair to all their compatriots in their country of origin who had gone through the procedures necessary, who had been to the immigration offices abroad, made application to remain here permanently, had their X-rays and all their medical checks and so on, if we just let them wait endlessly while we treated in a favoured way those who came here as visitors.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: What about the revolution in that country?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There seems to be a revolution across the way.


John Carr Munro: The hon. member also knows that as far as the revolution, I am not sure what you would call it, is concerned-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: A military coup.


John Carr Munro: -the department has ascertained that there is no danger whatsoever to Greek citizens as a result of the change of regime in that country. This man will not be prejudiced in any way on that count. We are fully satisfied about that. As far as the application of the new selection criteria is concerned, it was said that it would be several months-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Do you know that there are more than 6,000 trade unionists in jail in
Greece now?
June 20, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mr. Munro: The minister stated before the immigration committee that the new selection criteria could not be applied for several months. It is impossible, therefore, to know whether this man would comply with the new selection criteria.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:



ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
1,	5, IQ, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90, 92, 95, L25

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 21, 1967