1967-06-19

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I rise on a question of privilege which affects my rights as a member of this house.
While in the neighbourhood of Fort Erie on Saturday, June 10, I was taken by members of the Association for the Preservation of the Erie East Lakefront to see the federal lighthouse at Port Abino. We took the only access road, drawing up at the home of the lighthouse keeper. A neighbouring resident backed his car from the garage squarely across the road, barring our way back. An argument ensued, following which he gave us 20 minutes to get off the road before he would call the police. As we were ready to go, we left without further ado, although I may say not without reluctance on our part.
Now, here is my point of privilege. As a federal member of parliament I believe I have every right to visit public works which are paid for by the taxpayers, yet I was ordered off the access road by a local resident. He claimed that the courts had given him and other local residents the right to bar the road to the public. Yet this road is plowed in winter by the township at public expense.
Further, I was informed that in recent times the residents have moved the gate to the private section of the road so as to include about a quarter of a mile more than the court is supposed to have awarded them. This, Mr. Speaker, is a completely unwarranted interference with the rights of a member of this house to visit public works and institutions. I ask you to take steps to correct this situation without delay.



MR. PENNELL-MINIMUM SECURITY INSTITUTION, P.E.I.-TABLING AMENDED ANSWER

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. Last Monday I tabled a reply to question 138 by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. McQuaid).
The hon. member had asked whether representations had been received for the establishment of a minimum security institution in Prince Edward Island from the government of that province. The tabled answer stated that no representations had been received for the establishment of a minimum security institution, but a communication had been received regarding the establishment of a maximum security institution. Subsequently my attention was drawn to a letter in which representations had been made regarding a medium or minimum security institution, by the government of Prince Edward Island.
I regret any inconvenience that may have been caused the hon. member or other persons by the earlier answer and, with leave, I propose to table an amended answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to table an amended answer and have it printed in Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
[Editor's Note: The question and amended answer above referred to are as follows:] Minimum Security Institution, P.E.I.


Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Have representations for the establishment of a minimum security institution in Prince Edward Island been received from the government of that province?
2.	Is it the intention of the government of Canada to proceed with the establishment of such an institution?
3.	What progress towards this end can be reported to date?


Lawrence T. Pennell: 1.
Representations have been received from the government of Prince Edward Island regarding the establishment of minimum, medium and maximum security institutions in that province.
2.	It is not, at present, the intention of the government of Canada to proceed with the establishment of a federal penal institution in that province.
3.	Not applicable.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I could have the consent of the house I wonder if I might be
June 19, 1967

Justice and Legal Affairs permitted, although I know this is a bit unusual, to move item No. 25, standing on government orders, referring the annual report of the C.N.R. to the parliamentary committee. I understand the steering committee of the standing committee are desirous of having their proceedings on Thursday and Friday, and if there were no debate at this time I think it might be convenient for all hon. members if this motion could be accepted.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith):
That the annual reports for 1966 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian National Railways securities trust, tabled April 26, 1967 and the auditor's report to parliament for 1966 in respect of the Canadian National Railways tabled May 29, 1967 be referred to the standing committee on transport and communications.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, June 15, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, this is a report of a committee asking for a reduction in the quorum from 13 to eight members. The committee consists of 24 members, as is the case with most of the committees of the house and here we are, only in the 30th day of a new session, with it asking for a reduction in the quorum. This occurred apparently at the first or second meeting of the committee. I notice that three other committees earlier asked for a reduction in quorum. There is another motion on the order paper asking for a reduction. It is obvious that something has gone wrong with the committee system.
We were treated two years ago to a great move in this house toward reform, with large numbers of committees being set up. Everything was to be done, apparently, by committee procedure. The membership of most of the committees was set at a figure of 24 members, and the quorum of each committee or of most of the committees was set at a majority of the

members. At that time I recall that I pointed out the ineffectiveness of this system. I opposed the multiplicity of committees and pointed out that the quorum arrangement might be ineffective.
It is rather strange that at the opening of a new session a committee should be rushing back to this house asking for a reduction in its quorum. These committees are all miniatures of the House of Commons. The majority in the house is held by the Liberal government. The majority in each committee is held by the Liberal government. This is an obvious indication that the Liberal government is unable to man the committees.
The experience over the last year and a half, when we had the longest session in living memory, was that, with one or two exceptions the members of the opposition pretty well sustained the committees that were in operation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Churchill:: I hear a chorus of disapproval from the other side, Mr. Speaker, but I know of what I am speaking. Then once again this session the Liberal party is expecting the members of the Conservative party to sustain these committees.


An hon. Member:: What are you paid for?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Somebody shouts out "What are you paid for?" It seems to me that the government of this country and the governing party should conduct the affairs of this nation in a proper manner and not be completely dependant upon being bailed out time and time again by the Conservative party. We have been doing this now for the last two years; we have been bailing out an ineffective, badly organized government.
The fact that the government members on these committees are now coming crying to the house because they cannot field a quorum, Mr. Speaker, indicates their incapacity and incompetence. I am very much opposed to this motion, sir. If we are going to have a committee system of the magnitude of that which has been imposed upon this House of Commons, then it is up to those who proposed the scheme to make it work. It was the Liberal party that proposed having all these committees that we have. It was the Liberal party that said that this is the way that parliament ought to work.
Some of us on this side, Mr. Speaker, oppose this idea. We think that this will destroy the effectiveness of the House of Commons
June 19, 1967

itself, and I think this has been proven over the last year and a half. The effectiveness and importance of the House of Commons has been reduced because of the committee work that is going on. There has to be a certain amount of committee work, of course, but a multiplicity of committees is destructive of the House of Commons. Now, at a time when this is evident, the government rushes back into the house crying for assistance, saying in effect that they cannot field a quorum and that they want the quorums reduced.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
This, sir, is obviously extremely bad. When the rules committee under the present government house leader was working last session, why did it not come up with some idea regarding the quorum of the committees which had already proved to be ineffective? No such suggestion to amend the rules was made. Now at this time of the year, in the month of June, after we have been sitting almost continuously for a year and a half, with a desire to rush to completion some of that work of the house, members on the government side come forward with the idea of reducing the quorum. This idea stems from the activity of the government house leader who wants this house to rush through in a few days our consideration of $9 billion in expenditures.
We can now see what the plan is. Quite a number of estimates have been referred to committees, these committees are to deal with them and send them back to the House of Commons with the statement that they have given them serious consideration. What are we going to find? We are going to find in connection with one committee that eight people may be given the authority to deal with the estimates of a department, and yet another committee may have nine; so eight or nine people will have the authority to discuss and deal with the estimates before the committee, and report back to the house that the estimates have been approved. We will then hear from the government side that there is no need to discuss these estimates here in the house because they have been settled in the committee. We will have about eight people in the committee carrying out the discussions, and then the house will be bemused by the suggestion of the government house leader that everything has been settled satisfactorily in the committee.
We have observed a spectacle during the last two years, and we are told that the committee work is superior to the work of the
Justice and Legal Affairs House of Commons. I suggest to you, sir, that the committee work has fallen down here in parliament, and proof of that fact is now right in front of us in this suggestion that quorums are too large, that committees are too large and should be reduced in size so everything can be speedily pushed through.
What is being made of this institution is a rubber stamp institution, to rubber stamp things in the committee, and then rubber stamp them in the house and then, through a propaganda campaign, it will be said that this is the way things ought to be done. I am here to object to this procedure, and I object to this proposed reduction of the committee quorum from 13 to eight.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments in respect of the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I am a member of the external affairs committee which had a meeting called for 9.30 last Thursday morning. At that time we did not have the required quorum of 13 members. There were eight Liberal members present and two opposition members, namely the hon. members for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) and Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, who is a member of that committee, turned up between half an hour and three quarters of an hour late.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is rising on a point or order or a question of privilege?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I am rising on a question of privilege. I was attending at that very moment a house leaders meeting called by the government house leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, may I say that the quorum of eight as suggested is in line with the practice followed in the United Kingdom, being one third of the membership. I can also

June 19, 1967
Questions
say that the justice and legal affairs committee is a very excellent one. Notwithstanding what the member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, it does not rubber stamp anything.
I could comment on the make-up of the committee. The members from the Liberal party, those from the Conservative party, from the New Democratic party and the Ralliement Creditiste have been very, very excellent in their attendance. We did have difficulty getting organized at the beginning of the session. I can look over this house and see several members who did not do very well in attendance on the committee and who I believe should really get off it. If we cannot have a quorum of eight and have to have a quorum of 13, we cannot get on with our business. I suggest that the motion is in order. It was agreed to by the Conservative members, the Liberal members and all members of the committee present, 13 in number. I think the motion should be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Cameron (High Park), seconded by Mr. Habel, moves:
That the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs presented to the house on Thursday, June 15, 1967, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried, on division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
4.	Canmore
1957-58	$ 90,643.09
1958-59	91,652.00
1959-60	426,298.00
1960-61	655,671.00
1961-62	672,811.26
1962-63	399,893.59
1963-64	541,904.01
1964-65	573,592.17
1965-66	462,920.40
1966-67	682,004.96

Mr. Reid: 1.	With respect to the agreement between Nippon Kokan of Japan and Coleman Collieries to export 13,300,000 tons of coking coal to Japan over the next 15 years, will the government of Canada be paying subventions on these coal exports and, if so, how much per ton?
2.	Will the government of Canada be providing a subvention to assist in transportation costs?
3.	What is the amount of subventions paid by the government of Canada on exports of coal from western Canada and to whom are these payments made?
4.	For the past 10 years, what has been the annual payment to each company?
5.	What is the formula used to calculate this payment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. Yes, during the first four fiscal years of the contract; $2.73 in 1967-68 and 1968-69; $2.44 in 1969-70; $2.19 in 1970-71.
2.	Indirectly through the above payments, yes. The subvention payments on coal exports from western Canada go to the coal producing companies which in turn pay transportation costs to tidewater.
3.	An amount, not exceeding $3.15 per net ton, as determined in accordance with Order in Council P.C. 1962-462 as amended by P.C. 1962-1509. The determination is based on studies of production and transportation costs, the selling prices obtained by the Canadian producers and the competitive situation in the overseas market. The payments are made to the three companies exporting coal to Japan, The Canmore Mines Limited, Coleman Colleries Limited and Crows Nest Industries Limited.
Coleman	Crows Nest Industries
1,137.30	$ 1,376.89
2,767.00	3,338.00
164,690.00	454,258.00
489,853.00	1,388,740.00
887,503.29	1,598,454.99
675,909.51	1,187,580.09
955,954.52	1,198,090.09
1,269,756.67	1,057,131.05
1,213,455.52	1,031,609.06
1,350,523.88	1,599,473.61
June 19. 1967

Questions
5. The amount, not exceeding $3.15 per net its shareholders in the facility. Payment of ton, needed to make the Canadian coal com- the grant will not commence until after the petitive in its destination market.	facility is in commercial production.


DREDGING AT BAIE-JOLIE, QUE.
Mr. Mongrain: 1.	Have the dredging works, as carried out three years ago at Baie-Jolie (lake St. Pierre), been approved by the responsible government authorities?
2.	If so, what is the name of the official who signed the reports submitted to the government for final approval?
3.	Were the river front property owners consulted before these works were carried out?
4.	Has the government made an estimation of the damage caused to the river front properties?
5.	Has the government received any claims from the owners of these properties in this connection?
6.	If so, what conclusions have been reached by the government department concerned?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes.
2.	H. L. Land, chief, St. Lawrence ship channel division.
3.	Yes, through a representative.
4.	No.
5.	No claims, but some complaints.
6.	Complaints are being investigated in consultation with persons concerned.


FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO PULP COMPANY, PRINCE ALBERT, SASK.
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has any financial assistance been promised or granted under the Area Development Incentives Act to the Prince Albert Pulp Company Ltd., Prince Albert, Saskatchewan and, if so, to whom were such promises made and how much assistance has been promised or granted?
2.	If any financial assistance has been granted, when were such grants authorized, and on what dates have payments been made?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	and 2. On March 8, 1966, the president of Prince Albert Pulp Company Ltd., Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, received an assurance from the Minister of Industry that the proposed bleached kraft pulp mill at Prince Albert would qualify for a capital grant provided the project complied with the provisions of the Area Development Incentives Act and Regulations. The amount of the grant was estimated at $5,000,000 but the actual amount will be based upon the approved capital costs of the eligible assets and the level of equity of the company and


ADMINISTRATIVE CENTRE, CHARLOTTETOWN. P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Has the provincial government administrative centre in Charlottetown been classified as a centennial project and, if so, is it entitled to a centennial grant from the government of Canada?
2.	If this classification has not already been made, how soon may it be expected?
3.	If the administrative centre cannot be so classified, what is the reason?
4.	If the administrative centre will not be so classified, is the federal government considering the making of a special centennial gift to the province of Prince Edward Island?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secrelary of
Stale): 1. Centennial commission has not provided any grant to the government administrative centre in Charlottetown and, therefore, the centre is not a centennial project within the terms of the commission's grants programs.
2.-3.-4. The federal government has made a grant of $2.8 million to the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Citizens Foundation to assist the construction of the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Building in Charlottetown. No other grant for projects of a lasting nature is available from the centennial commission to Prince Edward Island except under the centennial projects program which is directed toward the construction of local or regional projects.


HARP SEALS-PETITION FOR SANCTUARY IN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the Prime Minister received petitions from residents of the city of Windsor, Ontario containing approximately 1000 names requesting the government of Canada to declare the gulf of St. Lawrence a sanctuary for the harp seals?
2.	Has the Prime Minister received a copy of the resolution adopted by the council of the city of Windsor urging the government to declare the gulf of St. Lawrence a sanctuary for harp seals, and also asking that alternative modes of employment be found for those men who will suffer loss of income if seal hunting is abolished?
3.	Has the Prime Minister received a letter from the president of Local 200, UAW, Windsor, Ontario representing 4,400 Ford workers requesting that the gulf of St. Lawrence be declared a sanctuary for harp seals and end the baby seal hunt?
4.	If so, what has been the reply given respectively to the aforesaid (a) petition, (b) resolution, and (c) letter?

June 19, 1967
Questions


Mr. John R. Malheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Two petitions were received from residents of the city of Windsor containing a total of 661 names.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.
4.	(a) Replies included a copy of a statement by the Minister of Fisheries outlining measures taken by his department to ensure that sealing operations are conducted in full accord with humane practices, (b) A reply was sent by the Minister of Fisheries, as follows:
Is is rather difficult for me to understand how your council could approve such a resolution without acquainting itself with the situation before reaching such a decision.
Regarding the establishment of a sanctuary for harp seals in the gulf of St. Lawrence, while this might be possible, it would only affect about 15 to 20 per cent of the seal hunt which takes place in north Atlantic waters every year. Futhermore, over 30,000 fishermen depend on the fishery resources of the gulf of St. Lawrence for a livelihood. An adult seal consumes as much as 15 pounds of fish per day, and one can judge what quantity of fish can be consumed by the seal herds when, as in 1966, lj million adult seals were spotted on the ice in the gulf of St. Lawrence alone.
I have a responsibility to protect the fishery resources of the gulf of St. Lawrence and it would be unfair to the fishermen of the Atlantic provinces if I would permit the seal herds to increase to such an extent that the fishery production of the gulf could be seriously affected.
With regard to finding alternative modes of employment for these fishermen during the months
of March and April, here again I would have hoped that your council would have been fully aware of the conditions in that part of the country during that particular period. At this time of the yeai no other means of livelihood is possible for these men. It would be very costly to the taxpayers of this country to suggest that governmental assistance be provided for the inhabitants of the St. Lawrence area who depend partly on the seal hunt at a time of the year when no other fishery operation is possible. Besides the seal hunt taking place in Zone 1 of the gulf of St. Lawrence, where sealers and aircraft are allowed to operate and where a fixed quota of 50,000 whitecoats is imposed, we also have to provide for thousands of landsmen along the coast of Newfoundland and the north shore of the St. Lawrence where seals are available only when drift ice is carried along these coasts. No one can devise a formula which could take care of this particular population.
I must, therefore, advise you that is is impossible for me to accept the recommendation of your city council as outlined in the resolution referred to above.
(c) Not applicable.


FISHING VESSEL SUBSIDIES
Mr. Crossman: What was the total number of vessels qualified for subsidy and the total amount paid on the subsidization of fishing vessels by the Department of Fisheries for the fiscal years ending 1961 to 1967 inclusive in (a) New Brunswick (b) Nova Scotia (c) Prince Edward Island (d) Newfoundland?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: See following table.

QUESTION NO. 147-MAY 30, 1967 Vessel Subsidies
Newfoundland	Nova Scotia	New Brunswick	Prince Edward Island	Fiscal years	No. of vessels	Amount paid	No. of vessels	Amount paid	No. of vessels	Amount paid	No. of vessels	Amount paid1960-61	5	$ 19,169.70	16	$ 117,682.95	4	$ 36,832.95	5	$	49,226.101961 62	11	66,157.00	9	97,158.70	17	110,083.95	2	28.731.301962 63	7	36.397.50	14	167,659.50	14	121,775.25	-	-1963 64	
9	42,850.00	14	150,302.50	8	80,285.00	-	-1964 65	
48	247,422.30	25	298,516.00	9	75,233.20	1	2,828.001965 66	
24	119,008.44	67	1,183,700.07	10	296,729.74	6	6,733.161966-67	
38	302,744.36	104	1,159,903.13	23	59,793.82	11	14,809.33Total	
142	$ 833,749.30	249	$3,174,922.85	85	$ 780,733.91	25	$	102,327.89
Grand total
501 Vessels-$4,891,733.95
June 19, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1647
Questions

June 19, 1967
Questions


BRANDON, MAN., R.C.M.P. HEADQUARTERS
Mr. Dinsdale: What are the present plans for the construction of the new R.C.M.P. headquarters in Brandon, Manitoba?


Lawrence T. Pennell: It is
intended to commence construction of a new R.C.M.P. sub-division headquarters in Brandon, Manitoba during 1967/68. Plans are being finalized and tenders will be called in the near future.


NUCLEAR WARHEADS STORAGE
Mr. Allard: 1.	How much did Canada spend in 1966, in dollars, to guard nuclear warheads, including costs of storage, men and dogs, for storage areas located in Canada and elsewhere?
2.	Has the government of Canada taken any steps since 1965 for the denuclearization of Canadian troops stationed in Europe and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Approximately $5,100,000.
2.	As indicated in the white paper on defence in March 1964, Canada's contribution to the nuclear strike role in Europe will reduce as the airplanes attrite.


SHERBROOKE, P.Q., FEDERAL LOANS
Mr. Allard: 1.	How many loans were granted to the city of Sherbrooke by the federal government in 1966 and what was their value?
2.	What kinds of project in the city of Sherbrooke benefited from a federal loan?
3.	On what conditions and at what rates of interest were these loans granted to the city of Sherbrooke?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1.	I am informed by the municipal development and loan board and by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that no loans were granted by them to the city of Sherbrooke in 1966.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


AMHERST, N.S., CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to close the customs office presently located at Amherst, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date will this office be closed and where will the personnel involved be transferred to, and what type of substitute service [Mr. Robichaud.l
will be available to the people of Cumberland county, and more especially to the people of Amherst, N.S.?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: There are no changes currently contemplated for the customs port at Amherst, N.S.


NAPPAN FARM SEED CLEANING PLANT
Mr. Coates: 1.	For what period of time has a seed-cleaning plant been available to the farmers of Cumberland county at the Nappan experimental farm?
2.	Is this seed-cleaning plant being removed as a service to the farmers of Cumberland county and, if so (a) on what date will it be removed (b) what is the reason for the decision to eliminate this service?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	The seed cleaning plant at the Nappan experimental farm has been available to farmers since 1930.
2.	Yes; (a) due notice was given to farmers that the service will not be available in 1968. (b) The seed cleaning machinery is almost worn out. The department does not plan to replace this equipment. This decision was reached because privately owned seed cleaning plants are being established with some assistance from the provincial government.


BRUCELLOSIS-COMPENSATION FOR SLAUGHTERED CATTLE
Mr. Godin: 1.	As of what year did the government of Canada grant compensation to farmers whose cattle contracted brucellosis and were condemned to be slaughtered?
2.	In the case of (a) adult thoroughbred animals (b) adult cross-bred animals, what was the amount of the compensation (i) at that time (ii) in 1968?
3.	Is the government considering adjustment of this compensation in keeping with the value of these animals?


John James Greene: 1. 1957.
2.	(i) 1957 (a) $100. (b) $40. (ii) 1966 (a) $140. (b) $70.
3.	Yes, the matter is under review.


OLD AGE PENSIONS TO FOREIGN CITIZENS
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	Does Canada pay old age pensions to foreign citizens who have been resident in Canada?
June 19, 1967

2.	Are pensions paid to foreign citizens who, after reaching retirement age, dispose of their holdings, leave Canada, return to their own country and live on this pension?
3.	To which countries do they return?
4.	How many pensions are awarded and what is the amount paid to these persons annually, by country?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. In order to qualify for the Old Age Security pension, an applicant must show that he has resided in Canada for the number of years required by the legislation. Citizenship is not an eligibility factor.
2.	Any pensioner, regardless of citizenship, may be paid the basic $75 pension indefinitely anywhere in the world provided he has resided in Canada for at least twenty-five years after his twenty-first birthday. If he has not so resided, the basic pension may be paid for up to six months of absence from Canada exclusive of the month of departure; payment is then suspended until the pensioner returns to Canada.
3.	Since citizenship is not a factor in determining eligibility for the Old Age Security pension, it is not possible to distinguish between Canadian citizens and foreign citizens in receipt of the Old Age Security pension whilst absent from Canada nor is it possible to distinguish between those pensioners living permanently outside Canada and those who are on extended visits to other countries. Of the 1.2 million pensioners, 9,429 were being paid the pension in other countries in July, 1966, the last month for which such figures are available; of that number, 4,710 pensioners were in the United States, 2,161 in the United Kingdom and the remainder in several other countries throughout the world.
4.	See 3. above.


BROADCAST EXPENSES-QUEBEC PROVINCIAL ELECTION
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	Regarding question No. 2,447, answered on February 13, 1967, did the B.B.G. keep records showing the time devoted to political broadcasts by private broadcasters during the elections of June 5, 1966, in the province of Quebec?
2.	If so, how much time was devoted to political broadcasts by each of the political parties?
3.	If the B.B.G. keeps a record of this information under section 11 of the Broadcasting Act, will it do the same during the next elections?
Questions
4.	Regarding the information given on page 427 of the report of the committee on election expenses, can the B.B.G. provide similar information in reply to questions on the order paper?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. No.
2.	See 1.
3.	Section 11 of the Broadcasting Act provides the board with certain powers to make regulations but it does not require the board to obtain information about political broadcasts. The board does not propose to make a regulation requiring the licensees of broadcasting stations to report on the expenses incurred by political parties in connection with political broadcasts over radio and television stations.
4.	See 3.


McKAY-CORMACK LTD., VICTORIA, B.C.- AUXILIARY BOAT CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Barneti: 1.	Has McKay-Cormack Ltd. of Victoria, B.C., constructed or been engaged to construct auxiliary boats for a Department of Transport weathership in a recent fiscal year?
2.	If so, when was such weathership constructed, has it been commissioned and, if so, when and what is its name?
3.	Were tenders called for construction of auxil-liary boats refered to in part 1 above and, if so, for how many such boats, and at what price for each boat were contracts awarded?
4.	If more than one bid was received, what were the high and low bids in each case?
5.	Has construction of any or all of such boats been completed and, if so, what is the completed cost of each?
6.	What briefly are the specifications of such boats, such as size, basic hull material, power plant and rating?
7.	What functions in connection with the operation of the weathership were such auxiliary boats designed to perform?
8.	As originally designed and constructed, did such boats perform these functions satisfactorily?
9.	If not, what redesign and/or reconstruction was necessary and at what additional cost?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	C.C.G.S. Vancouver commissioned July 1966 and C.C.G.S. Quadra commissioned March 1967.
3.	Tenders called by shipyard, Burrard Dry Dock Company, Limited. Two boats, each costing $59,775.
4.	Shipyard responsibility.
5.	Both completed, each costing $61,763.

June 19. 1967
Questions
6.	30 foot steel, 50 h.p., diesel oceanographic launches.
7.	Oceanographic work.
8.	Yes.
9.	Minor modifications, costing $1,988.
Note: McKay-Cormack Ltd. built the two
30 foot steel oceanographic launches for the C.C.G.S. Vancouver and Quadra to the order of Burrard Dry Dock Company, Limited, Vancouver, B.C. on a fixed price basis. The main ship fixed price contract with the Department of Transport included the above oceanographic launches complying with the Pacific naval laboratory specification requirements.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-FEDERAL PAYMENTS IN HIGHWAY PROGRAM
Mr. Crossman: What was the total amount paid by the federal government to the Atlantic provinces under the trans-Canada highway program for each of the fiscal years from 1957 to 1967 inclusive?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1957-58,	$9,183,401.43;	1958-59,$19,114,713.38; 1959-60, $17,775,426.67; 196061,	$13,848,445.50;	1961-62,	$6,663,664.17;
1962-63, $3,818,924.71; 1963-64, $18,242,081.43; 1964-65, $36,633,645.90; 1965-66, $44,634,325.68; 1966-67, $35,110,367.00.


EXPO '67-DISPOSAL OF FACILITIES
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	What role will the federal government play in the assets disposal corporation set up to oversee liquidation of Expo's facilities and chattels?
2.	Will the proceeds of such liquidation be returned to all the participating levels of Canadian governments' on the same proportionate basis as their investment?
3.	Who is to be in charge of this body?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, no corporation has been set up but a committee has been established informally. It has representation from the federal government, the government of Quebec and the city of Montreal to advise the board of Expo and the respective governments on the disposal of assets which they jointly own. Expo is charged with the responsibility under the act for disposal of these assets, but will do so in accordance with instructions from the three governments.

In the master plan tabled in parliament on April 14, 1967, there is included under revenues a total amount of $72,777,480 which Expo estimated could be realized from salvage and disposal of assets.
The terms of reference to the representatives of the federal government on this committee, are to recommend ways and means of realizing at least this amount. Any such proceeds would accrue to Expo, in which the three governments participate on the basis of 50 per cent federal, 37i per cent provincial and 12i per cent city of Montreal.
The members of the committee representing the federal government are Mr. Donald Jupp, Ottawa representative of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and Mr. L. Richard, president of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Mr. Jupp acts as chairman of the federal delegation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the very statesmanlike and remarkably clear speech made this morning by the President of the United States, I would ask the Prime Minister whether the five points which were set out by the President are acceptable to Canada.
If so, what is Canada's attitude to be in connection with the refugees? Is the Prime Minister in a position now to give some indication as to the number of refugees that Canada is prepared to accept?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, so far as the five points in the President's statement this morning are concerned, our position with regard to at least four of them was made pretty clear in the statement I made in the house in which I put forward these points as being important in the development of a basis for the settlement. There was one additional point which I did not mention and which was very much in all our minds, that is the question of the limitation of armaments in that area. I think that is just as important as the other five points, and I am quite sure this parliament would wish to support all the points mentioned by the President.
June 19, 1967


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister, in view of his answer of last week to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, make any definite statement on the number of refugees that Canada is willing to admit? How many may enter Canada and become residents. The last time the Prime Minister answered the question he said that the matter was under consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, though the right hon. gentleman mentioned that subject this afternoon, I regret that I did not refer to it. It is impossible at the moment to say how many refugees would be taken, because that would depend on the international arrangements by which this problem could be liquidated. Indeed, it would depend primarily, or very importantly, on the attitude of the Arab governments toward the urgency of the problem. When this matter was mentioned the other day there were reports in Arab newspapers criticizing Canada because we were trying to take away from those countries Arab refugees whose only desire was to go back to their families in Palestine.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of Premier Kosygin's statement, that it is essential that Israel shall withdraw to the armistice boundaries which it had at the time the armistice was declared years ago and the generous applause that he received at the end of his speech, will Canada take the definite stand that Israel shall not be required to go back to the former boundaries and that in addition thereto every protection and assurance must be given to1 Israel that its territorial areas and its integrity will be protected by measures under the United Nations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure what my right hon. friend is referring to when he speaks about the applause which greeted the speech of the Soviet delegate. I am assuming he was referring to that, and I am not very much concerned or impressed by that kind of applause until I know where the applause came from-and the television did not show that.
So far as the question of withdrawal of the forces is concerned, I thought the President of
Inquiries of the Ministry the United States expressed a very sound opinion when he linked withdrawal with international commitments and obligations to ensure that when the withdrawal took place it would not be a withdrawal to the state of affairs which existed a month ago. I was not quoting him but only paraphrasing what he said.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have one question arising out of the reply by the Prime Minister with regard to the withdrawal of the forces to old boundaries or to other boundaries than those which have existed until this war broke out a few days ago. What is Canada's view as to the extent it is prepared to go in asking Israel to withdraw and what boundaries has it in mind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, of course I cannot answer that question categorically until we see how things develop at the United Nations, what will be the position taken by the government of Israel in this matter and the position that will be taken by our friends who are having consultations on these matters, as indeed was the case in 1956. I would say that on the whole the position we should take at this time is exactly the same as the one we took in 1956 when it was pointed out very emphatically by the Canadian delegate that if Israel is asked to withdraw behind the armistice line without any effective international guarantees or any effective political settlement, once again we would be faced with the situation that Israel faced before 1956. Unfortunately that has happened, and we do not want it to happen again.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in the same area but on a different subject I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether in view of newspaper reports that his announcement last Friday of $2.5 million of food relief to the Middle East related to aid already allocated to that area before the present difficulties arose in the Middle East and that only the $20,000 for medical supplies which the right hon. gentleman announced was additional aid, would he be good enough to clarify the situation as to Canadian aid to the Middle East and also inform the house whether the government is giving serious consideration to increasing the aid both for those needing medical attention
June 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry and for the hundreds of thousands of Arabs and others needing assistance urgently at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the existing emergency we are very fortunate in having appropriations for aid to the Middle East area already voted by parliament to the extent of $2.5 million, $1 million for UNRWA and $1 million under the food program to the Middle East. These appropriations have been voted and they are available now for food relief to that area. What the government is anxious to do now is to expedite shipments under that program under these appropriations, but that, of course, is not enough and it may be that additional appropriations will be required or additional expenditures made, which I hope can later be approved by appropriations for emergency purposes. I mentioned one of these the other day, a $20,000 grant to the Red Cross for medical supplies. We as the government have been anxious to find out from the international Red Cross and from UNRWA what they need as emergency supplies at this moment. Over the week end we have learned that what they need now is a means of rapid distribution and communications. They have sufficient supplies in the area as a whole for short term needs but they need means of distribution. They also want to be reassured that the pipe lines will be filled as they use them up for emergency purposes.
The government has agreed to help in both these respects. We are purchasing and making available to UNRWA a de Havilland Beaver aircraft for which they specifically asked for communication purposes. We have also offered to make available to UNRWA at once an airlift for long range transport which would help them in the distribution of supplies. Indeed we could make that airlift available if they so require, for the provision of long range food supplies from Canada. However, at the moment they have emphasized they have enough supplies of food, but they want to keep the pipe lines filled. Our additional assistance of a Beaver aircraft and long range aircraft transport, if they require it, would require a special appropriation which we will be bringing forward before long if we need to do these things.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the right hon. gentleman for his answer and for the additional assistance he has announced. Would he be good enough to inform the house whether when UNRWA says it has enough

supplies for immediate needs they are referring only to those who were formerly in the refugee camps or were referring also to additional displaced persons who unfortunately and unavoidably have appeared in various areas?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In our communications with UNRWA through our embassies abroad, both in Geneva and in Beirut, we have learned that UNRWA is taking into consideration the additional refugees' requirements, but they are not yet sure of the scope of these additional requirements and as soon as we get additional information-and other governments would be getting it also-we will know whether they will require additional food relief for the additional refugees, which we will be able to help supply. However, at the moment they have enough for their needs as they can ascertain them at the moment.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether by long range aircraft he means the Royal Canadian Air Force, and, if this is so, whether the Arab nations have agreed to their use.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do have in mind long range R.C.A.F. aircraft. How they would be used would have to be worked out. That would depend on the requirements and the requests which were made by the international agency. It may be that the R.C.A.F. would be manning these aircraft and they would be allocated to the international agency for its use.



CARTIERVILLE, P.Q.-TRAINING OF ALGERIAN STUDENT PILOTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a related question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question related to a military matter. Does the government intend to continue, under its external aid program, to pay the whole of the cost of flying training at Laurentide Aviation in Cartierville for 19 student pilots now in training from Algeria?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall look into that. Perhaps I could answer tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: When did they become our allies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Answering the question that an hon. member asked a few moments ago, about the Algerian pilots, perhaps I could give some information, as I have a memorandum about the matter.
June 19, 1967

In response to a request received from the Algerian government in late 1965, Canada concurred in providing training in Canada, under its external aid program, for 19 student pilots from Algeria. These student pilots are undergoing civil aviation training only. At the conclusion of their training the students will return to Algeria and will be employed as pilots or co-pilots with commercial air lines operating in Algeria.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would there not be some inherent risk in the matter, under present circumstances?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is argumentative.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a supplementary question in connection with those students from Algeria. Are any of them members of the armed services of that country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I understand they are civil air line pilots in training. They are proceeding with their course and I think it would be very unwise, on the information we have, to interrupt that training at this time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has Canada agreed to the establishment of a standing naval force in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? If so, what if any of our naval units are to be assigned to that force?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, we have not yet finished our investigation of this suggestion. We have from time to time participated in a pilot group of a squadron of ships which was assigned to NATO. If it were deemed in our national interest, we might do the same if a permanent group were established. That would be based I think on the recommendation for about a squadron of ships, and it would be possible for us to participate if it were felt that our contribution were the kind of contribution that we should make to the NATO alliance on a permanent basis.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Douglas Scott Harkness: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When did the NATO organization agree to the establishment of this standing naval force in principle, as announced by Admiral Moorer, the supreme allied commander in the Atlantic?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts whether that question is in order.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would not mind having the report from me. I have one before me, but it is too long to be given in answer to a question. It could be given tomorrow or the next day, on motions, and I should be glad to do that.']
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of Hon. Allen Fairhall, the minister of national defence for Australia, who today is our guest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister in a position to say when the house might have a report on the recent NATO meeting? I realize that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in New York, but of course we have the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon) who would naturally be able to give a full report on the situation, if given the opportunity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the right hon. gentleman would not mind having the report from me. I have one before me, but it is too long to be given in answer to a question. It could be given tomorrow or the next day, on motions, and I should be glad to do that.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In the interest of a large number of Canadian shareholders who have been adversely affected by the delay of a government decision for something in the vicinity of one year, can the minister indicate whether a prompt decision will be made in the case of the tax liability on shares of Pyramid Mines?
June 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, I cannot discuss the tax position of an individual company or say what our position in this matter will be. I have had consultations with officials several times about this matter and I can assure my hon. friend that the matter is moving forward as fast as is possible.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who reports to this house on matters pertaining to housing. Has the minister received a request from the Sudbury city council that the additional housing loans for rental unit construction, which he announced recently, should be provided on a basis that applications for these units can be considered by persons whose incomes approximate $6,000 annually. If so, can the minister say whether this request will be met?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, may I, in rising to answer this question, first extend my personal congratulations to the hon. member for Sudbury on his recent election as a member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I also thank the hon. member for his courtesy in giving me notice of his question. The answer to the question, I am sorry to inform him, is, no. No such communication has been received by me. The only communications that I have received from Sudbury of late have been commendations and thanks for the prompt action taken by the government in response to requests for assistance with their anticipated housing problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Do not give notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is reported to have stated to the
[Mr. Fulton.)
Canadian Medical Association meeting in Quebec city that it may be necessary, when medicare comes into effect, for doctors to see their patients on a basis of priority of illness. Does this reported statement represent government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if that statement is alleged to have been made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, he has told me that he did not make it.


John George Diefenbaker: We hear of an amazing number of misreports.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did his department send out a correct copy of his speech to the doctors in Quebec city?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is out of order.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the minister's reference over the week end to the urgency of overhauling our outmoded federal labour-management laws, is the minister now in a position to inform the house whether the government task force which was appointed in this regard will be able to report its findings before the end of the year?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: am very glad that the hon. member asked that question, Mr. Speaker, because it only illustrates the danger of taking statements out of their context. I said that the need for some overhaul in procedures was such that the government had appointed a task force to look into the matter. It is expected that we will have an interim report from the task force later this year, though, as the Prime Minister and I both have said, it is not expected that the final report from the task force will be available until next year.
June 19. 1967	COMMONS



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister receives an invitation from Mr. Ray Perrault, the Liberal leader in British Columbia, to hold a full cabinet meeting in that province as a centennial project, would he accept such an invitation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question is acceptable at this time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to address another question to the Prime Minister and try to bring myself within the rules of order. Has the Prime Minister given consideration to calling a cabinet meeting in British Columbia, after the fashion set by Premier Bennett?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has not succeeded in his endeavours. He is still out of order.

REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF RETAIL PRICES On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Because of rumours that drug prices are being increased even now, has the minister's department taken steps to review the retail prices of drugs in order to ascertain, when the sales tax comes off on September 1, whether that step will in fact be to the advantage of the consumer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the department does not have the means for making that sort of immediate check on the retail prices of drugs, but I can assure the house and the hon. member that the government is quite determined that the advantage from the removal of the sales tax will be passed on to consumers: Appropriate action will be taken in that regard.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Can the minister inform the house what appropriate steps-I think that was the phrase he used-will be taken to give effect to the determination of the government that this benefit should be passed on to the consumer?
DEBATES	1655
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps I might put it this way. If there were evidence that the advantage of the tax reduction were not being passed on, it would be another reason for reducing the protection for drug manufacturers which now exists.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Has the Prime Minister received complaint from the Libraries Association or from various libraries across Canada drawing attention to the detrimental effect of the intended increase in postal rates on the transfer of books between library and library or between library and borrowers, the increase being estimated at some 60 per cent? If so, would the Prime Minister look into this question, because the rates contemplated would strike a serious body blow at the smaller libraries, particularly those which operate in rural communities.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not recall having received complaints but I should like to look into it, and, if I have, I will give consideration to the matter at once.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On Thursday I asked the hon. gentleman a question regarding the conference on rail line abandonment called by the Board of Transport Commissioners, to be held in Ottawa on August 1. Has the minister received suggestions that the conference be held in western Canada instead of in Ottawa?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, sir. The deputy premier of Saskatchewan approached me about this matter over the week end, and reviewing Hansard I find that the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam also raised it in a question to the Prime Minister on Friday. I am advised by the Board of Transport Commissioners that in view of the rather concentrated interest in this subject in western Canada they are considering holding the conference, or part of it at least, in the west.

June 19, 1967



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport relates to the one asked by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre. Is it the minister's intention to make any representations, issue any directive or make any request to the Board of Transport Commissioners with regard to convening the conference on abandonment somewhere in western Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think the hon. member is asking a question which is a repetition of one asked previously today.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Following the meeting between representatives of the government and various farm leaders last Friday, is consideration being given to holding further meetings of this nature at an early date in order to facilitate the determination of a general agricultural policy, as promised by the government?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I think the holding of further meetings is being considered, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries. I should like to ask the minister whether the Fisheries Research Board has under charter a motor vessel called Ocean Traveller and, if so, whether it has put to sea despite the fact that according to the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union it has been strikebound since March 17.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether the question is acceptable at this time. If the hon. member considers it to be a matter of urgency he can give notice that he will raise it at the time of the adjournment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Ten o'clock.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Sainl John-Alberi):: address this question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a telegram from the city of Saint John requesting a meeting in connection with the last minute withdrawal of the federal government from the long arranged purchase of Saint John airfield and, if so, what was his reply?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must say I have some serious doubts as to whether it is proper for hon. members to ask whether telegrams and so on have been received by cabinet ministers in connection with certain local matters. Hon. members will recognize that if this practice is allowed to develop and becomes general the Chair will have to deal with countless questions of this nature. I do not wish to make a general ruling, but hon. members might bear in mind that it is difficult for the Chair to determine whether a question asked about a telegram, which may or may not have been sent to a minister, is one of sufficient urgency and national interest as to be allowed. With this reservation, I shall allow the hon. member's question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is obviously a great deal of interest in this matter; it is more than local, because I received a strong telegram from the premier of New Brunswick about it, as well as one from the city of Saint John. The government has no intention whatever of withdrawing from these negotiations or from this purchase. We are very anxious, as soon as it may conveniently be done, to add the excellent airport at Saint John, which has been maintained so well by the city for many years, to the number of our national airports. It is only a matter of "la question d'argent". As soon as that can be resolved, I can assure the hon. gentleman we shall be only too happy to add this jewel to our crown.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the
minister a supplementary question? Will the minister still have a rendezvous with the city of Saint John?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Probably more than one.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.
June 19, 19B7


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Is
the government of Canada so impoverished that it cannot spend $800,000 to add this jewel to its crown?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is argumentative.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: My question is really a question of privilege arising out of the ruling you made a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. Does your ruling imply that the answer given by the Minister of Labour was also out of order?



PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question for the Minister of Transport. Possibly I missed some earlier announcement, but can the minister say whether he has received a report from the pilotage commission?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not yet, sir.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: This question is, surely, not local. It is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the hon. gentleman's department yet procured any data on the basis of which some appraisal can be made concerning the possible effects upon Canada of the explosion of the hydrogen bomb by the Peoples Republic of China?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will be glad to consult my advisers and report later.



CANADA LABOUR CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether the provisions of the Canada Labour (Safety) Code passed last December have yet been put into effect, and, in particular, whether the necessary agreements have been made with the provinces in cases where the
Inquiries of the Ministry provinces are to carry out the provisions of the act?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: If my memory serves me correctly, I stated some time ago that we were working on this program and were hopeful that the appropriate regulations would be passed before the end of this year. There are a number of details which still have to be worked out with the provinces. We are actively engaged in working out this program now and are recruiting the additional staff required. Our expectation is that the act and regulations will be proclaimed some time before the end of the year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: My question is directed to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In the light of the establishment some months ago of a fund for rural economic development, and the considerable allocations made to Manitoba and New Brunswick from that fund, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman's department is giving the same consideration to making a similar allocation to Prince Edward Island.


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



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has he any news from Washington regarding the Great Lakes pipe line project?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I understand a decision is to be given tomorrow by the federal power commission.



PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
SAINT JOHN, N.B„-USE OF EUROPEAN STEEL IN BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether to direct this question to the Minister of Transport
June 19, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry or to the Minister of Public Works. Has the attention of either hon. gentleman been drawn to a report that some 1,500 tons of European reinforcing steel are being incorporated in the Saint John harbour bridge at a time when there are lay-offs in both the Sydney and Amherst steel plants and, if so, are any steps being taken to rectify the situation?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question relates more to the Minister of Transport than to the Minister of Public Works. The Saint John harbour bridge is being built by a local authority, not by any agency of the federal government. It is true that there is a certain measure of underwriting by the federal government, but it would not be possible for me without making inquiries, and perhaps those inquiries would be into a realm that is beyond our jurisdiction, to be able to verify or otherwise the hon. member's report.


David Lewis: As a supplementary question, would the minister be good enough to undertake to make those inquiries and decide the jurisdictional question afterwards?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has he an answer to the question I asked him about a week ago on whether in the study of revision of the Criminal Code consideration is being given to spelling out in the code the right of any person being questioned by the police to have counsel represent him at a very early stage?


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no answer to that but it strikes me the Canadian Bill of Rights already gives certain guarantees in that direction.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question

to the Minister of Transport regarding a matter upon which he has been questioned several times on orders of the day. Has the government yet reached a decision to take action to improve the situation at Winnipeg international airport with respect to the unsatisfactory condition regarding stairs and escalators?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think this question should be placed on the order paper along with the others.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-135, to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation.
He said:
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Speaker, I indicated at the resolution stage the historical, economic and social background of this question of Cape Breton coal. I also indicated the schedule of events that led to the present legislation. I have motivated the federal intervention by showing the economic and social seriousness of the problem, concluding that it was in the national interest to such a point that it went beyond the limits of Cape Breton and the financial and economic capacity of the province of Nova Scotia.
I have also mentioned the fine co-operation received from the provincial government and my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), insisted on this point.
I have summarized the agreement reached by the Canadian government and the government of Nova Scotia. This agreement gave a pretty good idea of the contents of the bill. I will have in the course of the discussion today the opportunity to reply to various questions put last week, but I am told that I would be stretching parliamentary procedure and that I could be called to order if I were to do so now.
At the present stage, all that I can do is to introduce the legislation, that is Bill No. C-135.
The hon. members now have the bill on hand.
June 19, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1659
[Stage Direction]
Hon. members will note that this bill has a preamble which is lor the specific purpose of establishing that the Cape Breton coal problem is of national concern. The federal government is not now in the business of closing mines when they have come to the end of their reserves; we are taking part in this particular operation it is because the Cape Breton problem is one of national importance.
The preamble also points to a relationship which exists between the phasing in of new industry and the phasing out of the coal mines. That principle is to be found elsewhere in the bill and it is a major foundation of the legislation.
Later in the bill we have clauses concerning the establishment of the corporation itself with the two divisions, the coal division and the economic industrial development division. The purpose is to assign a particular function to each division. We thought this would be a more effective way of proceeding than by having only one division within the corporation.
Farther on there are clauses concerning the acquisition of property. Hon. members who questioned me on this last week will find answers to some of their questions in these clauses. What should be acquired is specifically indicated. How it should be acquired is also indicated; three possible methods are mentioned. One is straight negotiation, one is agreed arbitration, and one is expropriation.
Hon. members who have read the bill will have already observed that the method in respect of expropriation is explained at quite some length. The reason is that the federal government is not entitled by law to acquire more than land. Therefore the expropriation procedures for the companies assets have to be spelled out.
Last week hon. members expressed concern about the pension and retirement plans for miners. The answer to their questions is to be found in clause 18. The pension plan concerns those who are now employed, those who have been employed, and those who will be employed by the company or corporation as the case may be. Members will also observe that the corporation is instructed to establish an early retirement program.
The objectives and powers of the coal division are also clearly indicated. There is an interesting proviso covering the presentation by the coal division of an over-all plan within one year of the coming into force of the legislation. Members may think that this is
Cape Breton Development Corporation demanding too much too quickly of the corporation. Consequently there are other clauses dealing with possible amendments of that plan. In a way this is the same thing as we did with the Expo '67 corporation. Hon. members will recall that that corporation presented a plan within months after the passage of the legislation establishing it and that the plan was later amended and improved upon.
There are also a number of clauses dealing with the functions and powers of the industrial development division. Those of us who have read the bill have observed that these functions and powers are very wide. We have, of course, kept maximum flexibility. The corporation will be on the spot, as it were, and able to devise what is best in the interest of the people of Cape Breton.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are trying to avoid duplication. There will be a committee of officials to co-ordinate the actions of all departments, federal and provincial alike, in order to achieve maximum efficiency. We also have financial provisions both on the coal production side and on the economic development side. I am sure that in these provisions members have found answers to some of the questions they were asking me in connection with what the $25 million was for, and so on. However, if members are not sufficiently clear we can go back to these explanations during the clause by clause study.
To conclude the bill, Mr. Speaker, there are clauses of general interest. For example, there is a clause providing that the head office of the corporation will be at Sydney so that members of the corporation will as much as possible be au fait with developments there. There is also provision made for winding up the corporation. The corporation is being set up to achieve a certain job of work which will take a certain number of years. We hope that success on the industrial development side will make it possible for the corporation to wind up at the end of the anticipated 15 years or even less.
There is also an interesting clause at the end of the bill which establishes the constitutional basis for federal action. This clause refers to works and undertakings declared to be for the general advantage of Canada.
There it is, Mr. Speaker. I have tried to give a bird's-eye view of the bill. So we have before us then, a bill which arises out of an agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia to establish, the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to modernize and operate the
June 19. 1967
[Stage Direction]
Cape Breton Development Corporation coal mines, and also to effect in an enlightened manner the transfer of the economy of Cape Breton Island from coal production to other forms of industrial development and economic activity.
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be as brief in what I have to say as the minister in order to facilitate the passing of this legislation. I admit that the bill is very much in line with previous policy statements and with the policy announced on October 5, 1965 by the then minister of labour at Halifax.
The answers to the questions which were asked and which no doubt will be asked when we go through the bill clause by clause will clarify many points. However, I would ask the minister to prepare himself to explain some remarks which were made in this chamber on Thursday when we were dealing with the resolution. Among those remarks I would ask him to give a complete explanation of what was meant by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) when he said as reported at page 1579 of Hansard:
-in the meantime build up alternative industries so that there wil be a cushioning effect on displacement and so that the total economy and the total community will be protected.
The word "protected" is the key word. The purpose of the original policy statement and the intent of the legislation were to assure the miners of Cape Breton that there would be no displacements until alternative work was provided. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, you can readily understand why the minister said that we have to give consideration to the cushioning effect. I would ask the minister when he deals with this question to assure the house that alternative employment will be made available before any miner is displaced.
Let me point out once again that this will be a fairly tricky task to bring about. As I indicated on Thursday, you cannot close out a mine by displacing miners one, two, five or ten at a time. A substantial work force would have to be displaced at one time in order to bring about an orderly closing of any coal mine.
If I may now review the bill and at the same time tie in the statements made by the minister a moment ago, I am of the conviction that coal mining will continue in Cape Breton for a long time to come. The phasing-out period of 15 years that is being legislated for would not necessarily bring about the closure of any colliery; at least, I hope this will not be the case. In this regard I refer to

the fact that the sum of $25 million is to be expended on the improvement of mechanization. This should go a long way toward solving the problems faced by the mines at the moment.
In this regard I would impress upon all members of the house the importance of getting this legislation through so that collieries such as No. 20 in Glace Bay and No 12 in New Waterford will be given some financial assistance in order to proceed with modernization as quickly as possible. The same comment applies to No. 26 colliery, which last year hoisted over one million tons of coal despite the fact that it was using obsolete equipment. With this capital expenditure on modernization of equipment in coal mines, it is possible that the remaining collieries will have a long life ahead of them.
May I now deal with a statement made by the minister a moment ago. He referred to the end of the resources in this area. I hope that in referring to the end of the resources he made a comparison between the estimate of coal reserves in Cape Breton by Dr. Donald and that made by Mr. Justice Rand. Apparently they are a long way apart.
As for the bill itself and the acquisition of the Dominion Coal Company interest, I am somewhat concerned about certain recent statements. I understand that very recently in London Sir Roy Dobson informed his shareholders that the assets of the Dominion Coal Company were worth $53 million. I hope the government is not going to use this figure as a yardstick because not too long ago this same company considered its assets to be nothing more nor less than worthless, at least worthless from the point of view of putting them on the market for sale. No private interest or anybody else would have touched them. I hope the government will give serious consideration to the amount to be paid to the company for these assets.
I also hope it will take into consideration the argument I put forward during the resolution stage to the effect that any exchange of funds between the government and the Dominion Coal Company should have the rider attached that this money will be left in Cape Breton to develop whatever industries the people there care to carry on. At the moment I can think of nothing but the further development of the mines, though the money could perhaps be used to better advantage in Sydney in order to diversify the operations of the steel plant. While speaking of the diversification of the operations of the Sydney steel plant, may I
June 19, 1967

say that I trust that in negotiating any business deal with Dosco in the near future, the government, in order to alleviate concern in the Sydney area, will get from Dosco a firm commitment in respect of its plans for the Sydney steel operations.
I realize that this bill is tied in exclusively with the coal question, and in this regard I would ask the minister to note a few questions I should like to ask so that while we are dealing with the bill clause by clause he can provide answers thereto. I should like to ask him about clause 2 and its reference to the Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company. It is my understanding that this company went out of existence when it was amalgamated with the Cumberland Railway Company. If there is something to be dealt with in respect of the Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company I hope the minister will inform the house.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I should also like to ask the minister to tell us what the situation is in respect of the railway line between Broughton and Louisburg. Why does the bill not provide for taking over this line? That would be natural if the corporation is to take over the assets of the Cumberland Railway Company and the Sydney and Louisburg Railway. What is the intention in this regard if there is no rolling stock or anything else involved? What is the reason for not taking over that section?
It is also of interest to note that there is nothing mentioned about the salaries, fees and expenses of the president, the chairman and members of the board. Perhaps this is not of great importance, but the minister could possibly give an explanation in this regard.
Clause 9 (b) makes reference to the acquisition of all interests of the companies in lands and all personal property located under the waters adjacent to the county of Cape Breton, and later makes further reference to these interests of the companies. I should like the minister to explain this situation. At this time we are waiting for the decision of the supreme court in reference to the ownership of offshore mineral rights. Since this question is before the supreme court, what does this reference mean? How can this bill be interpreted in light of that situation? Does it mean that the federal government is purchasing something to which it has already laid claim in the courts of this land? Perhaps I am misconstruing the whole approach, but in reading the bill it seems that all the interests in the lands under the waters adjacent to Cape Breton are to be purchased from the 27053-106
Cape Breton Development Corporation Dominion Coal Company. Does the government have prior knowledge as to the decision which will be handed down by the supreme court? If not, why is such a move being made, the result of which will be that the government will buy from the Dominion Coal Company something it now claims it owns?
As I indicated, Mr. Speaker, I intend to be as brief as possible so that the very necessary improvements which will follow the adoption of this bill can be commenced as quickly as possible at the collieries I mentioned, namely, Nos. 12, 20 and 26 which are within my riding. Of course, the hon. members for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) and for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), will have something to say in respect of the colleries in their areas.
As a result of the establishment of this corporation there will have to be some deviation from a policy announced earlier by the minister to which I took objection. He announced a fixed subvention policy for a five year period. I assume that this policy will have to be changed or eliminated because of the obvious intention of this bill. Perhaps the minister could also make clear to the house the financial status of the Dominion Coal Company in respect of what is owed to the federal government because of loans or other advances. There is a reference in the bill to what is owed to Her Majesty by the Dominion Coal Company.
I will defer any further questions I may have until we reach the clause by clause examination of the bill. I hope the bill will receive speedy passage by the house.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as I said last Thursday during the resolution stage, I wish it were possible to accept this very important piece of legislation without being forced to criticize some of its basic aspects. When the Donald report came down-I do not have it before me-and when the present legislation was forecast in government announcements, it was made clear that the government was not prepared to accept Dr. Donald's timetable for phasing out coal operations. I am not quoting, but I think I can paraphrase the announcement accurately. The government was determined to gear the phasing out of the coal operations to the development of new job opportunities for those persons who might be affected. I suggest that somewhere during the drafting of this legislation that basic undertaking was lost and seriously departed from. As a result a great number of questions arise in my mind
June 19, 1967
1662	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation and in the mind of anyone who studies this bill carefully.
First of all, I find that the corporation is required by law to provide the minister, and through him the governor in council with an over-all plan within one year from the enactment of this legislation. That over-all plan must have in it not only items relating to the conduct of coal mining and related operations by the corporation but also a blueprint for the progressive reduction of coal production by the corporation and the discontinuance of coal production by mines that are not economically viable.
Let me ask the minister how it can conceivably be possible for the corporation to present the government with a plan for phasing out coal production within one year of its establishment and take into account possible new jobs for displaced miners? How is it conceivable that the corporation can do that? Because it is not conceivable I suggest that is why the legislation contains clause 17(4) which deals with the considerations that the corporation has to keep in mind before eliminating or substantially reducing the production of coal.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
One consideration it must bear in mind is that such closing down or substantially reducing the production of coal must be within the plan or the amended plan-I am paraphrasing the clause-and the other is that it should take all reasonable measures to reduce as far as possible any unemployment or economic hardship that can be expected to result therefrom. It was my understanding from reading the government pronouncement that after accepting the general principle of dealing with the problem by a crown corporation the government was determined, as it should have been, that there would not be any phasing out of the coal operation until such time as alternative jobs were in fact available.
I say to the minister and to government that they are going to compound the problems of Cape Breton Island and cause increasing hardship for the people of that island if the principles involved in the clause giving the power to reduce coal production, and in the clause requiring the corporation to reduce as far as possible any unemployment resulting therefrom, remain unchanged. I am not suggesting that it is wise for Cape Breton or for Canada to continue operating an industry if it is proven to be an industry which ought not to be operated. I am not at all convinced that this is the case with regard to the entire coal industry or that it is the case with regard to
[Mr. Lewis.)

the coal industry in Cape Breton Island. But I am not going to pose as an expert. That is a decision which I am quite prepared to leave to the corporation that will be established.
But it is totally wrong in principle, and does not deal with the problems of Cape Breton Island, to give the corporation the authority to throw miners out of work before alternative jobs are available. This is precisely what this bill does. This is absolutely contrary to the undertaking which the government gave, if I understood its undertaking. This legislation ought to read as clearly as words can make it that the corporation shall not cause any unemployment among the miners until such time as it is satisfied that the other division of the corporation, the industrial development division, has progressed sufficiently to guarantee alternative employment for the miners thus displaced.
It is not sufficient for the minister to point, as he may well do, to the provision in clause 18 (2) with respect to what I suppose may be called lump sum severance pay for miners who become unemployed or are retired early as a result of the reorganization by the corporation of the coal mining industry. I hope the minister believes the statements I am making to be sincere, as I believe every statement he has made to be sincere. I did not have to make this kind of criticism, because I recognize the importance of this legislation. But I say that when the corporation is asked all through this bill to rehabilitate and organize the coal industry so that it will produce "efficiently", which in commercial terms means profitably or at least with as little loss as possible-let me put it that way as in his case it is probably more accurate-the coporation may easily throw hundreds of miners out on the streets before there is alternative employment. Paying them lump sum severance pay will not do anything for them. If they are men of 40, 45 or over, as most of them will probably be because of the age situation among coal miners, giving them a small lump sum-it would have to be small; it cannot be very large-by way of severance pay will not save their lives. They may well not be able to do the kind of thing that is necessary in order to move elsewhere where there may be jobs.
I see no reason for this provision, and I emphasize, underline and repeat this because it seems to me to go to the core of the problem. In my respectful submission the core of the problem is that no coal miner on Cape Breton Island should lose one day's work as a result of the reorganization by the
June 19, 1967

corporation of the coal industry. Not a single coal miner should be laid off by the corporation until the other arm has created jobs to which those miners may go. Not until then should the closing down of mines or the reduction of coal production take place.
I am very seriously concerned about the general powers given the corporation in clause 17(1) of the bill and the obvious intention that there be unemployment among the miners for a period provided in the last part of clause 17. As I said, this seems to me to be entirely contrary to the definite commitment made by the government that unemployment would not take place and that the reduction in coal production would be geared to the provision of new and alternative jobs for those who may be displaced by such reduction.
I had hoped that the point I have just raised would not have to be made, but I was really shocked, if I may put it that way, by these provisions when I read them for the first time this morning. When we are in committee I hope amendments will be put forward to these clauses. I invite my hon. friends, and I am sure they are friends, of the official opposition who share this view to put forward amendments in this respect. I will be glad to support any amendment they propose to these clauses. If they do not introduce any, I will try to bring forward amendments that will take from the corporation the power to cause unemployment among the coal miners without the provision of alternative jobs.
The second point that concerns me, as it concerned me on Thursday last, is the provision for compensation to Dosco. I shall not belabour the point. I say again that on any basis of equity, morality and social justice the preferred shareholders of this corporation are not entitled to be paid for being relieved of a financial liability, and they are certainly not entitled to be paid out of the public treasury. I regret that the government has seen fit to make provision in the bill for such payment. But I regret something else even more, and that is the abdication by the government of its responsibility in this field.
It is not the responsibility of the corporation to be established to negotiate with the company regarding compensation. That is a direct responsibility of government. Government has to make that decision. Apparently negotiations have taken place and have got nowhere. I judge this to be so because in answer to questions asked by various hon. members we were informed that talks were 27053-1065
Cape Breton Development Corporation proceeding with the company with regard to this program. Apparently these talks have not reached a conclusion. The result is that one of the first responsibilities which this bill puts upon the corporation is a matter of public policy which should not be for the corporation to decide but for the government to decide. I appreciate fully that the corporation, if I remember correctly, has to receive the approval of the governor in council before it can actually agree to any particular compensation, but that is not good enough. Surely the right way to do this is for the government, with all the power that the government has and with all the responsibility which it carries with regard to the people of Cape Breton, to the taxpayers of Canada and to everyone else, to negotiate the takeover. When it has completed that job, then the corporation should be given the task of running the industry, modernizing it, etc.
* (4:10 p.m.)
The third point of principle about which I am very much concerned is an omission with regard to the pension provisions. I fully appreciate that clause 18 requires the corporation to provide for the establishment of pension arrangements for those who work for the corporation or who will work for it as well as for those who work for the companies which the corporation will take over. However, I should like to ask the minister-I put this in the form of a question because I have no doubt that he has as much concern about the pensioners of Dominion Coal as anyone else in this house-whether it would not be more appropriate to provide that pensions to be paid to present employees when they retire and to be paid to future employees must also be paid to employees who have already retired so that there will be no difference in amount between the pension received by those who have already retired and the pensions to be received by those who will retire in the future. I think it is of the utmost importance that the men who are now walking the streets of Glace Bay and other communities in Cape Breton Island as the result of the failure of Dosco should not be treated differently from the men who will be working under the management of the corporation to be established under this bill.
If such a provision is already contained in the bill I have overlooked it, but I do not think I have. I do not think there is a provision that the same pension should be paid to present as well as to future employees. I will go beyond that and suggest to the minister
June 19, 1967
1664	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation that it would do no harm to the people of Canada if the corporation were also given the power to make a lump sum payment to miners who have been retired over a number of years to compensate them for the heartless cut in their pensions which Dosco imposed some 15 years ago, if I remember correctly.
In short, perhaps the other points I made are points of general principle with which the government and some of us may agree heartily, but I am sure there is no disagreement about the desire of everyone in the house, including every member of the government and particularly the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), to deal fairly with the pensioners. I use the word "particularly" not because the two ministers are any better than the others but because they are concerned about the matter. Their concern about fair treatment for the pensioners equals that of anyone else in the house.
I appreciate the fact that the method used in clause 35 of the bill to bring this matter under federal jurisdiction-of course this is done with the approval and agreement of the province concerned, which makes it easier-is the method provided in the British North America Act, namely, a declaration by the federal parliament that a certain work or undertaking is for the general advantage of Canada. I presume that perhaps this is the basis on which the government deals with minerals at the bottom of the sea or elsewhere, but there is no reason why the government could not have used precisely the same approach in its agreement with the Nova Scotia government to include, as I said last Thursday, the steel industry of Dosco in Cape Breton within this legislative measure.
I and my colleagues are anxious, as is everyone else, to see the establishment of the corporation. If it were not for that we would be very much tempted to talk for a long time until we were able to persuade the government not to do only half a job. It is taking a useful step, and I cannot for the life of me understand why it is so blind as not to see that if it does not deal with the steel industry now it will be faced one, two or five years from now with a serious problem with regard to the unemployed steel workers similar to the problem of unemployed coal mine workers.
I do not want to speak very long and I do not want to repeat what I said last Thursday. The more I learn about the steel operations at Sydney, the more I am impressed by the fact


that Dosco is obviously phasing out its steel operations in that plant and that, if the matter is left alone, possibly in a few years' time there will be no Dosco steel plant in Cape Breton. I urge the government to reconsider what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said in reply to a question last Thursday, namely, that he did not think it wise to load the corporation with this added responsibility. I do not know why he should think so. All it would mean would be the addition of more staff and the appointment of a third vice-president.
I hope it will not be said that I have a kind of mania about Dosco but it seems to me, from the years I have spent studying the operations and performance of that corporation in Cape Breton Island, that if the government established a corporation to take over and deal with steel it would have to go a long way to find management more incompetent and yet more desirous of doing a job than the management of Dosco in the decade during which I have been acquainted with its operations. Therefore I have no fears about this being an added responsibility for the corporation. Of course it would be, but it would be a responsibility that it could carry out just as effectively and just as competently as the responsibility to modernize and operate the coal mines. Of course it would require the establishment of a third division, a steel operating division, as well as the coal operating and industrial development divisions, but it is a great pity that such is not the case.
Frankly I would like to understand why, if I am not misreading the legislation, the industrial development division of the corporation seems to be limited and confined to investing in the shares or securities of some other company or person, unless the words in clause 23(f) are to be read as giving the corporation the powers which in my humble opinion it should have. I am sorry the drafters of the legislation did not give the corporation direct authority to build industries and arrange for their running with public funds if that should become necessary. I congratulate the minister and the government for giving the corporation authority to go into partnership with private corporations, which is one way of interpreting the words "authority to invest in the shares or securities of a company". I do not see where, unless I have misread the legislation, the corporation would have the authority to do those things I have mentioned. I do not see in the legislation direct authority for the corporation to set up an industry itself, to buy the necessary plant
June 19, 1967

and equipment and to set up the necessary-management for the running of an industry if in the opinion of the corporation-not in my opinion-public investment in a publicly owned industry is the most desirable way of providing and diversifying employment in Cape Breton. If that was intended it should have been spelled out.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
As one who has tried, in common with other hon. members of the house, to interpret statutes I have grave doubts that the corporation would be able to do those things without the specific authority being spelled out. The general nature of subparagraph (f) would not be sufficient, in my opinion-


Gordon Minto Churchill: What about subparagraphs (a) and (b)?


David Lewis: I have read the clause carefully and if I have misread it I wish to be corrected. Clause 23(1) (a) gives the corporation authority to lend money to a company or person with or without interest, to make grants to any company or person, or to invest in the shares or securities of any such company or person. The wording does not give the corporation the authority to establish and run a company-in other words, to set up a company. There is, of course, the authority to invest in shares, etc., of a company. The corporation may acquire 100 per cent of the shares-I appreciate that-and thereby acquire title to that company and operate it as a public company. I have not lost sight of that.
I wonder whether there is language in the bill giving the corporation not merely the authority to acquire a business but the authority to establish a business from the ground up. If that was intended then I would ask the minister to consider making it clear by using language to that effect in the bill. I did not find such authority and I should like to see it in the bill.
It may well be that in the judgment of the corporation to be set up by this bill no existing private company can do the job that is necessary in a particular area and that the way to do the job is to set up a public undertaking from the ground up. That entails building the plant, buying the equipment and setting up the staff operation as well as the management and sales side that any new business normally would require. I repeat that if the minister intended that situation to come about it is desirable to spell it out, unless he
1S65
Cape Breton Development Corporation can show me language in the bill which makes such spelling out unnecessary.
One could speak at greater length but I shall not because I know other hon. members desire to speak. May I summarize my two main complaints against the bill. First, it clearly contemplates throwing miners out of work before alternative jobs are provided. This is contrary to the government's undertaking and to the best interests of the people of Cape Breton and Canada generally. Second, the government has failed to deal with the other industry in that part of Canada which is in distress, an industry not employing as many people as the coal industry but one on which the community nevertheless depends to almost as great an extent as it does on the coal operation. I still hope that before this bill becomes law-perhaps it could be done through separate legislation and if so I do not care-the government will give serious consideration to entering into the steel field in Cape Breton for the same reasons and on the same basis as it is entering into the coal operation by means of this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have no desire to delay this bill, Mr. Speaker, but in committee last Thursday I raised a number of questions that the minister could not answer because he did not have the committee's unanimous consent. I felt that he dealt inadequately with these matters today. No price has been mentioned for the compensation of Dosco. The minister has laid out three ways in which the corporation will have authority to negotiate with Dosco, if I am using the right words, and it seems to me that at this stage of the bill, when the House of Commons is being asked to accept it in principle, we should have some indication of how much the cost will be to the federal treasury.
It is not sufficient for the minister to say, as he said last Thursday, "We do not know." The minister, his department and other ministers have had previous discussions with the company and they must have some idea by this time of the basis of settlement and what the price of that settlement will be. Will it be based on the value of the salvage that can be obtained from the mining operations? That would be one basis for settling the amount of compensation, and that is provided for in clause 9. Is the settlement to be based on some other, arbitrary figure? There is provision to send the matter to arbitration but that has not been spelled out. Surely at this stage, as was said a few moments ago, the House of Commons has a right to know the basis for
June 19, 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation the settlement and what the price will be. Many in this house are unwilling to approve of federal expenditures for something that in essence has no commercial or market value.
I am not against giving approval for a reasonable amount of money to deal with economic depression in any area of Canada and the consequent social problems that arise from that depression, but I am against giving what might be referred to, if I have read clause 9 correctly,-a blank cheque. It seems strange that the minister should place a limitations of $20 million on the amount that the government will be authorized to spend for new economic development and yet not fix the maximum amount that may be paid for alleged assets which have no commercial or market value in the normal sense of the word. No figure at all is given. It is clearly stated in clause 19(l)(b) that an amount not exceeding $25 million may be used for the purposes of reorganizing and rehabilitating the coal mines. In clause 19(2) it is also stated that the outstanding amount of working capital shall not at any time exceed $10 million. That is the limit of the amount which can be advanced by the Minister of Finance. Nevertheless in clause 19(l)(a)(i) no limit is placed on the amount to be made available for the acquisition of some valueless property.
* (4:30 p.m.)
I am apprehensive about this situation. Why is it that a limit has been placed on the amount which can be spent on the renovation of the industry after it has been acquired, and on the development of new industry, while no such limitation has been placed upon the amount which can be spent on the acquisition of the present equipment and installations? I am sure the minister could give us some indication of the amount if he chose to do so. There have already been negotiations. I believe he is even now in a position to tell us the approximate amount or at least a maximum amount. Surely he can tell us the basis upon which the government intends to arrive at the figure which will have to be paid by the treasury.
The minister has not yet dealt satisfactorily with this point. The sum of $25 million is available for the rehabilitation of the present coal mining industry. Another $20 million may be used to develop new industry, plus between $25 million and $30 million annually for subventions to offset the losses incurred by the operation of the coal mining industry. We do not know how long these may have to continue. Then there is the amount to be paid

for the assets. At this stage when we are considering Bill No. C-135 in principle, members of the House of Commons have a right to know what the anticipated total charge against the federal treasury is likely to be before effect can be given to the provisions of this measure. I sincerely hope that the minister or his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will give us better answers to these questions than they have done already before they ask the house to pass a measure which constitutes virtually a blank cheque.
If hon. members will look at clause 9 (d) they will find that the corporation is empowered to acquire property as there set out;
-by purchase for a consideration and on terms to
be established in such manner, other than by agreement, as the Corporation and the owner thereof may agree upon;
I am not sure what is meant by that phrase "other than by agreement". Does it mean by arbitration? Presumably Dosco would have to agree to arbitration before the issue could be settled in that manner. As a result of the different ways in which the purchase can be made the corporation, with the support of the government, is certainly left with a free hand to arrive at the purchase figure and there is no maximum price tag to be considered. The members of this party have no objection to approving the spending of a reasonable amount in order to deal with a serious economic problem, but surely we also have a right to know what the bill will come to. I believe that both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources have some idea right now, as a result of their discussions with Dosco, of what acquisition is likely to cost.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure once again to follow the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) as I did on Thursday last. I commend him once again for his comments. We in the east appreciate the interest he has taken in this legislation. He has spoken words of wisdom and I am sure we all agree with what he said concerning compensation to the company. This point was also dealt with on Thursday by other hon. members.
The bill before us today is a far cry from some of the statements and proposals made prior to 1962 and 1983 by hon. gentlemen who are now government spokesmen in connection with what they intended to do for the coal industry in the maritimes. We are today attending what could be called the funeral of the coal industry, and the chief pallbearers
June 19, 1967

are the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And the premier of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Yes, I would add, as the minister has just suggested, the premier of Nova Scotia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A lopsided pall.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Muir: If the hon. gentleman from Inverness-Richmond would only hold his tongue I could continue. He seems to be interrupting a lot these days and getting into all kinds of difficulty. If he had only held his tongue for a moment and waited until I had finished, it would have been better. We are attending the funeral of the coal industry, if this legislation does not do all it is supposed to do. It has been pointed out that there are weaknesses in the legislation. I am sure hon. members will agree with me when I say that in any legislation brought down by any government there is always room for improvement. And I think there is room for improvement in the legislation with which we are now dealing.
Let me go back a few years just to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare of some of the activities which have taken place in the past. I have before me a clipping from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of January 30, 1962. At that time the Liberal candidate in Inverness-Richmond, now Minister of National Health and Welfare, was successful in getting an additional resolution approved by a council set up in connection with a meeting of Liberals in Ottawa to consider proposals for the future of the coal industry in the maritimes. This resolution, the report says, ratified a proposal whereby cheap or free electrical power from coal for the use of new and existing industry would be attempted under a Liberal administration. The resolution read:
The national council suggests the proposal made by the national leader of the Liberal party, Hon. L. B. Pearson, that a new Liberal government will attempt to work out a practical policy to provide electricity from coal at low cost or even free for a period of years to new secondary industries and expanding existing industries.
Farther on in this resolution, described as a new policy statement, we find:
2. Directing the Dominion Coal Board to consider with labour and managements the possibility of new mine openings in the coal areas with a view
Cape Breton Development Corporation to improving the competitive position of the product in the Canadian market.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
We now have this legislation which bears no similarity to those brave words uttered at the meeting held by the Liberal party in Ottawa in 1962.
Over the months and years the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. MacEwan), the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and others have stated their feelings about the future of the coal industry and those employed in it-the miners and the people in supervisory positions in the coal mines run by Dosco. In our statements both inside the house and outside we have made our feelings known with regard to what should be done on behalf of those who are going to be affected.
There are many questions that could be posed with regard to this legislation. As we go along I hope the minister will see fit to reply to the various questions that have been posed and will be posed. We attempted to get answers to questions on Thursday last but despite the fact that members in all parties on this side of the house agreed that the minister should be given time to answer, objection was raised by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I tried to assist by suggesting that both ministers could have a rest over the week end and return today fully refreshed ready to answer all questions. I am sure the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will do his utmost to provide the answers. When he began his remarks today he spoke in his mother tongue and because the translation was not too clear I did not catch what he said about whether he would be in a position to answer questions later. As we go through the bill clause by clause I hope the minister will provide a full explanation of each clause. With all due respect to my colleagues in the house, of the legal fraternity, I am sure we all agree that we have to read not only the lines but what is between the lines in the legislation.
I hope the minister will assure the house that when the corporation is set up no one in a supervisory capacity in the coal industry in Nova Scotia or in the general work force will be purged. I am sure I do not have to speak for the union, the United Mine Workers of America. They are well able to take care of themselves.
I hope that the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in his remarks about incompetent management, and in many other
June 19, 19S7
1668	COMMONS DEBATES
Cape Breton Development Corporation harsh statements he made with which I fully agree, was not referring to local management.


David Lewis: Oh, no, corporation management.


Robert Muir: We have men in supervisory positions in the coal mines who have devoted their lives to working for Dosco and the Hawker-Siddeley group and have done an excellent job. I would not like anyone to think that if hon. members damn what is loosely termed the management of Dosco they are referring to men who have worked so hard for the coal industry in Nova Scotia. I think in particular of men like Harold Gordon, who has now retired, of his successor, and of others in the industry who get along well with the work force and who have good relations with the union.
As I mentioned on Thursday, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and myself have brought the pension aspect to the attention of the house on previous occasions. I have no doubt that if a satisfactory arrangement is not made now we will be doing so again on other occasions. Surely the minister will give us some information about pensions apart from what is contained in clause 18.
Clause 17 provides that the corporation shall submit "not later than one year after the coming into force of this act. . .an over-all plan for the conduct of coal mining." They will be miracle men if they can decide within one year what the future of coal is going to be. If they come to the minister's office within a year and say, "Look, the phase-out period should be reduced to five years or ten years, regardless of who gets hurt," what will be the reaction of the minister and the government? I hope the minister will outline in detail just what is meant by clause 17(1).
I do not see any need to prolong the debate or delay passage of this legislation provided we get answers from the government. Here we have a situation that is most unique. The taking over of an industry has never happened previously but apparently this is the only answer, or partial answer.' I think the minister will agree that the task is not going to be easy. It is going to be difficult to make plans for the future. Possibly this legislation will have to be amended within a short period of time because many things could arise that were not foreseen when the legislation was drafted.
The most important items covered by the legislation are the pension problem and alternative employment for men taken out of the

coal mines. It is taken for granted in Cape Breton and throughout Nova Scotia and the maritimes in general that not one man will be thrown out of employment until alternative work is found for him by the new corporation. We cannot emphasize this enough. I am sure that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, our cabinet representative from Nova Scotia, fully agrees with this viewpoint, e (4:50 p.m.)
With regard to future relations between the corporation and the operators of the mines -here I am thinking of the workers-I can see nothing but success provided the workers are dealt with fairly. There have been good industrial relations in the coal mines for many years. There have been problems, of course, because the men have had very difficult situations to face. They have been confronted with trials and tribulations over the years. However, there has been co-operation with the supervisory staff at the Dosco mines, who after all have to deal with nine different unions, and considerable success has been achieved through union co-operation.
This co-operation has been brought about through the establishment of modern techniques in industrial relations as well as by the fact that the personnel concerned, both those in a supervisory capacity and the members of the unions, have done their jobs and done them well. They are interested in the coal mining industry and in its future.
I understand that production at Dosco at the moment is in the vicinity of 2.5 to 2.9 tons per man. I am open to correction on that; I am not sure of the figure.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is 2.6.


Robert Muir: I thank the minister. Under the national coal board in Britain I am informed that production is 1.5 tons per man. I should think that when the mines in Nova Scotia are taken over by the corporation and modernized, production will perhaps increase to 3.5 tons per man-day. If this is the case it will be better for everyone concerned-the men at the coal face in whatever capacity they are employed, the men in the supervisory positions and the corporation itself. Let us hope, Mr. Speaker, that this will come about as a result of the operations of this corporation in co-operation with all those involved in the extraction of coal from far beneath the surface.
The only other thing I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, is that we will be watching this legislation as we go through the bill clause by
June 19, 1967

clause. I trust that the minister will be in a position to give us all the answers we are seeking with regard to the terms of the bill.
Before I resume my seat may I say I regret that there has been no arrangement made for those workers engaged in the production of steel. As I said on Thursday last, although this is not a policy of mine I see no other alternative at the moment, in view of the sad and serious situation in which the steel industry in the province of Nova Scotia finds itself, to putting the industry under the same sort of control as that to be exercised over the coal mines. As I say, I find it regrettable that the government has not seen fit to do something to remedy the situation. I hope that the minister from Nova Scotia, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will have something to say about this question in a few days. I do not care whether he makes his announcement from the top of this building, in the chamber, out on the street or to the press; we will not resent it. I am sure that the hon. member for Cape Breton South and I will applaud the minister if he announces that the government has decided to stockpile steel so as to tide over the work force in the steel plant at Sydney during this difficult and trying period.
In other parts of Canada steel plants are operating at 100 per cent capacity; yet in Sydney, Nova Scotia, the workers are faced with lay-offs week after week. As the delegation that came from Sydney representing all segments of society on the island intimated to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to the other cabinet representatives at their meeting the other day, something must be done. Men with 20 to 25 years service in the steel plant at Sydney are being laid off and they do not know when they will return to work. These men do not know when they will receive their next pay cheque.
At that meeting a somewhat unusual suggestion was made, but in unusual circumstances we sometimes have to do unusual things. It was suggested that perhaps the government might consider purchasing soft steel from Dosco and stockpiling it, thus keeping the plant operating for a period of two to three months. I hope that something will be done about this suggestion or that some statement will be made about it. I observe a look of relief on the face of the minister of mines. He is saying to himself "I have enough problems without having to answer for the steel plant at the present time". But with his assistance perhaps the Minister of National
1669
Cape Breton Development Corporation Health and Welfare and other cabinet ministers will be reminded that something must be done about this most tragic situation at the Sydney steel plant. If lay-offs continue at this rate, in view of what is being forecast and predicted close to 1,100 men will have been laid off over a period of six months. This is a very bad situation. Steel is the basic industry in the city of Sydney.
I wish the minister well in the passage of his legislation. I also wish him well in his future dealings with the corporation. Although he and I have not seen eye to eye on many occasions, I have always found him to be most co-operative and congenial. Certainly the pattern he has set as minister could be adopted by others who sit on the treasury benches who are always so loaded with sarcasm. When you ask them something, Mr. Speaker, they cannot even look at themselves. If only they knew that this was the most difficult way to get co-operation from the opposition under our form of government. A cabinet minister should be co-operative and try to smile and work with members of the opposition, even though inwardly he may be saying to himself "I hate that son-of-a-gun".


Jean-Luc Pepin: I never would even think of that.


Robert Muir: The minister is a smart cabinet minister. He is getting something done by providing answers and co-operating, by doing everything he can. But several of the ministers on that side of the house are only too ready to look down their noses and give nasty, sarcastic replies to members on this side who in all sincerity are trying to assist their constituents or are dealing with something of nation-wide importance. With those few words of, shall I say, advice to the minister, though I do not think he requires any advice so far as cooperation is concerned, I will resume my seat. I reserve my opportunity to say a few words later when we deal with the clauses of the bill.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow my hon. friend the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), and compliment the minister most highly, but I will only do so on one condition. It is one I put forward when the resolution was before the house, namely, that the bill be enlarged and widened
1670	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation to include the Dosco-owned mine in my constituency. The minister said he could not answer some of the questions during the resolution stage but I certainly hope he will do so in the committee stage, perhaps on clause 1. Again I submit to him that the McBean mine in my constituency owned by Dosco should be included under this legislation. If I may put it this way, the adoption papers have been drawn up but the orphan, as it were, has not been included. I should like to know what the situation is so far as the natural parent, Dosco, is concerned. What is the situation in this regard?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
This afternoon I received a telegram, as presumably the minister and others did, from the president of the New Glasgow and district labour council. Perhaps I should read it for the record. It is addressed to me and states:
The New Glasgow and District Labor Council support you and other M.P.'s in your arguments for the inclusion of the McBean mine in the legislation establishing the Dosco controlled mines as a crown corporation. It is our contention that Thorburn colliery should not be phased out until such time as permanent alternative employment can be found for the McBain working force.
It is signed by Donald R. Murphy, president of the New Glasgow and district labour council. This outlines the suggestion I put forward during the resolution stage, that there should be no phasing out of this mine until one of two things or a combination of both have been done, namely, the establishment of a new mine in the area and/or a guarantee of alternative employment for the some 400 men employed at the McBean mine.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) was quite fair when he spoke on this matter, but I cannot agree with certain things he said. He is reported at the bottom of page 1579 of Hansard as having said:
We are gratified, that among all the areas of Nova Soctia, in recent years Pictou county has made marked industrial progress.
I agree with that statement. The minister then went on to say:
It has made marked industrial progress because of the operation of Industrial Estates and because of the funds channelled into Pictou County from the Atlantic Development Board. As my hon. friend will realize, these were very large amounts indeed.
Let me point out that the largest expenditure in Pictou Country by the Atlantic Development Board was $12 million to assist the Nova Scotia power commission in setting up a new thermal power plant at Trenton,
[Mr. MacEwan.l
DEBATES	June 19, 1967
which will increase its capacity to 150,000 kilowatts. I believe it will be the largest coalburning thermal power plant east of Montreal.
I cannot understand why this legislation does not make reference to the future of the McBean mine in view of the fact that $12 million is being spent by the Atlantic Development Board on a power plant actually located in the backyard of this coal mine. The mine is now producing coal for the plant at Trenton, and, as I pointed out at the resolution stage, the new plant will require approximately 400,000 tons of coal per year. The only thing that can be done as an alternative is the establishment of a new mine in the area, which would look after some of the slack and provide alternative employment.
I posed some questions to the minister regarding the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Nova Scotia. I hope he will answer those questions. I take it he will not amend this bill in order to include the Dosco-owned McBean mine, but I implore him to do so at this time. Perhaps the minister will also answer the questions I asked regarding the equipment which has or will be purchased by the Dominion Coal Board for use at Dosco mines and whether any of this equipment will be allocated to the McBean mine. I understand that to keep this mine in operation until all the coal can be exploited some of this equipment is required immediately. Will some of this equipment to be leased by the Dominion Coal Board be used by Dosco at the McBean mine?
I hope the minister will answer the questions I asked regarding the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia. The importance of independent mines in Cape Breton has been pointed out. These independent mines will now become the entire responsibility of the Nova Scotia government. It has been announced that subventions are to be eliminated in respect of certain mines, and I should like to know what the situation will be regarding the McBean mine. Will subventions continue to be paid for coal going into areas beyond the Atlantic region and will the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act continue to be enforced?
All these things should be cleared up as well as the points raised by my colleagues. Certainly clause 18 regarding pension arrangements should include the McBean mine. I do not have the statistics with me, but a
June 19, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1671
breakdown was made not long ago of the ages of the employees working in this mine. It could very well be that some of them could come within the terms of clause 18 and be provided with adequate pensions. I do not know whether that is a fact but along with my two colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, I will be listening to what the minister has to say about clause 18.
The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) referred to compensation. All I can say in this regard is that whether or not an agreement is reached between the corporation and Dosco, or whether arbitration or expropriation takes place, something should be done without delay. We do not know whether an agreement is imminent but we have read in the newspapers that a committee was set up by Dosco to meet with the minister and various officials of the federal government. In any event, let us not waste any time. We should go ahead either by agreement, arbitration or expropriation at an early date.
I do not have anything more to say except to ask the minister again to widen the bill in order to give an assurance to the people in the mines, the officials, the clerical force, those on the surface and at the wash plant at Stellarton that when the resources of this mine have been fully exploited a new mine will be opened or alternative employment opportunities guaranteed. There is still time for the minister to amend the bill before we go into committee. I do not intend to say anything more but I will have more to say in this regard when we reach the committee stage.
I support my two colleagues and the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is also from Cape Breton. I believe that my area should also be included in this legislation. This whole matter has been of crucial interest to me throughout the years. I was associated with independent mines in the town of Westville. I was able to work there during summer vacations to help pay for my education. My father managed the mine in the town of Springhill where a great explosion occurred. Among the people who were killed were some of my school chums. Because of this I am familiar with the Dosco and independent mining operations. I again ask the minister to amend the bill and answer the various questions which have been put to him. In the committee stage we will exercise our right to deal with this very important bill clause by clause.
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is the hope of hon. members that the minister will reply to the questions asked. That is why I made my remarks as brief as possible. I associate myself with what has been said by other hon. members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Chair correct in assuming that the hon. member has already spoken on second reading of this bill?


Malcolm MacInnis: That is right, Mr. Speaker. In order to get some continuity I just wanted to ask the minister to give some indication of how he intends to answer the questions posed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I think I should first try to answer some of the rather general questions asked. Perhaps I could leave the more specific questions for the clause by clause study of the bill. The hon. member for York South has already remedied some of the rather disagreeable things that were said the other night on the subject of subventions. If I referred so extensively to subventions, call them what you will, the $200 million spent in the past, the $31 million spent last-year and the $27 million that could be spent next year, there was certainly no attempt on my part to shame the miners. I was simply trying to underline the fact that all this money could be used to better avail. I was trying to convince my colleagues of the necessity to move as fast as we can in broadening the economic base of Cape Breton.
I point this out, Mr. Chairman, because the other night I had the feeling that I was being pushed on the side of the big power corporations in this country. The hon. member for Longueuil is the son of a mailman, the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond is the son of a miner, and I am the son of a railroad man. I do not have the feeling of representing the big corporations of this country. This was rather implied in the debate and I did not particularly like it.
The second point with which I should like to deal concerns the inclusion of steel in the
1672	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation present legislation. Several hon. members have raised the point that we should add steel to coal under this legislation. Neither I nor the Liberal party are opposed to nationalization in principle or practice, because that is exactly what we are now doing. But I think one must not abuse nationalization. I believe this is the way the majority of the population feels. If we were to take over Cape Breton steel production today there are many other fields of mining in Canada, gold mines, for example, that might claim a similar advantage. Other areas of the Canadian economy which are subsidized might request similar treatment. As a general theory I believe that nationalization should be brought about very sparingly indeed.
My own opposition to the proposal that steel be included in the legislation is certainly not a theoretical one. I simply feel that this development corporation will be busy enough dealing with the subject of coal that it should not also become involved in steel. But of course everybody recognizes that indirectly the development corporation will contribute by its success in the industrial development field to the improvement of the economic situation in the island, and consequently indirectly to the situation in the steel industry. If I believe the newspapers, this is the way the premier of Nova Scotia feels; if I can believe my own ears, this is also the way the coal miners of Cape Breton feel, namely, that this corporation should be directly involved in their operations even if indirectly it can have an influence upon the whole of the economic situation in Cape Breton.
My third main point concerns the phasing in, phasing out question. The hon. member for York South seemed to be saying that there is nothing in the bill on that subject though he realizes it was in the Prime Minister's declaration of December last. I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member quoting at length from clause 17 and not mentioning the end of clause 17 (1). This clause deals with the plan. It is said very specifically at the end of clause 17 (1) that the plan shall take into account progress in providing employment outside the coal producing industry and in broadening the base of the economy of Cape Breton Island. I think the relationship between the phasing in of industry and the phasing out of coal mining is very clearly stated in that clause. You find the same idea in the preamble to the bill at the bottom of page 1:
-and the progressive withdrawal oi the corporation from such production in accordance with a

DEBATES	June 19- 1967
plan that takes into account progress in providing employment outside the coal producing industry and in broadening the base of the island's economy;
It seems to me that this relation is quite clearly indicated in the legislation. It certainly corresponds with previous commitments by the government and with what I and other ministers have in mind. So there is a relationship between phasing in and phasing out. It is a relationship only There is no doubt, in view of what the hon. member for Cape Breton South has been telling us, with which I entirely agree that it is very difficult or even impossible to phase out one mine because it becomes totally unproductive. So the phasing in, phasing out program will be in blocks of people. That is the way I see it.
With regard to the argument put forward by the hon. member for York South, it might not be possible to make sure that "no coal miner will lose one day's work." I think he was overenthusiastic and perhaps he was overdoing it when he said that, because it is quite possible that some miners will lose a few days work in the process. The important point is that they should not be hurt in the process. That can be taken care of by other methods, and I am quite sure my hon. friend would agree with me on that.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Medicine Hat, in a moment of distraction I am sure, asked me to mention specifically what the timetable for phasing out would be. Of course it is impossible to do that, and I am quite sure the hon. member for York South has agreed with me in one of his first interventions in this debate. As I have indicated before, we have certain objectives. In principle, this is a 15-year operation. We want to come down to a level of production of two million tons as soon as possible and we will ask the corporation to provide us with a plan. The rest, of course, will depend on circumstances. Unless one can see into the future, one must realize that these circumstances may either be more or less favourable than what we expect. As an optimist I think they will be more favourable than the committee may think today.
It has been said by newspapermen that I do not seem to be too enthusiastic about this legislation. On the contrary, I am extremely enthusiastic, but in view of the recent developments which have occurred in the steel industry and in view of my inbred realism with regard to the situation, I cannot boast that the passage of the present legislation marks the beginning of a very rosy future. I
June 19. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1673
am not sure enough of that, but my information and instinct tell me that this is the right course to take and that there is a future for Cape Breton. There are some indications pointing that way. However, I cannot anticipate the future. Two years from now there may be five new major industries in Cape Breton. I do not know. But if there are five new industries we will be able to phase out coal more rapidly than if there are only two new industries. So it is impossible to be more specific about the rhythm of the phasing in and phasing out.
On the subject of compensation to Dosco, again I was rather surprised that the hon. member for Medicine Hat apparently ignored clause 12 of the bill now before us. Clause 12 (1) (a) specifically defines what should be taken into consideration when establishing the amount of compensation. It reads:
(a) it shall be assumed that all subsidies, subventions and other financial assistance provided under the authority of the Parliament of Canada directly or indirectly.. .were terminated on June 15, 1967...
So the company cannot say "we are used to receiving subsidies from you and this is part of the assets of the company" or "subventions are a moral commitment on the part of the government which should be taken into consideration". We do not want this to happen so we exclude this specifically from the criteria to be used in establishing compensation. Another point is that the $2 million worth of machinery or equipment which has been leased to the company by the Dominion Coal Board should not be taken into account. On page 7 of the bill it is also stated very clearly:
...the outstanding balance of principal moneys, together with accrued interest thereon, owing to Her Majesty pursuant to an agreement...
In other words, the money owed by Dosco on the federal government loan should be taken into consideration in establishing the compensation. So it seems to me that this could have been an answer to the hon. member for Medicine Hat.
On the subject of pensions, the hon. member for York South seemed to say that nothing will be done for the former employees of the companies. He must have been tired this morning after the week end, when he read the bill.


David Lewis: I did not say that. I said there was nothing to guarantee that the pension arrangements for the former employees will at least be equal to the pension arrangements for present and future employees. I did not say the government has not done anything for
Cape Breton Development Corporation them. Obviously clause 18(a)(ii) provides that they are to have a pension.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I take back what I said about the hon. member being tired this morning. I was barking up the wrong tree. Nevertheless clause 18(a)(ii) provides that arrangements will be made for persons "formerly employed by the companies in connection with the coal mining and related works." So they are covered as well as the present and future employees of the corporation. I agree there is no indication of the level at which they will be covered, but one has to use one's own good judgment and I dare say the corporation would not be less generous to past and future pensioners than it will be for present pensioners. Since I hear no reaction from anyone, I would think this is acceptable.


David Lewis: The minister must not assume that at all. I will make a suggestion to him when we reach that clause.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I could not live another five minutes without answering the hon. member for Pictou concerning the future of the McBean mine. I confess immediately that no final decision has been taken with regard to it. However, I should like to make a few comments.
The first point is that the mine is not located in the Sydney coal field defined by the present bill. It is not in an area described as "an area of national concern". Pictou county apparently is not by far in as bad shape as is Cape Breton or the Sydney-Glace Bay area in particular.
I am sure my hon. friend would agree with me that there would be a danger of establishing a dangerous precedent if the McBean mine were covered under this legislation because other mines in Canada as well as other mines in Nova Scotia have been, are being, or will be closed. It should be evident to everyone there is a danger that in similar situations people might be knocking at our door asking us to help them close their mines. May I repeat that the aim of this legislation is not to close mining operations in Canada but to protect communities which are in danger as a result of a rather general downward economic movement. So I think my hon. friend, who knows his area is developing economically, would not want to say that the McBean mine is in exactly the same position as are the other mines in eastern Cape Breton.
June 19. 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation
The second factor to bear in mind is that McBean has nearly exhausted its coal reserves. The company informs us that the mine will have to closed by December, 1968. It will have to be closed at that time if it is not closed soon and, as we have been reminded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, one cannot phase out a single mine, it has to be done in one step. This is a very important fact. The mine has only a year and a half to two years of life, economically speaking.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
My third point, which I think is a very important one too, is that we have made an offer to the company to continue the subventions at the present level. The company implies that this is equivalent to asking them to close the mine because they cannot live on the present level of subsidy. They need an extra $3 a ton to keep it going. To keep the mine going for another year and a half or two years then means that we must spend $1.5 million, $2 million or $2.5 million, and I submit in all honesty that there might be better ways of using this money than simply to prolong the life of the mine. We must bear in mind that the operation must be performed in a year or two. The operation must be performed sooner or later. It is traumatic, sad -you can use any word you care to use- but it must be performed. We have no choice. It is not a matter of should we or should we not bring this mine to a close; it must be closed for lack of reserves.
As the hon. member for Pictou mentioned, a private operator may wish to take over the mine and continue operating it for a certain time. Even if the corporation does not take over the McBean mine-and I shall come back to this later-clause 16(d), in particular, gives the corporation authority to help. I shall do my very best to help in this process and I assure the hon. member for Pictou that I do not intend simply to look at the matter and let it slide by. If the closing of the mine is decided on now, or in three months or five months-I do not know exactly when it will be-we shall bring in all possible federal and provincial support to soften the blow. Perhaps the $2 million that will be saved might go toward helping the McBean mine. On the other hand, if we are to spend $2 million and then perform the operation I have spoken of in one and a half or two years, my case will be much weaker for wishing to do something special for the McBean mine. Again, we shall do everything to help that we can legally.

With respect to the distribution of the $2 million worth of equipment purchased by the Dominion Coal Board, as I have already written to my hon. friend, the decision is left to the company. I am told that in the McBean mine geogological irregularities have restricted the application of mechanical operating methods. There is no automatic coal cutting at McBean, and the equipment is mainly of that sort.
With respect to the hon. member's reference to Trenton, when he said that the power station was using McBean coal and that it would go on needing that coal he was quite correct. Trenton will need coal even after 1968 when the mine will be closed. I can understand his plea, but the fact that Trenton will sooner or later have to develop new sources of coal should also be borne in mind.
With respect to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, as has been said, the authority for the power subsidy continues to November, 1969, and we have no intention at the moment of bringing it to a premature end. I am not in a position to say what will happen to that legislation in the future.
I have tried in my remarks to bear in mind the words of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, and I hope I have smiled enough during my presentation for hon. members, who have been so willing up to now to expedite the passage of this bill through the normal processes, to continue in that spirit.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I would request the minister to consider some questions which have been posed to him. Some of his answers have been repetitious. Nevertheless I wish to ask some questions again.
During his remarks he referred to the matter of compensation to the company and said that as of June 15 the subvention payments to the company would be taken into consideration in arriving at compensation. I am afraid I do not have the exact language of the bill nor can I put my finger on the exact clause, but I recall that the bill uses the word "prior". Am I to take it that the subventions which have been paid since the policy was originated will be considered? Will this mean that the company will be taken over without consideration being given to its value of $53 million or $55 million? I have found the clause now. Clause 12 (1) (a) reads:
(a) it shall be assumed that all subsidies, subventions and other financial assistance provided under the authority of the Parliament of Canada directly
June 19, 1967	COMMONS
or indirectly to or for the benefit of the companies or for which under such authority the companies were eligible prior to the day the property was so acquired, were terminated on June 15, 1967...


David Lewis: The operative words are "eligible prior".


Jean-Luc Pepin: That simply means that in order to assess the compensation level the corporation shall act as if the subsidies had ended June 15. That is to exclude the idea, principle and reality of subventions as having any value for the corporation in the assessment of the compensation level.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
subclause reads:
(a) it shall be assumed that all subsidies, subventions and other financial assistance provided under the authority of the Parliament of Canada directly or indirectly-
Does this mean that in arriving at the compensation level the subvention payments which have been made to the company will be deducted from the purchase price?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. You cannot erase the past.


Malcolm MacInnis: I wish to touch on a couple of other matters that the minister mentioned. On these the hon. member for Pictou is better qualified to speak than I am, though I have an interest in them because they involve a union of which I was a member for many years. The minister intimated that the agreement with the McBean mine has not been finalized. Does the minister realize that in this legislation the matter can be finalized? The hon. member for Pictou of course, will deal with this more fully on the appropriate clause.
The minister referred to the development corporation and to five possible new industries to be established. Considering that this legislation was drawn up to co-ordinate development and to phase out the coal industry, will the minister give an assurance that the miners will have available to them other jobs under the industrial development program? o (5:40 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member mind repeating his question? I did not understand it clearly.


Malcolm MacInnis: I asked the minister whether he is prepared to write into the legislation an assurance that jobs provided as a result of the activities of the development corporation under the second part of the legislation will go first of all to miners who have been displaced.
DEBATES	1675
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think I should make that promise. The first intention of the bill is to rehabilitate the collieries and operate the mines. The second is to broaden the economic base in Cape Breton. It may be that the industries which will settle there are not suited to persons who have spent 20 or 25 years in the mines. We do not want to be committed to the sort of undertaking the hon. member seeks and I do not think it would be rational to give such an undertaking. But there is no doubt that the miners will be given first choice, and if miners of a certain age cannot rehabilitate themselves the pension plan will be provided. I do not think it would be realistic to proceed on a one for one basis-one miner out, one miner in industry. I do not think that is the way in which economic development can be carried out.


David Lewis: I rise to make only two points. The minister in his answers to comments drew the attention of the committee, and my attention in particular, to the last lines of clause 17(1) which provide that plans being prepared by the corporation have to take into account progress in providing employment outside the coal producing industry, and so on. I have those words underlined; I knew they were there. But with great respect to the minister, they are irrelevant to the point I made. Indeed, they are irrelevant in terms of the statement the minister himself made some minutes ago.
The minister said, if I understood him correctly, that it was impossible for him to foretell the rhythm of the phasing in or the phasing out. He pointed to the fact that if there were only two new major industries there would be much greater difficulty than if there were five. That is my point precisely. Clause 17(1) deals with the over-all plan which the corporation has to prepare within not more than a year. I suggest that it is impossible for the corporation, just as it is impossible for the minister, to foretell the precise rhythm of development and be able to take into account progress in providing alternative employment in the future in a way which will guarantee that the two operations mesh properly. This is why I did not refer to those words in 17(1). I do not think they have any bearing on the question.
What concerns me is that clause 17(4)(b) assumes there will be unemployment and economic hardship as a result of the work of the corporation in the coal mining area. I do not think this legislation should contain such an assumption. It will be bad enough if we do
June 19, 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation not assume it in the legislation. Let us not give the corporation the green light to take action which might result in such consequences. Some unemployment may be inevitable, as the minister has pointed out. If a decision is taken to close down a mine which employs 500 people or 1,000 people, there may well be some for whom alternative jobs cannot be obtained. But that is not what the clause says.
I may have something else to say about this clause when we get to it. I merely wish to say respectfully to the minister at this point, that I was not unaware of the words in subclause (1) of clause 17, and I suggest to him that those words do not attach to the subject which concerns me at all.
We on this side of the house have drawn attention to the difficulties in the steel industry and to the urgent need to take this situation into account in the legislation before us. The minister threw up his hands almost and said-I am paraphrasing his words-that he would have felt a great deal more hopeful about the situation, indeed, he would have been ready to use superlative adjectives about it, were it not for very recent experiences. One of the recent experiences to which he referred was the number of lay-offs in the steel plant at Sydney. These lay-offs have been going on progressively throughout the last couple of months with the result that 1,100 or 1,200 steel workers are unemployed and walking the streets of Sydney as of now.
What is the minister playing with? In answer to the hon. member for Pictou who was concerned about the McBean mine the hon. gentleman very characteristically-I hope he will not think I am unkind in choosing that word-said the situation in Pictou was not quite as bad as it is in Cape Breton and therefore was not of such national concern. How bad is bad, Mr. Chairman? Does an industry have to lie flat on its back before the government and the minister will take an initiative to foresee the future and do something about it?
What are these comparisons of degrees of badness? The steel industry of Cape Breton is in bad shape now. Not only is it in bad shape, but it is perfectly obvious from reading the reports that there is a deliberate company policy at least to reduce the operation of the steel plant at Sydney and, I personally suspect, to do away with it altogether in the years to come by moving basic steel production to the Contrecoeur complex now under construction. From the point of view of Dosco there may well be good economic and finan-
cial reasons for doing so, but from the point of view of the city of Sydney and the people of Cape Breton island what is taking place there is almost as disastrous as what has been taking place in the coal industry. There is an important exception. While in the coal industry there are factors which the government cannot correct-the price of coal, the quality of the coal in certain of the seams and so on-in the steel industry these considerations do not apply. I venture to say to the minister and to the government, without much fear of contradiction, that a properly organized and diversified steel plant at Sydney could be made economically feasible if there are people who want to put in the necessary capital and produce the kind of steel products which can be used in the Atlantic provinces and in export particularly to the newer nations of the world.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I, and I am sure other members of the committee, want to know what principles there are which prevent the government from adding a provision to this legislation giving the corporation or a division of the corporation or another corporation-I do not care which-the authority to take over the Dosco steel plant or to buy out a part of it-again I do not care which-as other democratic governments have done in similar situations. Possibly the government could acquire a 51 per cent interest in the plant. I do not know the capitalization arrangements of Dosco and I am not presuming to set out a price at this time. However, it should be possible to take over the plant or gain a controlling interest in it and then set out deliberately to modernize and diversify the production of steel therein. The two are directly connected, Mr. Chairman.
If the hon. member for Cape Breton South will forgive me for interpreting and taking his question one step further-he can correct me if I am wrong-I believe he had precisely this in mind when he asked a question a moment ago with regard to a guarantee that when a miner loses his job as a result of this new arrangement another job will be made available for him. The hon. member knows as well as I do, and as well as I am sure the minister does, that if new industry is created now on Cape Breton Island there are enough unemployed presently walking the streets to fill the jobs. There are now hundreds of unemployed walking the streets of Sydney and Glace Bay. It will take some years before enough industry can be established to place these unemployed people in productive work,
June 19, 1967

not to mention making jobs available for miners and other employees who may be displaced by the operations of the corporation outlined in this bill.
Unless the minister and the government are manacled by doctrinaire prejudice about touching any private corporation except if such corporation is completely incapable of making any progress, when, if not now, should the government act on behalf of the steel plant at Sydney which is half, if not wholly, on its back? Based on the facts as they have unfurled in the past year or so, I urge the government to reconsider its position respecting the Sydney plant and indeed other steel operations in Nova Scotia. The steel industry ought to be included in this legislation.
While I am on my feet I want to say on behalf of my colleagues and myself that the hon. member for Pictou is entirely justified in insisting that the mine in his riding, Acadia Coal, a mine owned by a Dosco subsidiary, should also be brought within the terms of this legislation. What is this fear that members of the government have? Why is there this hesitation about doing a whole job, whether in the area of coal or in the area of including steel in this legislation? I appreciate that to deal with the steel plant in Sydney would be a different kind of proposition. It will undoubtedly deserve compensation that may run into many tens of millions of dollars because of equipment and facilities which are there. This is a problem the answer to which will have to be found. The company could either be bought for cash or securities could be given to the shareholders, whatever method may be found to be wisest.
The steel plant is still to some extent a going concern, but just because there may be greater complications in acquiring it is no reason for the government to sit back and let the situation go from bad to worse in the days ahead, which would present the danger of nullifying the positive steps outlined in this legislation. The progressive reduction in operations by the steel plant, in turn creating unemployment, will add to the problems with which the development section of the new corporation will have to deal.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the explanation given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the McBean mine, but I cannot agree with him. If the minister does not know this I will tell him now that the area of Pictou has for many years existed almost entirely on coal mining. Through provincial and federal efforts the
Cape Breton Development Corporation area is now coming alive and we can see the light. The minister has said that no decision has been made on the McBean mine which employs 400 men who could be thrown out of work in short order. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that the company believes additional subventions should be paid in order to keep the mine running until 1968. He said the amount required would be about $2 million. This is money which could be well spent if the government does not amend this bill to cover that mine. But I believe the legislation should be amended to include it.
Clause 17(4) states:
Before closing or substantially reducing the production of coal from any coal mine operated by it, the corporation shall ensure that
(a)	such closing or substantial reduction in production is in accordance with and at a time provided for in the over-all plan or any modification thereof-
And more importantly:
(b)	all 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.
If the bill is not to be amended, then whether it costs $2 million or more I believe this mine should be carried on long enough to ensure, so far as its 400 employees are concerned, that someone else will take it over and run it, a new mine will be developed to employ part of the work force, or guarantees of other employment will be given. If this mine came under this legislation it would fall into the over-all plan for the various mines in Cape Breton. God bless them. I hope this legislation will be the salvation of the workers of that area.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
This mine in my constituency should not be phased out within a matter of months. The men should be given the opportunity of employment in another mine or guaranteed alternative employment. The mine should be carried on for more than a few months. It should be carried on at least to the end of 1968. I cannot agree with the minister in this regard and I had to put these remarks on the record. We have seen the light in Pictou county. If this mine is closed at an early date I am afraid we will be dragged back a long way economically.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock and in order for the house to proceed to the consideration of private members' business I do now leave the chair.
June 19, 1967

Provision jor Administrative Assistants PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION



SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

["Ten o'clock.\nProgress reported."]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows:	The hon. member for Winnipeg
North Mr. Orlikow, Sports-hockey, combines legislation; the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), Birth Control-inquiry as to amendment of the Criminal Code; the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston), Trade- reported lack of department personnel speaking Japanese.
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, notices of motions.



Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland (Mrs. Rideout):
That the order for second reading of Bill C-115, an act to amend the Criminal Code (destruction of criminal records), being Order 104 under the heading "Public Bills", on today's order paper be discharged, and that the subject matter of the said bill be referred to he standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
All house leaders have been consulted on this matter, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of providing members of parliament with administrative assistants to aid members in carrying out their responsibilities effectively through helping in such areas of activity as research and communications with officials.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this centennial year is certainly a time for assessment, for taking
[The Chairman.]
stock of the effectiveness of our national institutions, for examining them in the light of possible need for changes and improvements to help these institutions work better in the interests of our country as we move into our second century.
While there are many differences of opinion as to the areas in which change is needed and the exact nature of changes that may be dictated by circumstances, there certainly appears to be a consensus about one extremely vital area-the need for reform and improvement of parliament. This consensus appears to exist both in parliament itself and, I think, on the part of the majority of the Canadian people.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is your evidence for that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The federal government is a vast apparatus with some 300,000 employees, if we include the crown corporations, handling in this coming fiscal year a budget of close to $11 billion.
I think the public expects its elected representatives to be in a position to oversee effectively the working of this apparatus, to be aware of the directions it is taking, to decide what these directions should be in the future and to make sure this apparatus is operating fairly and reasonably in its day to day contact with the citizens of our country. In other words, the public expects that its elected representatives will be able to have something to say in a meaningful way about the policies of the government, what they should be and how they are being carried out.
I think it is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the range and complexity of government today are such that we have reached the point when the members of this house must have their own staff to help them carry out their responsibilities to the Canadian public and the most effective way possible. The responsibilities of the members of this house obviously cover a very wide field, including helping to evolve new policies and legislation and considering the modification of existing policies and legislation to meet changing conditions. All this means, of course, keeping in touch with and being aware of the day to day operations of the departments of government.
Linked up with all this is ensuring that this vast government apparatus deals fairly and reasonably with individual citizens and areas of our country in its contacts with these citizens and areas. This in turn means working to solve the problems faced by individual
June 19, 1967

citizens and areas of this country in their
contacts with the national government and its various departments.
Under today's conditions, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a member who wants to do all of these things needs to have a staff working directly with him and directly responsible to him. In this way he can keep in touch with government officials, will be able to follow up actively correspondence and requests, and will be given the help he requires in gathering information and carrying out research in order to prepare himself in the most effective way possible for good and meaningful work both in this house and in its committee.
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, when a member is in the house or in a committee he cannot at the same time be talking to officials about particular aspects of policy concerning his riding or the country at large, or be discussing with officials particular problems of concern either to his riding or to the country at large. He certainly cannot be in contact with members of the public or with particular interest groups who wish to express to him personally their views on matters of concern both to them and to the government when at the same time he is obliged to spend time in this house or in committees or in attempting to keep in contact in some way or other with ministers or officials of the government.
A new research branch has been set up in the library of the house and I think it is off to a good start. Generally speaking it has been doing a good job. But no matter how much this branch may be expanded it has by its very nature, certain inherent limitations. For example, in the United States Congress they have evolved a legislative reference service as part of the library of congress which is far beyond anything that we have yet contemplated in this House of Commons with respect to our own research branch. At the same time, even with this extensively developed legislative reference service, members of congress and senators have their own personal staffs of administrative assistants.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Even with a research branch in parliament, members need help from persons who are directly responsible to them and who can help them focus their attention on particular matters that they wish to deal with either in the house or in the standing committees of the house. Certain work cannot be done effectively by a research branch, such as gathering information through interviewing directly
Provision for Administrative Assistants members of the public or officials of the government. This limitation would also include the gathering of information of a type closely related to the particular political views or policy aims of the member concerned. Also the research branch of the house is not in a position to provide immediate back-up information for members working in the house or in a standing committee who need on the spur of the moment a document or a particular fact to help them put forward in a meaningful way a particular point or argument or to bring out some particular point of view.
I hope it will be possible for this motion to be referred to the special committee on procedure so the details of the scheme contemplated by the motion can be carried out in a way that really is not possible here, not only because the time available for private members' business is limited but because of the particular configuration and approach of the House of Commons itself.
My motion merely attempts to point up the problem and sets out what I consider the necessary way of dealing with it. The details of the scheme, I suggest, can best we worked out by a standing or special committee of the house which could go into all the particular aspects concerned. However, I can say generally that my own view is that it should be left to the individual member himself to decide just exactly what the background and training should be of a potential administrative assistant. Certainly the background of a person who might be hired in this capacity should not be limited to a particular field. There is room for lawyers and people trained in political science, but there is also room for people trained in business management, people from the labour movement and people with backgrounds in economics, sociology and many other fields. Of course the working conditions, pay and so on would have to be sufficiently attractive to retain people of high calibre who would be hired as part of any scheme to provide administrative assistance to members of this house. These would be people who would be willing to make a career in this field, similar to those found in other legislative bodies such as the United States congress.
Of course, another key reason why the member should decide whom he wants to work with him as his assistant is that the member himself knows the kind of individual he wants, one who should share similar policy aims and views in respect of the particular
June 19, 1967
1680	COMMONS
Provision for Administrative Assistants things that should be carried out by parliament and the government.
Again let me say that while the details of the scheme should be left to the committee I think we have reached the stage when it is time for each member to have one or more administrative assistants to assist in various areas. In the initial stages I agree that it may be in order for several members to group together and share an assistant. In this way we could see how the scheme would work out and what further changes might be required. This would certainly increase the real effectiveness of members of this house who would have something more to say about government and be able to influence its direction.
Members of parliament need assistants working directly with and responsible to them. These should be people outside the regular government apparatus to help members keep aware of what is going on and to inform themselves and the public about the details of the operation of the system. We need ways of checking and testing government. These come from knowledge and information.
It has been said that we require improvement and reform of the procedures of this house and that a lot of its work could be done by standing committees. I support this idea very strongly, but a study in committee by members means little if the members themselves are not able to be fully briefed on particular questions beforehand, and of course this calls for the type of proposal included in my notice of motion.
It seems to me that the House of Commons, while certainly a key part of parliament in its broadest sense, is really only a part. Some people still seem to think that all the work of parliament is done in this chamber. That may have been the case at one time but certainy today, with the complexity of government to which I have alluded, the House of Commons as such is useful as a platform from which party leaders and members can speak to the nation and place their views on record, and it is useful for making broad formal decisions. But I suggest it is not really suited for carrying out on a day to day basis the real work of overseeing and directing the operations of modern government. This house may give that appearance, but certainly it is not really suited to carrying out and achieving meaningful legislative oversight.
It is in the public interest for the elected representatives of the Canadian people to


have the facilities to carry out the work expected of them by the people who elect them. Let us not confuse appearance with reality. We may be coming to the stage when we may seem to be giving the appearance of supervising and directing the work of the government, but in reality this is not what we are achieving. Certainly we do not want to reach the stage where we appear to be going through the motions but are not really supervising the workings of government.
The lack of staff obviously limits the degree of supervision possible by members of parliament over the government apparatus. They are sent to exercise a degree of legislative oversight by the Canadian people. The public expects us to perform this task. They are surprised when they find out that we do not have the facilities enabling us to carry out the responsibilities they feel should be carried out in their behalf.
I think I should conclude by using the words I used when I had the opportunity to say something several days ago during the course of the debate on another resolution, which was sent to the standing committee on procedure, in respect of the creation of a system of internes to help train people to know more about our system of government. At that time I said:
Though it may not seem to affect the public as directly as some of the other matters we deal with-economic development and social welfare measures, for example-in the long run it may well turn out to be as important as any of these things if we are to make sure that long after this centennial year is over we shall continue to have a government which is really responsive to the demands and needs of the people of Canada.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this important matter. This debate is an indication that members are thinking about the whole question of greater administrative assistance to them in the discharge of their duties. We had an interesting debate on the resolution of the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) and one sees upcoming on the order paper an equally interesting suggestion by the hon. member for Moose Mountain (Mr. Southam). Indeed, it might have been an efficient discharge of this matter had all three suggestions been referred at the same time because they deal generally with the same subject in similar terms.
I do not think we have to prove to ourselves, nor should we have to state to our public, the complexity of modern legislation. Nor do we have to document the sheer magnitude of the legislative output of modern
June 19, 1967	COMMONS
parliament. Indeed there are some people who think that parliament is becoming too much of a legislative mill, that too much legislation is being processed, and there Eire those observers who sometimes suggest that federal parties are getting into office by making legislative promises which belong in the provincial realm. There is at least reason to look at this contention.
We know too that each and every member is burdened by the compulsive routine of this life. One does not have to be in the House of Commons very long to accumulate a large shelf of documents and legislative outpourings which are not just those of the past but contemporaneous with his own membership in the Chamber. One can think of the statutes only and the lengthy bills, some of which have been over 100 pages.
Everyone knows the difference between legal English and good English in dealing with statutes, and it is not the easiest thing in the world in terms of ready comprehension. We know too of the vast accumulation of committee reports on our shelves. I think in particular of the reports of those committees of which we are not members. A conscientious member wishes to keep somewhat abreast of what is going on in those areas which are not of his own specialization.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
More important, as the mover of the resolution has mentioned, is the need to be prepared as well as possible for the committees of which a member is a part. Sometimes we run into a situation that seems to me to be marring the committee system. Committees dealing with vastly different subject matters are meeting not only on the same day but sometimes at the same hour. Tomorrow morning, for instance, at 9.30 I should have my mind on Viet Nam in one room and be in another room at the same time with my mind on the Prince Edward Island causeway. How I shall bridge that gap, if a pun will be pardoned, I do not really know.
Then, Mr. Speaker, who can say he has read every word of the mountains of royal commission reports which have fallen upon us not in any light way in the last number of years? How many members have read every word of the Carter royal commission report? Has everyone even completed the Gordon royal commission report on economic prospects, or even "Troubled Canada"? Have we all been able to find time to read every single sentence in the 12 volumes of the report on
DEBATES	1681
Provision for Administrative Assistants Atlantic transportation? Other most important studies have been carried out by commissions. I think of the Porter commission and the Bladen commission.
Each of us receives from the Queen's Printer important publications. These are very valuable things. We get every so often a list of books, just a few of the books that come into the parliamentary library, dealing with matters for which in general all parliamentarians have a concern. How many of us manage to read all those books, half of them or even a quarter of them? How can we?
Then there are other documents that come to our desks, reports of various departments and documents from the United Nations, of which the library in parliament is a repository. I suppose we all want to read newspapers. We must read our local newspapers because parliamentary sessions are so long that we are not home nearly as much as we would like to be. We must read the national newspapers so we will know what is going on, what we are doing and what we are supposed to be doing. We should read some international newspapers because the Canadian outlook on the world is not that of many other countries. We all want to or should want to delve into studies by specialists who are neither members of parliament nor civil servants on important matters of public policy.
There is a tremendous range of material that we all want to read and would like to read, but because of the compulsive routine of our job we find it difficult to do so. Therefore it would be most valuable if we had, to put it very simply, at least another pair of eyes and another mind which would assist us in trying to encompass some of the material which would be helpful in the discharge of our duties. This is recognized. I think this resolution deals with one of those subjects which is widely recognized as being important.
We note that in ministerial offices there is a large and continual increase in staff. Ministers have more assistants than ever before. If I could change the spelling of that word I would say that some still need more assistance. But if the executive arm of government which is involved more directly in relationship with the civil service, the bureaucracy, requires assistance, surely those of us who are solely in the legislative arm of government, who must be in a very real sense the watchdogs of the executive as well as the representatives of our people and the custodians of
June 19, 1967
1682	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision for Administrative Assistants public expenditures, cannot but assert ourselves in our desire to be as well equipped as possible in this difficult and complex job into which our people have put us. We want to be as well informed as we can so as to have less reliance upon the officialize of the executive arm, because our legislative function is diminished and diluted if we find ourselves at a loss for technical and detailed information which is available to the executive arm and not to us.
I believe we can better our performance by improving our office function. I do not join with those who maintain that parliament is a hopeless mass of ill informed and poorly motivated people. I do not at all subscribe to that point of view. But I do believe there is a vast area for improvement, and the hon. member's suggestion is one of those which should be followed. I believe that as we increased our information we would increase our effectiveness, and conceivably we could increase our posture of independence within the legislative gamut. I believe that would be all to the good. We realize that now members of the House of Commons are not part time, gentlemanly amateurs in the old British sense. We are certainly not part time when a session lasts 14 months.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Amateurs but not gentlemen, maybe.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my colleague suggests that we may be amateurs but not gentlemen. I was going to express the hope that surely we are still gentlemen, and considering that we work 14 months in a session we can no longer be called part time amateurs. Considering that it requires a certain degree of stubborn persistence to continue in the job, one discards necessarily some of the amateur aspects. In any case, I believe there is no disgrace in being a professional politician. Indeed I cannot think of any more important role than that of one who devotes his time and energy, and fortune if he has one, to the pursuit of public service.
I was very pleased that such an important body as the Canadian Federation of Agriculture expressed themselves very strongly on this matter. I thought it showed great perception on their part. It showed that they are thinking beyond their own occupational and economic group, that as a responsible organization in the over-all Canadian society they fastened their attention upon the chief political institution in the land and made practical suggestions.

I do not want to cut off anyone else from expressing his views, and I will do something I very rarely do, read something into the record. I quote a comment from a very prominent Canadian. I naturally subscribe to his suggestion. I wish to quote from Professor Paul Fox's volume, "Politics," page 277, the latest edition. He says:
Most M.P.'s have neither the time, the energy, or the money to get any serious research done for themselves.
The result is that they lack fresh and informed thinking to inject into the political process to advance the discussion of issues and to balance the government's strength based on its close relation to the civil service. The same old arguments are bandied back and forth time and time again. The M.P.'s quote the newspapers, and the newspapers quote the M.P.'s, and no one becomes much wiser in the process.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I do not know that I subscribe totally to the last part of the sentence, although I do admit it is a good sentence. The author continues:
In Congress in the United States, by way of contrast, the facilities for research are plentiful. The Library of Congress has on its staff more than 200 research assistants. Congressmen and Senators may also hire research assistants out of their large expense allowances. The latter amounts vary since they are set by a complicated formula but they average about $50,000 a year per member, in addition to his annual salary of $30,000. Some representatives hire as many as nine personal assistants. Some also have young postgraduate university students working for them as researchers under a plan for "internists" that the American Political Science Association has been running very successfully for more than a decade.
As hon. members know, the "internists" program is a program which has been brought to our attention, and to that of the public, by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales).
Many of us have encountered our United States counterparts at international conferences and I think we have all been impressed by the amount of expert assistance which they have. Sometimes we may feel we are extremely well prepared at an international gathering if we have read a couple of books. But then we take our place by some congressman who has perhaps a staff of five or six alert, bright people with him and we realize that there is much to do to improve this matter of administrative assistance in our parliamentary system.
Therefore, I commend the hon. member and I support his resolution most strongly. I commend what has been done so far through the extension of the research facilities of our library. But it is not sufficient and we must
June 19, 1967	COMMONS
follow our agreement on this by more concrete action to improve our function and performance, as the hon. member has suggested.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this motion briefly, as well as its principle and purpose. I am glad that we have had this more or less quiet but instructive debate this evening. I want to say to the hon. member who introduced this resolution that I thought he made several very good points in presenting his argument.
I have been in this house for over 22 years and I have seen very great changes during that period because of the developments within government and in our society. The federal government today is becoming more involved with the operations of the provincial governments as a result of agreements with various provincial governments and developments with respect to resources, social welfare measures, and so on. This house has become more involved in the approach of organizations in the country toward legislation. Farmers', labour, business, women's and other organizations make representations to the government and to the various parties in the house with respect to legislation they would like to see adopted. This greater involvement directly with the people has greatly increased the work of parliament and the necessity for specialization with relation to that work.
The hon. member who preceded me paid a tribute to the work being done by the research staff in the library. I endorse what he said. They have been very helpful. I know that I have asked them to prepare several briefs on matters that were of interest to me. However, their work is not extensive enough to meet the requirements of members at the present time. Changes have occurred because of developments in our society which people could not have even foreseen 20 years ago, and therefore the need for these research assistants has arisen largely as the result of hon. members having to deal with complicated legislation and with more legislation than was introduced in the house years ago. They have to read reports of royal commissions. They have to read the reports of special committees or inquiries. They are also supposed to have time to read the reports of international bodies such as the United Nations, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and other organizations. We are presumed to be able to read the reports of the committees of this house. I might say that during the 22 years that I have been here I have never been
DEBATES	1683
Provision jor Administrative Assistants absent from the house on a Saturday or a Sunday more than 12 times because I find it necessary to come here and do what I can to read the reports that are presented to us. We also have to read the annual reports of the various departments.
It is beyond the capacity of the average member to absorb and study such a vast amount of material. That is why I have no hesitation in supporting the principle and purpose of this resolution. Personally, I like to come here on Saturdays and Sundays because the place is quiet and one can sit here without much fear of being disturbed. Other members of the house do the same, particularly those who come from constituencies a long distance from the House of Commons. They also utilize their time in this way. Naturally, members who live in Ontario and Quebec go home on week ends because their constituents expect them there. But even doing the best we can under the circumstances, we are not able to do the research and study of all these reports and problems which I have just mentioned. So, I think it is clearly indicated that members of the house do require research assistants.
This is not a problem which can be dealt with overnight. It requires a great deal of study as to how many research assistants should be provided, the types of persons that should be sought by the various members here representing different political philosophies, and the expenses involved. I am not suggesting for a moment that this house can afford the money that is expended in the Congress of the United States, but I do think we can make a modest start in this direction as the result of a study of the problem. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the interest of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. Although he hesitated to put on the record the attitude of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, I will do so because I have heard this subject discussed at agricultural meetings as well as at meetings of chambers of commerce and other organizations where the question was asked repeatedly "How in the world do you cope with all the involved questions that come before a member of parliament? Life is becoming more complicated every day." To indicate the interest of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture I will read an article which appeared in the Western Producer of Thursday, June 15, 1967. It reads as follows:
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture is concerned about the growing workload of members of parliament, and would like to see more research
June 19. 19G7
1684	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision for Administrative Assistants staff available to help individual MP's and committees of the House of Commons in keeping abreast of developments.
In a submission to Prime Minister Pearson, after consultation with MP's, the CFA has urged the government to correct the research shortage.
The letter to Mr. Pearson, signed by David Kirk, CPA executive secretary, said:
"-in the observation of our organization the resources of expert and specialized personnel available to members of parliament, individually or in their committee activities, is altogether inadequate to the needs they have for such personnel, to deal adequately with their heavy and growing responsibilities."
Mr. Kirk said it was "quite clear to us that the great majority of members of all parties would welcome our support in this matter."
In a note to the MP's, the CFA said:
"It does not make any sense, in this day and age, to have parliamentarians, with very important and varied responsibilities equipped with staff assistance of their own only in the most minimal way.
"The availability of such assistance is one of the striking features of the American Congressional system, and represents a difference from the Canadian scene in respect of which we do not come out on top."
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
That indicates that the directors of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture have given some consideration to this question because they have been in the habit of making representations to the agricultural committee and other organizations. I know that so far as the veterans affairs committee is concerned, members of legions and other veterans' organizations have asked me how we can manage to deal with all the subjects that come before parliament in this modern age.
Without doubt, this work, in view of the responsibilities of members with respect to correspondence, attendance in the house and committees and before other groups and organizations, is beyond the capacity of individual members. They cannot do the research work that is urgently required. It is on that ground that I compliment the hon. member for the introduction of his motion. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we unanimously refer this motion to the committee on procedure.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is unanimous agreement on this resolution and I will not delay the house for long. Someone once said that the contribution of the law maker is not in the exercise of professional expertness. If he merely mouths what his experts tell him, we lose the important values of representative government. It seems to me, however, that unless a member can become expert in one or two areas he must of necessity [Mr. Herridge.l
mouth, in effect, what his experts tell him. For this reason and for others that I might mention, it is my intention to support the resolution which has been prosposed by my hon. friend for Essex West (Mr. Gray). I need not repeat the resolution as the house is acquainted with it.
May I say, first of all, that in my opinion the assistance now being given to a member of parliament by the federal government is generous indeed; it is generous in many ways and in many areas. However, it will be easily realized that although the parliamentary library has established a research branch to assist us, it is very difficult for the staff-efficient, as it most certainly is and staffed, as it is, by only eight persons-to provide information for 265 members of this house, not to mention 100 Senators.
It is possible, of course, that many members of parliament and senators will not avail themselves of this help from students of political science, law or journalism. Obviously, many members of parliament do not need this assistance. There are others, however, who have the need; in many cases the need is acute.
In my four years at Ottawa I have discovered that executive assistants are very important indeed. They can be, and they are, helpful not only to the minister to whose office they are attached but also to members of parliament.
All, or most of us, can remember with gratitude the effective help given us by the gentleman now sitting at the table, the Assistant Clerk, Mr. Alistair Fraser, when he was executive assistant to the Minister of Transport. We know also of the efficient and generous help of this minister's present executive assistant, Mr. Sandy Morrison. There are others; I mention Bill Lee, with the Minister of National Defence-


Gordon Minto Churchill: He did not help me.


Mr. O'Keefe:: -and Mr. Alec Morin, with the Minister of Public Works; Bernard Dufresne, with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration; Roger Roy, with the Minister of Fisheries, Gerry Grafstein, with the Registrar General, Alec Cyr with the Postmaster General; Bill Neville with the Secretary of State, and Mike McCabe with the Minister of Finance. I could go on.
Those men and others like them are, in my opinion, more than just assistants. I feel, indeed I know, that they are an essential part of government. It seems to me that the plan
June 19, 1967	COMMONS
envisioned by my hon. friend is, in the same way, designed not merely to help members of parliament but is to help them keep up with their work; and not just with the work, but with the reading which faces us all. Therefore, when we fail that, we fail to find the time to become experts. We could, with the kind of help that is envisioned in this resolution, become expert in at least one or two specialized fields.
Very often a member of parliament is part of five or six committees. How can any of us ever have any specialized knowledge of any particular field?
I feel that this resolution would not only help members of parliament, but it would also provide an effective training ground for the young men and women who will, at some time, take our places in this House of Commons. These young men and women may come from a variety of sources, from labour, business and journalism. An embryonic political scientist might find the environment of Ottawa fascinating, though he might not be so fascinated with the type of work that almost inevitably would fall to his lot as a kind of intern.
Rather than grappling with ideas and problems of national interest, most probably the intern would find himself involved in a member of parliament's most vital concern, the problem he must always keep before himself, that of being re-elected. However, he or she could help in research and in a wide variety of fields. He or she would have to be prepared to serve the member of parliament and a Senator simultaneously. He or she would need a good deal of tact, good judgment, and initiative. He or she would need detailed knowledge of the geography, economy and political forces of a member's riding. Certainly, the job would entail long hours of overtime. It would require stamina and vigor and, most of all, interest, enthusiasm, and education. I realize, of course, that this is quite a list of qualifications; yet I am also confident that many of a member's own constituents could easily fill the position, qualify completely, and be happy in the work.
In working for a member the young political scientist might find himself writing newsletters to the member's constituents and writing speeches for local consumption. A law graduate possibly could obtain little more benefit from working for a member than he could by becoming politically active in a local party organization of his choice. 1 feel,
DEBATES	1685
Provision for Administrative Assistants however, that there will be no lack of applicants for the position of assistant to a member of parliament from young men and young women who are interested in the work. Also, it is my opinion that young men or women who are interested in journalism would be of tremendous benefit to a member of parliament, although it has been suggested by a veteran newsman that a period of service in the Ottawa press gallery might be sufficient to turn any journalism student against politics for life. I do not agree with this, and I feel that the newsmen in the press gallery-I see that there is one here during this dog watch -are as intensely interested in the vital happenings in the House of Commons as any member of parliament. Sometimes, it seems to me, they are far more interested.
We have interns in the medical fields and juniors in the legal profession. Why should we not employ students who are interested in the political fields? I am one of those who believes that young men and women should have this opportunity of observing the legislative process at first hand and I feel that it would be helpful if outstanding young political scientists, young journalists, and even young law school faculty members were brought to Ottawa for a period of possibly six or eight months as assistants to members of parliament. That would be helpful and interesting to them.
The suggestion is that they would be paid a minimum stipend which would be advanced by the government and that they would receive an established foundation grant; also, that a competition would be held each year for these political fellowships to coincide with the opening of a parliamentary session. Certainly, direct experience on parliament hill would be enormously helpful to these young people and would be of great help to members of parliament to whose offices these young men or women are attached. Not only that, but certainly these learners would perform a considerable amount of work for the members of parliament.
With this kind of assistance the members themselves could perhaps concentrate more on the legislative processes and devote more work and study to becoming expert in certain fields of government. It seems to me absolutely impossible for a member of parliament under present conditions to become an expert in anything, except possibly in attendance in the house. This, in my opinion, is an area where there are few experts.
June 19, 1967
1686	COMMONS
Provision for Administrative Assistants
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, to support the resolution which has been proposed by the hon. member for Essex West.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I rise to make what will probably be the shortest speech of my parliamentary career. I go on record as supporting the intent of this resolution, believing it to be one of the most important steps that we could take in this house.
There have been arguments, speeches and public lamentations about the deficiencies of parliament today and about the parliamentary process. I think if action were taken in this regard to strengthen the individual responsibility of members of parliament, we shall have taken a major step in bringing decision making and responsibility back to this forum.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Members of this house are asking for very little in comparison with the almost unlimited resources which are available to civil servants and royal commissions. One of the reasons royal commissions have expanded almost out of hand is the fact that members of this house are no longer in a position to decide responsibly on matters which come before them. Yet, in the final analysis, there reports from royal commissions and elsewhere, some of them running to several volumes in length, are submitted to us for our decision. I hope that not only is this motion referred to the committee on procedure but that some action will be taken in the very near future.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Northwest Territories):: too, wish to make a short speech in support of the motion before the house. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) for having brought it before us. I believe it emphasizes the problems which those of us who sit here find in trying to perform the tasks we were elected to perform.
The first reaction of new members is, I believe, one of surprise at the problems encountered when trying to work their way through the Ottawa maze. Then, we find ourselves discouraged by the lack of facilities available to us and, finally, we tend to become frustrated by our inability to accomplish all the things we would like to accomplish. Had there been an opportunity to speak at greater length this evening I would have developed a proposal which goes somewhat beyond the motion which my hon. friend from Essex West is proposing. I should
[Mr. O'Keefe.)

like to have seen this whole question examined with a view to improving the technical and administrative assistance available to members of parliament so as to enable them to carry out their duties more efficiently. This is the intent of an amendment which I would have proposed; it would have been seconded by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald).
In conclusion, I hope that if the house agrees that this matter should be referred to the committee, the committee will ask other Canadians, presidents of universities, presidents of trade unions and others, to inquire into the whole range of duties a member of parliament should be expected to perform in terms of his responsibilities to his constituency and to parliament. I support this motion and hope the subject will be referred to the committee.


Mr. Henri Laiullipe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say a few words so as not to delay the passage of the excellent proposal contained in the notice of motion introduced by the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray).
We fully endorse his suggestion, and we are all aware that members need fuller information, because they lack the means to obtain adequate information. The secretaries of members also lack information. As a matter of fact, since some secretaries of members do not even have the required competence, they are hardly of any use to them. Therefore, some members are overworked because of their great difficulty in finding a secretary.
Further to the suggestion contained in the notice of motion, we can possibly make available to each group of members some well informed people, in short, people who could give them some information. I feel it might not be possible to give an administrative assistant to every member, but someone could possibly be made available to a group of members or he could train the secretaries to make them highly competent not only in the field of research but from every point of view. These are simply suggestions I am putting forward. I am one hundred per cent in favour of the hon. member and I would like his motion to carry at the earliest possible moment.
Now, there are members who represent very large constituencies and it might be proper to discuss this. I think such members should have help, quite apart from what is
June 19, 1967

available in the house, on account of the large distances that must be covered.
These are all the suggestions that we can put forward in the committees and I would now thank the hon. member for having made this motion. I support it wholeheartedly and I would like it to carry as soon as possible.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: I, too, would like to support this motion. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie):
That the said proposed motion be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the special committee on procedure of the house be empowered to consider and report upon the provisions thereof.


Mr. Speaker:: I should bring it to the attention of hon. members that this is a very unusual motion. It is certainly in the form of a substantive motion rather than of an amendment. It does, therefore, require unanimous agreement if it is to be moved at this time. I wonder whether there is such unanimous consent on the part of the chamber as would allow the hon. member for Lincoln to propose this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will resume the business which was 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. Tolmie in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Tolmie):: It being seven o'clock the committee stands suspended until 8 p.m.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-135, an act to establish the Cape Breton Development Corporation, clause 2.
DEBATES	1687
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Malcolm MacInnis: In his remarks the minister covered a certain number of matters I was interested to hear about, but I repeat the need to pass this legislation as soon as possible. The quickest way to do this is to have the minister accept a few of the suggestions which have been made from this side of the house, for the express purpose of strengthening the legislation and providing the miners in Cape Breton with that which was assured them in the policy statement of the Prime Minister prior to the introduction of the resolution.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 2 carry?


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, the clauses will carry when the minister takes the opportunity to explain certain of the clauses as they come up, and as he is faced with questions. I would now ask him on clause 2 about the McBean mine, and he might also explain the Sydney-Louisburg operation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of the McBean mine I think I have given as full an explanation as I can. As my hon. friend says, the McBean is not included in the present legislation and I have given reasons for that this afternoon. I have also indicated what can be done and expressed our willingness in helping to reduce as much as possible any shock effects.
For example, I said that it might be better to spend differently the money that we would spend on McBean if it continued in operation. I do not want to appear to be speaking on behalf of the hon. member for Pictou but it seems to me that the hon. member, although he did not accept this decision with a smile, was nevertheless pleased that some good will had been offered by the minister on behalf of the government.
I also said this afternoon that the crown corporation could help in this regard. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South quoted the statement of the Prime Minister last December, when the Prime Minister said:
In addition, it is the intention of the federal government to establish with the province a joint framework which will permit the concentration of all federal and provincial efforts to promote the economic development of eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton island in accordance with a comprehensive plan.
It is quite true that the Prime Minister said that, but it has to be read in conjunction with part II of the Canada-Nova Scotia agreement, which proposes the formation of a committee to be charged with the responsibility of coordinating the economic development of Cape
June 19, 1S67	COMMONS
Breton island. This committee will have responsibilities over a wider geographical area than the area covered by the corporation itself.
Why is that? Because at the same time as this coal corporation is created, as hon. members from the area are certainly aware, an ARDA project is being developed. The project embraces an area larger than Cape Breton island; it embraces nine counties as opposed to four on the island. We want to tie in as well as we can the area covered by the economic committee set up under the agreement with Nova Scotia with the area of ARDA operations. I hope that this is sufficient explanation to justify the apparent discrepancy between the agreement and the legislation before us.
I want to stress again that the operations of McBean are coming to an end by December 1968. This is not an act of the government of Canada. If I want to put the blame on anyone I will put it on God. The reserves of the mine are coming to an end, and as I said clearly this afternoon this is a situation we will have to face sooner or later. I simply express the view that the sooner we face it the better, because the money we can save thereby may be used more profitably, as I said before.
With respect to the suggestion that some provision should be made for the steel workers in this bill, I have nothing to add to what I said this afternoon except to say that the hon. member for York South seemed to consider as "doctrinaire prejudice" any opinion that was not in accordance with his own. My mind is not possessed with doctrinaire prejudice. I think that by the legislation we are now debating we are showing that we are not prejudiced one way or the other.
It is obvious, to me at any rate-and I believe it should be obvious to all members of the committee-that by helping the industrial and economic development of the area the crown corporation set up by this bill will help indirectly in alleviating the troubles of the steel situation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: If I may reply briefly to what the minister said. I agree with him that it is not the fault of the government that resources of the McBean mine will apparently be exhausted by 1968. Actually, Dr. Donald said they would last until 1970, but the management reported 1968. I am not a mining engineer, so I cannot be sure about this. However, the point I am trying to make is this.
Even if this mine will be exhausted in 1968, which is about a year and a half, it will at
DEBATES	1689
Cape Breton Development Corporation least give us a little breathing time to relocate the working force at the mine. I certainly would not agree with any proposal to close the mine in the next few months. As I pointed out earlier-and I suppose, Mr. Chairman, you are getting tired of hearing me say this, but it is very important-the working force of 400 must be relocated at some other mine or found alternative employment. I think the life of this mine should be extended until at least 1968.
I was very interested in what the minister said about ARDA. I take it from what he said that he was referring to the ARDA task force which carried out an extensive study of the nine northern counties of Nova Scotia.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I asked the minister of forestry a question in March and was informed that a report had been made to the federal government, a copy of which had gone to the provincial government. Is that now being studied by the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia? If the minister does not see fit to amend the bill having regard to the agreement and the ARDA task force report, I hope something will be done to include the county of Pictou as one of the nine northern counties.
We do know that originally the agreement in respect of New Brunswick was reached between the government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick. I would hope that this mining area of the county of Pictou could be included in any joint actions taken between the government of Canada and the government of Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: Could the minister bring us up to date on the progress he or the government is making with reference to the selection of personnel for the Cape Breton development corporation and the co-ordinating committee. The other day I stated, as I do again, that I hope it will not be a haven for defeated Liberal candidates. Can the minister give us an assurance that we are going to obtain the most capable people possible for this board. Knowing the minister, I am sure that he would want the most capable and competent people available as members of this board so that the best job possible can be done.
A few moments ago the minister said that this legislation would indirectly assist the steel industry. Can he advise us as to whether the corporation will do anything directly to assist the steel industry, even though it is not
June 19, 1967

Cape Breton Development Corporation specifically mentioned in the bill? Is there some manner in which the board can assist directly, even though the steel industry is not covered by the legislation?
I should like also to ask the minister whether the corporation is going to have a free hand in negotiating compensation for the holdings of Dosco. Will the board report back to the minister or to the cabinet, or once the legislation is passed will it be its solemn duty to make a deal with Dosco to acquire their holdings in Cape Breton? I am also wondering who will be the watch dog regarding what the corporation will do. No one can suggest I am pointing any finger, because we do not know who will make up the corporation's personnel. However, in answer to a question the Prime Minister on one occasion said that the personnel of the corporation would probably be announced prior to the introduction of the legislation, yet on another occasion I believe the minister said that these people would be appointed after introduction of the legislation. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us on these three points.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let me say a few words in respect of the personnel selection. I have seen some names that have been mentioned which have been "apolitique", the "a" meaning excluded from. I have not seen a political name among those mentioned. This does not mean that former politicians should be necessarily excluded from important jobs because many politicians are good men. If the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria was willing to relinquish his seat he might possibly be appointed, and everybody would agree that this would be a good nomination.


Robert Muir: On that very point, let me say that on three occasions within the last year or two different cabinet ministers have suggested that I might be interested in some position on a board set up by the government. I do not know whether this was as a result of the goodness of their hearts or the milk of human kindness, or just that they wanted me out of here.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This board will have to work very hard and I know how hard the hon. member can work. I thought probably he would be a good prospect.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How about the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Jean-Luc Pepin: He is far too busy already.

Having regard to the direct contribution the corporation can make to the steel industry, I do not think this can be entirely excluded as a possibility. If the hon. member waits until we reach this particular clause, I am sure he will realize that the corporation can do almost anything. This bill does not exclude any possibility and I do not exclude any. Let me repeat however, that the main function of the corporation will be to rationalize and operate the mines, and bring in new industry. If it manages to bring in industry, and we think it will, again this will indirectly help the steel industry.
Having regard to compensation, this is also dealt with in the bill, specifically in clause 12. Perhaps the hon. member would like to wait until we deal with it.
There was a small point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South regarding the Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company. The Sydney and Louisburg Railway Company was included because it retains title to some railway lands, notwithstanding its takeover by the Cumberland Railway Company. It still has title to some lands and it was included to make sure that everything which can be useful will be acquired by the corporation as a result of the legislation.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to follow up this matter which is of great interest to the United Mineworkers and the 400 men at the McBean colliery. The minister will recall that about two years ago the subventions paid on coal were placed on a fixed basis for a period of five years. Will the subventions still apply to the McBean colliery since it is not included in the legislation? Will the payments be made during the life of the McBean mine or are they to be wiped out entirely?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The purpose of extending the subventions on a five year basis was to permit long term planning by the company. When the corporation takes over Dosco, it will do the long term planning.
So far as the subsidies to the McBean colliery are concerned, I said earlier this afternoon that they could be continued at the present level. That offer has been made to Dosco, but the company feels this is not sufficient and has asked for a $3 increase in the present level of the subventions. This changes the picture quite considerably, because this would bring the subventions to $11.50 per ton.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
June 19, 1SS7

On clause 4-Appointment and tenure.


Howard Russell MacEwan: As the minister has said, clause 4 states that the chairman and the president shall be appointed by the governor in council, after consultation with the lieutenant governor, and will hold office for seven years. The other directors will hold office for five years. Has the minister consulted the government of Nova Scotia regarding the appointment of the president and the chairman, and does he expect to make an announcement very soon after the legislation is passed by this house and the other place?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already discussed some names for the presidency with Premier Stanfield. As the legislation says, the appointments are to be made after consultation with the lieutenant governor in council of Nova Scotia, which means, of course, the government of Nova Scotia. We hope to make the announcements quite soon after the legislation is approved. I might say, en passant, that it is our intention to stagger the initial appointments so that all offices do not fall vacant at the same time.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
On clause 7-Salaries and fees.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to put temptation in the way of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria, but could the minister indicate what are the proposed salaries for the president and vice presidents who will serve in the two divisions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the easy answer to this question is that the salaries will be high enough to attract good people, and low enough to maintain a certain aspect of benevolence and dedication to the job.


Malcolm MacInnis: I need not remind the minister that very good salaries are paid in the Hawker-Siddeley group, and they are not drawing the type of management personnel the minister said would be induced to join this development corporation.


Robert Muir: Nor is that group drawing dedicated personnel.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, this clause provides:
The president shall be paid by the corporation a salary to be fixed by the governor in council and
DEBATES	1691
Cape Breton Development Corporation the chairman and the other directors other than the president shall be paid by the corporation such fees for attendances at meetings of the board or any committee thereof as are fixed by bylaw of the corporation.
I take it the governor in council and treasury board will have nothing to say as to what is paid to the officers of the corporation, other than the chairman and the president?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The directors will be paid the standard per diem that is paid to directors of this kind of corporation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Then they will be paid in line with what is paid to directors of other crown companies?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
On clause 9-Power of acquisition.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee ought to hear something from the minister about the negotiations which I understand have already taken place with Dosco for the acquisition of its properties, if it has any; its assets, if it has any; and its liabilities, which it certainly has. I should like to ask the minister whether he would be good enough to tell the committee what negotiations have taken place, at what point the negotiations were ended before the legislation was brought down, what remains for the corporation to negotiate when it is established and takes form, and whether the negotiations with Dosco are continuing while the legislation is before this house and the other place. In other words, is everything now waiting for the corporation to be established in order to start negotiating for the acquisition of whatever it is the corporation has to acquire, or has some of the work already been done and is it continuing while we are discussing the biU?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the best way to answer this question is to indicate first what the ownership situation is of Dominion Coal. There are 480,000 common shares owned by Dominion Coal; that is Dosco in fact. There are also 26,521 preferred shares owned by Dosco. There are 182,238 shares owned by 1,100 individuals, most of whom live, in Nova Scotia and Quebec. That gives a total of 208,759 shares for Dominion Coal.
June 19, 1967
1692	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation
With respect to the other two mines, that is Princess and McBean, Dosco owns them completely. The hon. member referred to negotiations. I would not call them negotiations; they were more in the nature of enlightening conversations between my department and the company. These lasted-


David Lewis: Who enlightened whom?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Each side was trying to enlighten the other. After a while these conversations, which led to a better understanding of the situation, were broken off by the company, in part anyway because the preferred shareholders of the company wanted to maintain a strong position. It seemed to us that not much could be gained by continuing these conversations.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, may I pursue this matter for a moment? It was my understanding from reading newspaper reports that Dosco admitted that the common shares were valueless. I think that was the term used in the newspaper reports which I saw. I may say that is quite an admission. With regard to the preferred shares, I gather that Dosco is one preferred shareholder for a total of 26,521 preferred shares and the remaining 182,238 preferred shares are owned by-I did not write down the number-over 1,000 individuals from the Atlantic provinces and Quebec.
I should like to ask the minister whether he can tell us or can file, if he can obtain the information and if it is not supposed to be confidential, details as to who are these preferred shareholders. Can the minister tell us whether they are officers of Dosco or whether they are individuals who have no relationship with Dosco? Would the minister also inform us what the company or the so-called preferred shareholders' committee, which the company very cutely set up to do the negotiating if I read the newspaper reports rightly, claimed was due to them in respect of the preferred shares? I ask this question so that parliament may have some idea where the negotiations for the actual payment will start.
I think that before this committee and parliament passes the legislation giving the corporation the responsibility to negotiate the take-over-a responsibility which I remind you, sir, I strongly feel the government should retain and should not hand over to a corporation-we ought to know a little more about what is involved. We ought to know who the preferred shareholders are other


than Dosco. We ought to know the individuals, companies or corporations concerned. I will use the legal word "person" to cover both the human and non-human person under law. We ought to know whether these people are shareholders of Dosco or have no connection at all with Dosco. If there are both categories, we ought to know the number in each category. We ought to know what the shareholders committee is asking per preferred share, in order to have some idea of the total amount involved.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
We should know then whether the discussions indicated that the liabilities, which the corporation will necessarily have to take over if it is taking over Dominion Coal as a company, will be offset against the claimed assets, and if so what these liabilities are. If it is not taking over Dominion Coal totally as a concern but merely its so-called assets, then we should also know exactly what will happen to the company's liabilities.
I am not an expert in these matters and there may be other even more cogent points about which the minister should be asked questions. I will repeat, in general terms, that before we pass this clause we should know with greater precision what amounts are demanded so that parliament and the people of Canada, as well as the people in Cape Breton Island, will know more precisely what we are talking about and in what direction we are going.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am quite willing, even eager to give the hon. member any information I have on the subject. I am not trying to hide anything. I have already indicated the distribution of shares in the company. I think that was clear.
With respect to the identity of the preferred shareholders, I understand there is a list of these people but I do not have it with me. I am told they are not Dosco people. If the expression is not derogatory, they are quite "a mixed bag", different people from different areas, or different groups of people in society. They are not a league of some kind.
If I may add a third point, because the company has been made to appear quite inhuman, I do not want to comment on that, I will say that the Dominion Coal has never paid a dividend on common shares. They have not paid a dividend on preferred shares either since 1952.
June 13, 1967	COMMONS


David Lewis: The press report referred to 1962.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my sketchy notes I have the year 1952. I will make a correction if this proves to be otherwise.
With respect to the price which Dosco is asking, the only documentation I can refer to is the correspondence between the company and the Minister of Finance. The hon. member will recall that at one time Dosco made an offer to the Minister of Finance to give up the operation, and in that offer certain prices were mentioned which I will indicate. As my hon. friend says, they asked $1 for all common shares. For its own 26,521 preferred shares Dosco asked $8 per share, a total of $212,168. Of course they could not indicate the price at which the other preferred shareholders would sell. I have said already that at one time the other preferred shareholders established a little syndicate or union of their own to defend themselves as well as possible in the circumstances.
With respect to the Princess and McBean mines, the company indicated a value of $5,193,621. They made the point that these two mines had received no grant or loan of any kind and that, at least on paper, they could be said to be making some money. This is why this important amount of money was indicated with regard to the two mines which Dosco owns directly.
With respect to assets and liabilities, some liabilities are indicated in the bill. If I remember correctly they are indicated in clause 12 (3) where it is stated:
-the outstanding balance of principal moneys, together with accrued interest thereon, owing to Her Majesty-
That is a liability which will have to be taken into consideration.
I hope this answers the hon. member's questions to his satisfaction.


David Lewis: I am sure these are all the answers which the minister has at present. I do not expect him to give answers which he does not have.
I was going to ask the minister whether he could tell us when these preferred shares were issued and how long the preferred shareholders, not necessarily the particular ones, have been on the list. I realize the minister may not have this information at hand, but could he tell us when the preferred shares were bought by the preferred shareholders.
DEBATES	1693
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am told that these shares were issued back in the 1930's, but I cannot be more specific than that.
I should like to say again that the last dividend on the preferred shares was paid out in 1952.


David Lewis: Does the minister know what was the issue price per share?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am awaiting the assistance of the "Holy Spirit".


Howard Russell MacEwan: Did I understand the minister correctly that the price asked by the company for the assets of the McBean mine and the Princess colliery was $5,193,621? Did I also understand him correctly that the company said these two mines were actually the only ones making money in the whole Dosco group? If so, why then did the company say to the minister that in order to continue the life of the McBean mine even until 1968 they would require, as the minister stated this afternoon, a subvention of $3 more per ton, which would run into a couple of million dollars? Would the minister care to explain that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I use the word "value" and phrases such as "making money" with as wide a smile as I can display.


David Lewis: It does not show on Hansard.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should point out "the minister smiles" or "the minister cries", whatever the mood may be. The "value" of McBean and Princess is predicated on subsidies being paid. Without these subsidies the "value" might be smaller. I will say that as a result of the disagreement as to what value is about the "conversations" between the department and the company came to an end.
To return to the subject of the value of the preferred shares, they were issued in 1934 and the par value at the time was $25 per share. The "Holy Spirit" has helped me.


David Lewis: I have one other point on clause
9. If I understood the clause correctly, and I think I do, the bill provides three alternative ways in which the properties and the interests are to be acquired. The first one is by purchase on the basis of an agreement between the corporation and the companies; the second one is by purchase on the basis, presumably, of arbitration when there is no agreement; and the third one is by expropriation, if expropriation is necessary.
June 19, 1967
1694	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation [DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I should like the minister to comment on
the timetable that is involved. How long are the negotiations to continue before it is decided it is not worth proceeding any farther, and that the matter should go to arbitration or that the expropriation steps under clause 10 should be taken with the decision on the value to be left to the Exchequer Court?
Obviously, the negotiations could go on for a long time. I fully share the views of the hon. members from Nova Scotia who have taken an active part in this discussion. Whatever criticisms one may have of the legislation, it is important that events get rolling as quickly as possible after the bill becomes law.
I should like some assurance from the minister that the first alternative, of negotiation and agreement, will not be permitted to drag on for many days after the bill becomes law. I said "days", though obviously negotiations could take a few weeks; but they should not be continued for many weeks after this bill becomes law. If no agreement can be reached, the corporation may quickly use the power given to it under clause 10, which still protects the company so far as compensation is concerned, although the route to the amount is a different one.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It might same time if I were to say that I agree entirely with the approach taken by the hon. member for York South.


Robert Muir: As you know, sir, I yielded the floor to the hon. member for York South who posed some questions that I had in mind.


An hon. Member:: He was thinking of you.


Robert Muir: He was very lucky that I ceded him the floor. I remind him that all members from Nova Scotia have always taken an active part in any discussion that concerns Nova Scotia or, particularly, Cape Breton.
On page 4 of the Prime Minister's statement of December 29 I find this:
Further work has to be done to implement this program:
1. Negotiations already under way for the acquisition of the mines will have to be completed with Dosco.
The Prime Minister assumed at that time, I take it, that the negotiations had to be completed before we went ahead. We find, now, that they are not complete. I wanted to ask a question along the lines of the question asked


by the hon. member for York South. Suppose the corporation becomes a body corporate, and it gets down to work. How long will all this continue? The minister has not answered that question very well. How long will negotiations continue? Will they last for three months, six months, one year or two years? How long will it be before the corporation exercises the powers given to it in clause 9 under "power of acquisition"?
As has been said, there are three methods by which the corporation can exercise its power. I say that the corporation ought to go ahead. My question is, will this quibbling and bargaining go on for a long time or will the minister and the government say to the corporation: "You have gone far enough with these people; we will go in such and such a direction now."
Would the minister explain that clearly? At the same time, would he break down the value of Princess and McBean, as he has been asked to by the hon. member for Pictou. Did the figure that was given apply to both mines?
Since the corporation will control the mines, and bearing in mind the equipment that has been purchased, would the minister enlighten us-that is the correct word I think -about the future of Princess? Will it extend for the full period of 15 years, as is mentioned in the bill? Is there a good short term future for the mine? Would the minister give us information, and particularly with regard to Princess.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In speaking on how long it will take to negotiate, I think I answered that question by reference to the hon. member for York South. He said that negotiations should not extend beyond a matter of weeks, and I agreed with his approach to the problem. Of course, it all depends on how willing the company will be to agree with the views of the corporation, and that I cannot predict.
Another big point will be the inventory of all assets of the company, and this is a colossal task.
On the subject of Princess and McBean I have already intimated that, in principle, McBean is not included in the take-over. Princess, of course, will be assessed separate from the Dominion Coal Limited mines.


Robert Muir: I understand that McBean is not included. The minister quoted a figure which I think was given to him by Dosco. I believe it was $5,193,621. Was that the total value of the
June 19, 1967

assets of McBean and Princess? Am I correct in assuming that it was? I wish to know what value is set on the Princess Colliery.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not have the division between Princess and McBean. I have mentioned the cost of the two together, I do not have figures for each one of them separately. Perhaps those are in the letter that was written by Dosco; I shall find out.
May I underline that these figures were given two years ago, and that the situation has changed somewhat since then.
As to the length of time that Princess will operate, my hon. friend has asked me whether that would be 15 years and my answer is that I do not know. I know one thing: part of the equipment purchased under the $2 million authorization to the Dominion Coal Board for purchase of equipment is going to Princess. I would conclude, therefore, that Princess is one of those mines that will continue for a certain number of years. I cannot be more specific. This question is in the hands of the corporation. The corporation will introduce a plan in less than one year from now, and after that we shall have a better view of the pattern to be followed, always bearing in mind the realities of phasing in and phasing out.


Robert Muir: The minister undoubtedly must have received information from the chairman of Dominion Coal Board, who has experts at his disposal. Was the minister not advised of the mine's short term future? We are talking in terms of 15 years, as laid down by this government. The government must have received assistance during the past years from experts, such as the Minister of Fisheries, about the future of coal operations at Princess.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think we should pursue the matter because I am in no position to intimate what the phasing out period will be. That is up to the corporation, and I would be prejudging the corporation's decision if I were to indicate a period.
On the subject of the Dominion Coal Board,
I have received many opinions from the coal board on all these matters but I cannot recall being given specific information on exactly how long Princess could be maintained in operation.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister mentioned the $5,193,621 that was involved in the Princess and McBean collieries, and he inferred that he was using figures 27053-1081
DEBATES	1695
Cape Breton Development Corporation that were two years old. Was he also using figures that were two years old when he referred to the 182,238 Dosco preferred shares that are held by 1,000 people?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Malcolm MacInnis: Are
those figures two years old?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Just a moment, I apologize. The figures have been brought relatively up tO' date, up to six months ago.


Malcolm MacInnis: They are still out of date. I suggest that a closer look at the figures will show that some people are gathering in preferred shares of Dominion Coal with a view to making a bonanza out of them. They want to take advantage of the government's announcement that it will take over Dominion Coal. I suggest that the minister should look carefully into this situation. The minister said that approximately 1,000 shareholders hold 182,238 shares. The Dominion Coal Company at one time were asking $8 for preferred shares which emphasizes something that was said earlier this afternoon, the need for the government to negotiate this sale.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Throughout the years the other party to this business arrangement, as I suppose we can call it, has been relying upon subvention payments from the government of Canada in order to carry on its business. I suggest the government would be in a far stronger negotiating position if it carried on these discussions directly rather than through the corporation.
My own opinion as to the value of this bill may differ from the opinions of other members. However, I believe the hon. member for Pictou and the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria think upon the same lines as I do. I see advantages in the first part of this legislation, but I doubt that the second part will achieve its purpose. The first part is of value because it will make money available for necessary improvements which I trust will be carried out as soon as possible.
Again, I urge the government to conduct its own negotiations with Dosco. It will then be negotiating from strength whereas in other circumstances the shareholders might be in a position to hold up this development by asking more than the shares are worth. As far as Dosco is concerned, I think it is common knowledge that the shares are worthless. Dosco has indicated a price of $1 per share
June 19, 1967
1696	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation for common stock and $8 for preferred stock. The other group of shareholders, those holding 182,238 shares, I believe, are setting themselves up as a separate association, more or less, for the purpose of dealing with the corporation and I would strongly suggest, as did the hon. member for York South and others, that the government ought to deal from strength in this respect. I do not really see how so few shareholders holding such bad paper can really hold out for anything worth while. I maintain there is not a single shareholder among those 1,000 or so people who could be hurt financially. Some might lose money, but if they could afford to hold on to paper such as this, whether they had just acquired it expecting to make a quick profit or whether they have held it for many years,
I think the government is in a position to negotiate from strength.
Further, in connection with clause 9 I would ask the government to explain the reference in paragraph (a) which provides for an exception in the case of the railway line between Broughton Junction and Louisbourg. I ask the minister to tell us why this particular portion of the line was excluded.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will begin by dealing with the easiest question, first. The section of the Cumberland railway between Broughton and Louisbourg is excluded because it has no useful value or purpose in the continued operation of the coal mines. Louisbourg was formerly employed as a coal shipping port in winter when Sydney harbour was blocked by ice. It has not been used for such purposes for some years and the coal wharf at Louisburg has been removed. The rail line between Broughton and Louisbourg is in very poor condition seriously limiting train speeds for reasons of safety. If it were to be used, substantial capital would be required to rehabilitate the line. Currently only about one shipment of fish is made over the line each week. The Board of Transport Commissioners held a public hearing in Louisbourg at the end of May to consider an application for abandonment, and reserved judgment.
I have already seen the local press reports of the hearing held by the Transport Board on this matter, and, no doubt, the hon. member has also seen them. I believe he will agree with me that there is no further use for this line in connection with the coal operation, and this is why it is left out.
As to the other subject raised, gambling along with politics, is one of the oldest professions, but in this case I am told there has


been only a limited amount of gambling and that most of the preferred shares are still in the hands of people who have held them for a long time. I am informed there are a considerable number of elderly people and widows among these shareholders-I do not want to bring out the sympathy of the hon. member for York South.


An hon. Member:: What about the orphans?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am not sure how many orphans there are in this case. There are widows, though; the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made sure of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Mr. McCleave:: Is it because of the minister's interest in the elderly that this came about?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. The main reason is that some of them are from Quebec and he is practising his French. As to the negotiations, hon. members have been reminding me that the government should use all its strength to negotiate with the corporation. On reflection, they may wish to tone down that advice, because on other occasions they always caution governments against bulldozing people. I have no special sympathy for the company. At the same time, I would not like it to be said that we bulldozed the company, the preferred shareholders in particular. I think they must be given a fair chance of debating-of saying what, in their view, these assets are worth. I believe the hon. member for York South would be the last to insist that the government should use all its strength to bring a company down on its knees-especially now that he knows that among the preferred shareholders are many widows and elderly people. I think the shareholders have a right to present their case, and we are making sure of this in the legislation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
On the subject of compensatory value of the assets of the company, members should bear in mind that many of these assets have at least a sale or a scrap value. I am not saying the company might or would, but it could decide to sell the whole thing for scrap if the corporation offer is not considered fair. Then the corporation could not rationalize the mines because there would be no mines to rationalize. I think hon. members will agree that this is not as clear cut an operation as might appear in the first place. The three
June 19, 1967

methods we have indicated are, in progression, three ways of undertaking the operation. They should be used as rapidly as possible so that there will not be too much delay before the corporation gets into operation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: The bill refers to the fact that the value of the assets shall be determined as the fair market value. If expropriation is carried out the value would be established by a judge of the exchequer court. But in the other instance who will determine the value? Will the corporation's board of directors decide what is a fair market value, or will they be assisted by the Dominion Coal Board?
I recall that we had hopes some time ago that a mine in my area would be taken over by Dosco. Perhaps now it is a good thing that it was not. However, Dosco sent in a team and made an inventory. It was quite a job. The taking over, of all Dosco mines with the exception of one is also going to be quite a job. Who will establish the fair market value of the assets of this company?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It depends on whether acquisition of the property is made by mutual consent, by agreed arbitration or expropriation. If it is done by mutual agreement the corporation will be negotiating just as the government would have done, and will use all the services available from the government or from private advisers that it can hire. However, the corporation must follow the principles indicated, of which my hon. friend is aware.


Robert Muir: I was touched by the minister's reference to the deep sympathy which the Minister of National Health and Welfare had for the widows and others who hold stock. I appreciate the feelings of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but by the same token I hope he has equal sympathy for elderly people and widows who are unable to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement because of what he calls not a means test but an income test, these people who are being rejected every day for that supplement.
Clause 9(a) refers to:
all or any part of the lands and personal property located In the county of Cape Breton in the province of Nova Scotia-
Would this include properties outside the county of Cape Breton which belong to Dosco?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would simply say that if such property were essential for the operation of
Cape Breton Development Corporation the coal mines it would stand to reason it would be purchased, but I am informed that this is probably not the case.


Robert Muir: I am thinking about holdings in Victoria county which, in the case of expropriation and so on, should be included in the actual holdings of Dosco. I am thinking about new construction that took place in recent years, but not in Cape Breton county.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Clause 9(a) is clear in that it says it has to be property located in the county of Cape Breton.


Robert Muir: So, if expropriation takes place, they do not touch anything outside the county of Cape Breton?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what the legislation
says.


David Lewis: The hon. member has a point. Did the drafters of this legislation literally mean the county of Cape Breton, or did they mean the island of Cape Breton? If I remember correctly, Cape Breton has four counties. The hon. member was asking whether any holdings of the company outside the county of Cape Breton would be covered. Under the language of clause 9(a) and (b) if holdings are outside the county they are not covered by the legislation. Is that what the minister and his advisers intend?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Speaker would say this is a hypothetical question because to the best of our knowledge, unless the company has been hiding things, there is nothing outside Cape Breton county.


David Lewis: Would the minister object to a change in this clause, to cover the whole of Cape Breton island lest the corporation be hamstrung in any negotiations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This legislation is as flexible as the minister. Section 23(b) dealing with the industrial division states that the corporation can:
purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any lands or interests therein on Cape Breton island and manage, improve, develop or otherwise deal with or administer the same;


David Lewis: I don't think that meets the situation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Again, my information is that there is nothing outside Cape Breton county to acquire.
1698	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation


David Lewis: Since the minister is so flexible, and since I am sure he has not made a thorough inventory of everything available, why shouldn't he use the same language in both clauses?


Robert Muir: The minister has referred to clause 23(b) but that is in reference to the industrial development division acquiring lands for all these new industries that we hope will come there. I do not think there is anything the company is trying to hide, as the minister has sort of intimated, but if expropriation takes place there are properties in other parts of the island and construction that the people of Canada should get.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not think we should pursue the point in view of the fact that our information says that there is nothing outside Cape Breton county to be acquired. However, if we find something we can introduce an amendment later. For all practical purposes, one is not necessary now.


Robert Muir: It is not a question of anybody finding something. We want to get the matter clarified. As the hon. member for Cape Breton South says, what will the corporation buy? Does the corporation know what it is going to buy and where it is located? There must be deeds to certain property. The brilliant people who are legal advisers must know what is going on. I say the company is not hiding anything, and I have no doubt about that.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
If a figure for expropriation purposes has been set beforehand, then certainly the people of Canada, whose money will be used to purchase these holdings, should get anything and everything that is available.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the property in Cape Breton county is immovable, then that is what we want. If it is movable property, I presume that it can be moved off the island or back on to the island, depending on whether or not it is needed for coal operations. So, I really fail to see any problem there.


Malcolm MacInnis: Perhaps the minister might care to turn round and ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether or not Dosco has any interest in leases of coal property in Inverness county. The situation here is left pretty flexible with regard to what the government is going to acquire. I should have thought the

DEBATES	June 19, 1967
minister would have come into the committee fully prepared to answer such questions.
I remember not too long ago the Minister of National Defence trying to sell some 20 year old cable to some people who had discovered it where it was abandoned after the war. The reply of the minister at that time was: "Tell me where it is and we will sell it to them". That is the way the government operates on many occasions. We have had a government that would sell somebody something provided the purchaser told them where to find it. We now have a government that wants to sell something but they do not know where it is.
I suspect the minister is being sympathetic toward Dosco, especially to the widows to whom reference was made. This is the first information I have been given about the Minister of National Health and Welfare being a man killer. Reference was made to widows holding shares. As I said before, Mr. Chairman, if there are any widows holding shares in Dosco, they have been holding what is considered by many as bad paper, and I suggest they can well afford to hold them. After all, there are such things as rich widows.
I suggest to the minister that he should be prepared to table a list of the shareholders of Dosco showing the individual equities in Dosco stock prior to the policy statement of the Prime Minister when the shares were worth $5 apiece on the market, as well as the list of the present shareholders and the individual equities when the shares are worth $12. This is an increase of $7 as a result of the policy statement made by this government.
When paper that has been considered worthless on the market for years suddenly jumps $7 in value after a policy statement made by the government, do not think somebody has not been playing around. The minister said that he listed about a thousand stockholders six months ago. I would ask the minister to be prepared to produce a list of stockholders showing their individual equities so that we can see whether there are still a thousand of them, or whether there is a smaller group gathering in these shares in order to make a killing. Shares do not jump from $5 to $12, following a policy statement by the government, unless some people are actively collecting them in the hope of doubling their money.
When the minister does this, he might also list the number of poor widows who are holding Dosco preferred shares. I would be very much surprised if he came up with one name.
June 19, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	1699
I think I will let this particular matter go until we get an answer from the minister as to whether or not he is prepared to do this.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, in respect of Dosco property in Cape Breton I am informed that a crew of experts from Burchell, Sullivan and Company, of Sydney have been conducting an inventory, which extended over two months, but they have not found anything outside Cape Breton county belonging to the corporation.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I
make the observation that Mr. Sullivan could not find enough votes, either, outside Cape Breton county.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not know these Liberal people. With regard to the second point, I will try to get a list of preferred shareholders and I will table it later on, if I get permission.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, the remarks made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South, not only in the last few minutes but one or two rounds ago, provide the basis for some of the observations that I want to make about the terms of clauses 9 and 10, if I may take them together.
The minister is asking for expropriation powers for certain purposes. When he is asked about the intent that lies behind these expropriation powers he is not able to answer with any precision. I can understand that, because even if he were to know how long a period of time the corporation were prepared to negotiate, and negotiate in vain, before exercising its expropriation powers, he would be unwise to declare any specific time period because this would tend to detract from the genuineness of the negotiation process.
However, Mr. Chairman, more and more people are becoming concerned about the inconsistency with which different departments of this government, as well as the different levels of government in this country, exercise the basic power of expropriation of private property. The Department of National Defence has been known in the past to file plans of expropriation right off the bat without making any pretence whatsoever of negotiation with individual property holders. This was the case with regard to the acquisition of property adjacent to national defence property at Val Cartier, the defence establishment there.
The province of Manitoba has, on previous occasions, filed plans of expropriation without
Cape Breton Development Corporation making any effort to negotiate first with the owners of private property.
I must admit to some confusion about why the government is asking specifically for the power of expropriation in this bill. In any case, we are given to understand by the minister that the exercise of the power of expropriation granted in the bill will be held back until the expiration of a certain period of time, a period of time which is indefinite and which of necessity must remain indefinite as far as we here are concerned. Until such time period has elapsed, the corporation will not exercise this power.
The question then arises, why should one department of the federal government have a certain fixed policy with regard to expropriation practices while another department has a quite different policy? The question begins to arise in many persons' minds that it seems to matter to a considerable extent just who is involved when it comes to governments and crown corporations exercising the power of expropriation. I feel that that observation should be made, and I hope that not only the minister in charge of the bill but all of his colleagues will bear in mind that we need greater consistency in policy on the part of the government.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, despite what the minister has said, I want to refer once again to clause 9, paragraph (a) of which refers to all or any part of the lands and personal property located in the county of Cape Breton in the province of Nova Scotia, and paragraph (b) of which refers to all interests of the companies in lands and all personal property located under waters adjacent to the said county of Cape Breton.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I stand subject to correction because I may be wrong, and that is quite an admission because I know certain members of the house would never make a statement like that, but I have a feeling that there are holdings outside of Cape Breton county. As a result, I should like to move:
That clause 9, paragraphs (a) and (b) be amended by replacing the word "county" with the word "island".
This will mean the clause will refer to all or any part of the lands and personal property located on the island of Cape Breton, and all the interests of the companies in lands and all personal property located under waters adjacent to the said island of Cape Breton.
1700	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not like to hear the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria depreciating himself the way he was doing a moment ago. In order to cheer him up, we are going to accept his amendment. I should indicate that the same words are to be found in other clauses which will have to be similarly amended. Obviously, he has some information he wants to keep secret, so we will just have to accept his word and the amendment.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I asked earlier about that section of line between Broughton Junction and Louisbourg, and whether the government was prejudging a dispute now before the supreme court involving off-shore mineral rights, as was suspected in relation to a hearing before the board of transport commissioners. Will the corporation in fact be buying something to which the government now lays claim in the courts?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Clause 9(b) in respect of the property under waters adjacent to the said island is included as a precautionary measure. There is nothing mysterious about it. Everybody is aware of the dispute between the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia, and we want to be very specific as to what is being acquired without prejudging the decision or the opinion of the court.
Clause 9 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 10 and 11 agreed to.
On Clause 12-Establishment or determination of amount of consideration or compensation.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister about the subventions referred to on page two of the agreement between Canada and the province of Nova Scotia as set out in order in council P.C. 1966-54 of May 23, 1966. I should like to be very clear that these subventions as set out, namely $10.50 for coal delivered to points in Ontario and Quebec and $8.50 for coal delivered in the Atlantic area, will still be continued so far as the McBean mine is concerned. Is the minister in a position to give a general list of the equipment which has or will be purchased by the Dominion Coal Board and leased to Dosco? Having regard to clause 12(3), can the minister give some details about the agreement dated March 14, 1950 between the Dominion Coal Company and His Majesty the King in the right of Canada? Perhaps we could have some details as to whether this refers to loans which have

DEBATES	June 19, 1967
been obtained by Dosco under the Coal Production Assistance Act. I hope the minister will attempt to answer these questions in his reply.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Those are three good questions. The first has to do with the order in council referred to in the agreement between Canada and Cape Breton. I might indicate that there was a mistake in the agreement. The order in council is actually P.C. 1966-541. To be more specific, we should also have said in the agreement that the provision related not only to that particular order in council but to previous ones as well. I am writing to Premier Stanfield to explain this error and obtain a de facto amendment to the agreement.
In respect of the application of subventions to the McBean mine, I already indicated that we have offered continuation of subventions to Dosco at the level at which they are now. I do not know what we will do if Dosco does not accept this offer.
As to the coal mining equipment purchased by the Dominion Coal Board for Dosco, that equipment is going to be on loan to Dosco until the corporation takes over. I have a list here and this is what I think the hon. member would like to have. I do not know whether I can pronounce all these names in English, but I shall try. The list includes scraper chain conveyors, valued at about $7,000; hydraulic hose, $3,000, a centrifugal pump and motor conveyor pans and chains, tee pressure connectors, rubber pressure hose, ramp plates and transformers, a front end loader valued at $18,000, a vibratory feed, mine cars valued at $494,000.
The list also contains a cyclone, a vari-trough conveyor, conveyor belting, screens and motors, a monorail and bogies, spill plates and cover plates, and so on. I will let my hon. friend have this list.


Howard Russell MacEwan: May I ask the minister whether the mine cars have been ordered as yet?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes. At one point I was told that it might take three or four months to get this equipment, and perhaps even longer. The chairman of the coal board wrote me a few days ago stating that some of this equipment was already being received by the company, so it is being delivered faster than anticipated. This is another reason of the fact we wish to proceed as rapidly as possible. We have already purchased some of the equipment that was necessary to keep the mines going for a longer period of time.
June 19, 1967

[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The third question concerned the loan made in the past to Dosco by the Dominion Coal Board. On this subject, I would refer my hon. friend to question 2504. The answer to this question will be found in Hansard. It gives complete, detailed information on this loan. The answer indicates that the balance, including interest, up to December 31, 1966, still owing to the government of Canada is in the amount of $4,993,084.42. I am quite sure that if my hon. friend would refer to question 2,504 he would obtain full information in this regard.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 12 carry?


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, we passed by clause 10 and are on clause 12. There is another matter on which I should like clarification. I assume from the statement of the minister that henceforth in this bill all the clauses referring to Cape Breton county will deal with Cape Breton Island. Is this correct?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do we not have to make this amendment in committee? I would suggest that since the minister intended to make this amendment, we might revert to clause 10, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, the county of Cape Breton is mentioned twice in clause 10; one is in line 28 and the other in line 33. If hon. members would like to make all the changes in one shot, this is quite agreeable to me. There is also mention of the county of Cape Breton in clause 35, line 36.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You cannot do that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The expert on procedure says we cannot do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not think the chairman would allow you to do it.


Robert Muir: I do not agree. This would be the best way to expedite the necessary amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I suggest to the committee that we should conclude the discussion on clause 12. When clause 12 is carried the committee could revert to clause 10 in order to make the necessary amendment.


Howard Russell MacEwan: I have one further question, Mr. Chairman. I asked the minister whether he could tell me if the new coal cars had been 27053-109
DEBATES	1701
Cape Breton Development Corporation ordered. If he can, has he received this information from the coal board; and if so, from what company have they been ordered?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have before me a list of items that have been ordered. I am informed that the coal cars have been ordered from Hawker Siddeley.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Trenton works?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.
Clause 12 agreed to.


Herman Maxwell Batten: We will now revert to clause 10.
On clause 10-Deposit of plan and registration of inventory.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, following the discussion of a few minutes ago, with respect to clause 10 (1) (c), line 28, and paragraph (d), line 33, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton South:
That the word "county" be substituted by the word "island".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 10 as amended carry?
Clause 10 as amended agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 16-Powers.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether now is the appropriate time to raise this matter, but in the powers allocated to the crown corporation I see nothing about the resale of any property that may be taken over other than, of course, the resale of the coal itself. I wonder whether we might not include a provision in this clause covering the resale of any property taken over by the crown corporation in respect of Dominion Coal.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member be more specific with regard to what he has in mind? I am sorry, but I did not follow him too clearly.


Malcolm MacInnis: Some of the questions I have asked have not received a very satisfactory answer, but in order to be more specific I would ask the minister why the government hired the firm of Sullivan and Burchill to find out these things, if he wants me to give him the answer?
June 19, 1967
1702	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation


Jean-Luc Pepin: The corporation has as wide and as flexible powers as possible. If there is a need for reselling, it is in clause 23. I understand this is on the industrial development side. Paragraph (c) provides:
-sell or otherwise dispose of any lands or interests therein acquired by it for such consideration-
And so on.


Malcolm MacInnis: That is in respect of acquiring. I realize that in the clause dealing with the industrial development division there are provisions for resale. I am concerned with any authority that may be given the coal division in respect of resale. I take it that other than the selling of the coal they have no powers for selling, and any properties acquired by the coal division will be passed over to the development division for resale. Am I correct in that understanding?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If it is not there, it is included in clause 16 paragraph (d), which provides as follows:
-do all such other things as the corporation deems Incidental or conducive to the attainment of its objects in relation to the coal division.
That is wide enough to cover anything that anybody may have in mind.


Malcolm MacInnis: I cannot interpret that as authority to sell.


Jean-Luc Pepin: "Do all such other things" can be to sell. The officials sitting in front of me are intrigued about what my hon. friend has in mind. Does he mean that the corporation should have the right to sell some of the mines?


Malcolm MacInnis: No. I
am referring to the authority given the industrial development division and the powers given it for buying and reselling the assets.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
But I see nothing here giving power to the coal division to sell any property which they may acquire in the take-over, other than the coal itself.


Robert Muir: Mr. Chairman, if I may elaborate upon what I and the hon. member for Cape Breton South have in mind, the government is in the process of putting millions of dollars into the purchase of new equipment. In the process of phasing out, some of these mines may disappear in a short period of time and we hope other employment will be found for the miners, but what will happen to the hoisting


engines, haulage cables and cutting machines worth thousands and thousands of dollars? What body will handle this equipment? Will it be the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation? Will they get as much money out of this as they can by the resale of this equipment. I trust it will be advertised properly and sold on tenders.


Jean-Luc Pepin: So far as the sale of a mine is concerned, it is not intended that the corporation should pass on its responsibility to someone else. It is there to operate the mines and to rationalize them.
So far as property is concerned, the corporation has the same powers as has any other corporation to advertise and sell to the highest bidder what is no longer useful to it.


David Lewis: I think perhaps clause 34 (2) may be applicable.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion Souih):: Without being specific as to the properties or holdings which, as I indicated, we will be watching with interest, the minister apparently is not aware that each and every day of the operations of the coal mines some equipment becomes either obsolete or is scrapped. There is a considerable amount of money involved in this. Is this equipment to be disposed of by the coal division or by the industrial development division, and what processes will be followed? Will it be passed over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal or is the coal division to be authorized to resell the equipment?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Clause 34 specifically says:
The Surplus Crown Assets Act does not apply to the Corporation or to the property of the Corporation.
As to whether the coal or the industrial development division will be authorized to sell the equipment, I do not think this is particularly important so long as the corporation itself has this responsibility and takes the full responsibility for the way it is done.


Malcolm MacInnis: I think some importance should be attached to the procedure in the event that the coal division is given the authority to sell obsolete equipment. Since they administer their own bonds, at least we would be sure that money from any resale would be channelled into the coal division in order to maintain and continue operations of any one line.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I agree.
June 19. 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	1703
Cape Breton Development Corporation Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South): By to be in the interests of the corporation and agreeing, does the minister mean he will give of the people in the area, is the fact that we the coal division authority for resale?	are making money available for that purpose.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That's right. If the coal division of the crown corporation has the responsibility to operate the mines, it would also have the responsibility to dispose of equipment which is no longer necessary in the operation of the mines.


Malcolm MacInnis: Can I
quote the minister from Hansard in the future?


Robert Muir: I have just one short question, Mr. Chairman. Do I take it that when these goods are disposed of in the manner described by the minister the public of Canada will receive an itemized list of them, and the names of those who receive those goods will also be advertised as well as how much was paid for them?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would assume that indeed. They should be sold by public tender and the highest bidder would get whatever is on sale.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I wonder if the minister's legal advisers would look again at clause 16 of the bill with regard to the powers of the coal division and clause 23 with regard to the powers of the industrial development division? Could the minister tell us whether he is satisfied that these two put together would give the corporation an opportunity to develop new seams of coal which so far have been untouched by Dosco. After looking at clause 16, I doubt whether that power is given, and the power in clause 23 seems to be too general to permit that. If the minister can say that his legal advisers suggest that this power does exist, then perhaps I will be satisfied.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer is covered by paragraph (b) apparently, but what is even more important is the fact that we are making $25 million available for rehabilitation and modernization of the mines. It is known that the $25 million is made up of two parts, one being $15 million for the rehabilitation of some of the mines, and the other being $10 million to fulfil the commitment of the government that a mine might be opened at Lingan. However, as I said before, it is left to the corporation to decide what is in the best interest of the coal operation and of the people in the area. So, I think the best assurance that all hon. members can have that a mine might be opened at Lingan, if it is found 27053-1091


Robert Jardine McCleave: I thank the minister for his answer but I do not think paragraph (b) covers the point which he made with relation to the Lingan coal seam. It is not a coal mine as yet, and I think if he added the words "or seams" after "coal mines" this would make it crystal clear that the corporation had the power given to it by parliament to take over the Lingan seam.
I do not think that this power is inherent in the words of this clause.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am informed that the addition of these words is unnecessary. The power to operate these mines includes the power to open a new mine.


Malcolm MacInnis: The
minister indicated that the $25 million allotted has been broken down in accordance with the policy statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare on October 5, 1965 in Halifax. However, I see no reference whatsoever to any such breakdown in the legislation. The bill does mention the 25 million, and we are thankful for that, but there is no reference to what the minister said about the $10 million for the opening of the new seam.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But there is reference to the $25 million.


Robert Muir: I am shocked at the attitude of the minister on this point. He said several times that a new mine "might be opened". This is not what the Minister of National Health and Welfare said so many times in his policy statement on October 5. He said, prior to the federal election, that the Lingan mine will be opened. I mentioned this in the house last Thursday and I directed my remarks at both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I will quote what I said then. I was reading what the Liberal candidate had said. My statement appears at page 1572 of Hansard of June 15. I said:
All the advertising by Liberal candidates in the election campaign of 1965 said it was a fait accompli. They said: We have a new mine at Lingan. We have told you this, and our minister has said so. Therefore we are looking forward to a new mine.
At that point the Minister of National Health and Welfare nodded his head, which
1704	COMMONS
Cape Breton Development Corporation was not recorded in Hansard, but I put it on the record by saying:
The minister nods his head. I am so pleased at that indication that there will be a new mine at Lingan. I thank the minister very much for that indication, because we have been quite worried about the matter for some time. There is now no need to deal further with the question because we will have a new mine at Lingan.
So I am rather surprised that the minister uses the word "might". Does the minister agree with the Minister of National Health and Welfare that a new coal mine will be opened in Lingan in the Glace Bay area by the Cape Breton Development Corporation upon its establishment?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: I agree; there is provision in the bill for that eventuality. Clause 19(b) refers to:
-the aggregate twenty-five million dollars, for the purposes of reorganizing and rehabilitating the coal mining and related works and undertakings refered to in section 15 and for preparatory work in connection with the conduct by the Corporation of coal mining and related operations.
The money is available and we must leave it to the expertise of the corporation to decide on how best to spend it.


Robert Muir: I do not know why that should be left to the expertise of the coal board because the expertise of the Minister of National Health and Welfare has been involved in this matter for many months. For many months, I and other members from Cape Breton have questioned the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but Mr. Speaker ruled many of our questions out of order. Nevertheless, on another occasion the Minister of Transport reaffirmed that the policy would be put into effect as stated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare as of November 5, 1965, which was that a new coal mine would be opened in the Lingan area of Glace Bay.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only say that politicians are supposed to fulfil their promises, and when they cannot fulfil all their promises the best they can do is to make money available for the fulfilment of those promises provided they are found to be in the best interests of the population. That is what we have in mind.


Malcolm MacInnis: I appreciate what the minister said about keeping promises. If the government comes as close to keeping other promises as it has to keeping

DEBATES	June 19, 1967
this promise the country would be better off. I ask the minister too desist from using the word "might". For a minister of the crown to use the word "might" leaves an implication, which the development corporation will take up, that the government is saying more or less: "This is something that can be done but we do not want to do it."
I ask the minister to remember the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, as well as other ministers, and to stop using the word "might" and to get down to business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I suggest an amendment to clause 16(b) which would make crystal clear what the minister and others were talking about a few minutes ago? After the word "improve" could we not add the word "open" so that the paragraph would read:
-rehabiliate, improve, open, operate and maintain any coal mines-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the minister not agree to that simple amendment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Think about it over night.


Jean-Luc Pepin: If the hon. member for Halifax finds this absolutely necessary, I have no objection. But the corporation will still have to decide what has to be done in rehabilitating, improving, opening, operating and maintaining any coal mines.
By the way, would hon. members be kind enough to allow us to go on and finish the bill, as apparently it would be quite difficult to bring it back into the house. Everybody agrees that it is not desirable to delay passage.


David Lewis: I wish I could accommodate the minister. I do not know what difficulties there are in bringing the bill back. One or two other clauses will require considerable study and that would make this session very late. I see no reason, unless I can be shown one, for not continuing for one hour or two, say, tomorrow.
I do not know what the leader of the house has in mind for tomorrow. I am not being dogmatic, yet. I want to be shown why this committee should sit until 11.30 p.m. or twelve o'clock to complete this bill, assuming we can complete it by then, at this point in the new
June 19, 1967	COMMONS
session. Unless somebody persuades me to the contrary I, for one, would not agree to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten o'clock.


Jean-Luc Pepin: One of the reasons is that I am hoping to go to the Canada-United States ministerial committee meetings in Montreal on Thursday, and I would like to see this completed, first.


David Lewis: As far as we in this group are concerned, unless the leader of the house has other plans it can be done tomorrow.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My estimates are on the agenda tomorrow; I was just trying to give hon. members more time in which to reprimand me in connection with those estimates.


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



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Starr:: May I ask the leader of the house what the business is to be tomorrow? Will we carry on with our consideration of this bill or will we move to some other business?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The business for tomorrow was announced on Thursday in an effort to keep the house advised as far in advance as possible. There will be no change in the business tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we not be told the business for tomorrow instead of having to look back to Thursday's Hansard?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Winona Grace MacInnis: On June 9 I asked whether the government would be prepared to give a definite assurance in this house that legislation would be introduced this session to legalize birth control in Canada. I am well aware, as I was when I asked that question, that government spokesmen have made speeches here and there to the effect that birth control will be legalized some time this year. But I would
DEBATES	1705
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion very much like the government to stop playing this cat and mouse game with hon. members and with the public, and let us know definitely here in the house when action is to be taken.
There should be no further need for cat and mouse tactics. Last December, after a long and careful study, the standing committee on health and welfare recommended that birth control be made legal, that it should no longer be an offence under the Criminal Code. The Committee recommended also that regulations: should be introduced under the Food and Drugs Act concerning the distribution and advertising of contraceptives and that henceforth in Canada birth control should be left to the individual conscience.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In other words, individuals who believed in getting information and birth control devices should have the right to do so without it being considered a crime. Those people who, because of religion or conscience or anything of that type, did not believe in such things should not have any information or devices forced upon them. It is very significant, Mr. Speaker, that throughout the long sessions of the health and welfare committee only one organization, a smaller church body, wanted to keep the Criminal Code the way it is.
It is not my purpose at the moment to debate the pros and cons of birth control. That has already been done. My purpose is to ask assurance that legislation to give effect to our committee recommendation, and to legalize birth control, will be brought in this session. I want the assurance of the government to that effect, and I want it for two or three reasons.
I think it is very important that we lose no time in getting rid of a bad law. We were assured by delegation after delegation from different bodies who appeared before the committee that this is a bad law on the statute books, a law which cannot be enforced. It is a poor thing to keep a law of this type on the statute books because it breeds disrespect and disrepute for the law.
The Canadian Catholic Conference of Bishops was one of the bodies which strongly urged that the legislation in its present form be removed from the Criminal Code.
In the second place, I would very much like to see us without fear in this centennial year move Canada at least into the twentieth century, along with a lot of other countries, in this matter of the legalization of birth control. On June 9, when I raised this question, I mentioned that France had been the most
1706	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion recent country to announce it was moving forward to legalize birth control. France is worried about a falling birth rate.
Our own birth rate in Canada has been falling somewhat, although I do not believe to such a degree that it is worrying anybody. However, in France they are concerned about it but they are not hoping to maintain the birth rate by keeping birth control illegal. They are taking a much wiser course. They are beginning to think that by encouraging subsidized housing for married couples and by other measures they can increase the birth rate to the level which they want.
I think it is high time in this country that we wiped out the hypocritical attitude we have had toward birth control. It is a peculiar thing when you find a great big municipality like Scarborough has been put in the position of illegally operating a birth control clinic for some time now, and that every minister, every priest and every physician who made birth control information available with respect to the handling of contraceptives has been guilty of an illegal act. I, for one, would like to make sure that the government without fail is going to introduce legislation of this type this session, and will announce so here in this house which is the proper place.
I see no reason why the minister should get up and say it is going to be announced in due course. Everybody outside has been told it is coming in this session. I would like to ask the minister, please make this announcement in the house so that we will know once and for all, and so that the Canadian people will realize this thing is going to be introduced as definite legislation this year.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. lady's observations of a philosophical, statistical and sociological nature on this very important subject. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has already made references to this particular subject and the hon. lady has raised no new question that would require an addition to his comments at the present time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can't you just say yes?



TRADE-REPORTED LACK OF DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL SPEAKING JAPANESE

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4, on the adjournment hour debate, I raised a question about lack of diplomatic representation around the Pacific rim. The parliamentary
[Mrs. Maelnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1
DEBATES	June 19, 1967
secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs felt that I was a bit off base because he said the real question that I was asking had to do with trade. He obviously had not done his homework because he did not know what trade representatives we had, but later on, taking a chance anyway, he said:
We have a farflung trade commissioner service and I do not doubt that we are represented in those posts.
At that time the hon. member for Red Deer pointed out to him that we were not even represented by trade commissioners in these posts. I was interested to read a few days ago that in the parliamentary committee on finance, trade and economic affairs a most startling answer was given in reply to some perceptive questioning by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. From this answer we learned that there is no officer of Japanese extraction in the division for trade promotion; that trade officers in Tokyo have only an imperfect command of the simpler terms in spoken Japanese; that the department had thought of offering a limited course in the Japanese language, but because it would take two years of constant study to make a person fluent this was regarded as too expensive.
The only cheerful note struck in this questioning was that the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs had done some homework since my question of April 4, and he is quoted as saying that the trade department of his own government is missing a great opportunity in not employing the mosaic nature of the Canadian community. He said that it was bizarre that Canada lacks a single Japanese speaking trade commissioner.
I can imagine his concern to learn so shortly after my question on April 4 that not only did we have no trade commissioner in that area, but our chances of sending anyone knowledgeable in the Korean or Chinese languages or the languages of Thailand would be very slender indeed if we were unable to send anyone to a trading nation so important to us as Japan, a country which has been so important to us for a long time now, who was familiar with the Japanese language.
That is why I asked the minister the other day whether there would be a recruiting campaign or any crash program of language instruction designed to fill this very important gap. I cannot accept the defeatist attitude of the department that two years of constant study is required to make a person fluent in
June 19, 1967

Japanese. In other words, that the department would have to start from scratch now.
More than one university in Canada conducts courses in the Japanese language. The University of British Columbia has been offering courses in the Japanese language since 1956. This I know because I was a member of the first class to study Japanese at the University of British Columbia. There were 14 in that class, and classes have been held since then. Admittedly not everyone in the class would be fluent in the language, but they would at least have a groundwork.
If the department conducted a recruiting campaign in places such as universities or among the Japanese-Canadian community, it might not be at all necessary to initiate a special language course. But even if this were the case, Mr. Speaker, we would not have to start from scratch; we would be able to find applicants who would at least have the basics of the language.
We in British Columbia and in the west of Canada are extremely concerned, and have been for a long time, about the whole question of trade promotion and trade commissioners in the Pacific rim. We welcomed the announcement of the Prime Minister the other day that very shortly an ambassador to Korea would be appointed. This is something to which we have looked forward for a long time. We in British Columbia hope that many of the departments of the federal government will live up to the statement that is often made by various representatives of the government, namely that the federal government is vitally concerned in the Pacific rim.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It is so concerned, in fact, that the government of British Columbia is advised not to go out on its own in the Pacific rim to establish relations, but to leave this up to the central
DEBATES	1707
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion government. However, we run across the sort of evidence which was brought out in the committee the other day, and we are seriously concerned whether the government can live up to its announced expectations in this area.
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Acting Minister of
Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the suggested answer by the Department of Trade and Commerce repeats the argument that linguists consider a two year training period to be minimal in achieving a reasonable degree of fluency in this very difficult language. Departmental assignments abroad are rotational and it has been the view that a two year training period is too costly in terms of its proportion of an officer's career to be realistic when the posting time in Japan is two and a half years. Of course, entrance to the department is open to Canadians of Japanese origin and Canadians who speak Japanese, so I would think that those who felt they would like to take up this work would have a very good chance of being accepted.
The department does, of course, have local nationals on strength to translate and interpret, and it employs two commercial officers in its Tokyo office who are fluent in Japanese. These are in addition to its clerical and stenographic staff. Because of the high proportion of Japanese businessmen who are fluent in the English language, the department has encountered no real difficulty in conducting its business in Japan.
Personally I think the suggestion made by the hon. member that a special contest or drive should take place is a good one, and I will pass it on personally to the minister of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, June 20, 1967