1967-11-13

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
November 8, 1967-Mr. Rock-Bill intituled: "An act to amend the British North America Act, 1867, and Publication of Statutes Act (proceedings to be printed in French and English on the same page) ".
Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the bill stands I might take the opportunity to comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre when the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle on Friday last sought leave to introduce this bill. The point of order was raised with the suggestion that this might be a money bill.
I have since then reviewed the terms of the proposed legislation in the light of the definition of a money bill set out at pages 841 and 842 of May's Parliamentary Practice, seventeenth edition. My conclusion is that the present bill does not fall within that definition. May states that a charge must be new and distinct and that it must be effectively imposed. He adds:
These tests have the effect of excluding from the category of "charges" a considerable number of matters which prima facie involve expenditure.
If this were not so, no public bill could be introduced by a private member, for every bill involves an expenditure of money even if it be only for the printing thereof. If any expenditure is required following the adoption of this bill, it is already covered by section 16 of the Publication of Statutes Act, chapter 230 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, which reads as follows:
All expenditures incurred in printing, binding and distributing the statutes shall be defrayed from an appropriation voted by parliament for that purpose.
I must also add that this statute, an act respecting the publication of the statutes, was introduced in the house on March 31, 1925, with the same wording as that contained in 27053-2631
section 16 and without a resolution. In other words, if there is any expenditure in the bill proposed by the hon. member for Jacques-Cartier-Lasalle it is already covered by existing statutory authority. Furthermore, a much more comprehensive measure was introduced in the house in 1925 and was deemed not to require a resolution nor the recommendation of the crown.
In view of the law and the precedents I suggest that the hon. member should be allowed to submit the bill to the house, but for today the bill will stand.



SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Loibiniere) moved: for leave to introduce a bill respecting the oath of allegiance of members of the Senate and the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, in order to prevent ridiculous charges of violation of the oath of office against parliamentarians who preach constitutional reforms, however radical they may be, provided they are advanced without resort to anarchy and violence, and to prevent the unfortunate incident that would ensue if some members of the Quebec legislature who object more and more strongly to swearing the oath of allegiance in its present form, were they to refuse, something that is more and more possible, according to my information, the purpose of the bill is to replace the oath of allegiance prescribed by section 128 of the British North America Act by the following:
I swear to be faithful to the democratic government of my country and to its constitution and to do everything in my power to serve them well and to ensure their progress under law.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether this house should be asked to give unanimous consent to a bill of this nature.
416$

November 13. 1967
Questions
Surely this procedure is intended to indicate to the house what a member has in mind. This member is attempting to strike out our oath of allegiance-
Mr. Speakers Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member and I thank him for his comments but, as he knows very well, this motion is not debatable but is subject to a vote. Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the said bill? All those in favour will please say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
In the past, the house decided on several occasions that any member could introduce a bill; the attitude of the opposition is anti-democratic and constitutes a gag.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that there are no grounds for a question of privilege.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many hunting and/or fishing establishments are now in operation in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory?
2.	How many are owned and/or operated by Indians or Eskimos?
3.	How many are owned by Canadians?
4.	How many are owned or controlled by American interests?
5.	Where Indian or Eskimo guides are employed, what is the average cost of the services of a guide to the client, and where such guides are in the employ of an outfitter, what proportion of this cost is actually paid to the guide?
6.	In the latest year of record, how many nonresident (a) hunting licences (b) fishing licences, were issued in the Northwest Territories?
7.	Of this number, how many were issued to (a) Canadians (b) Americans?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In the
Northwest Territories there are 25 tourist camps and 13 outfitters which cater primarily to sport fishermen and hunters. In the Yukon Territory there are 21 hunting and 19 fishing establishments.
2.	and 3. While it is not the practice to require registration by race or nationality it appears that, in the Northwest Territories, nine hunting and 18 fishing establishments are owned by Canadians, one of the fishing establishments being operated by a Canadian having Indian status. In the Yukon Territory, 21 hunting and 16 fishing establishments are owned by Canadians, two of the hunting and four of the fishing establishments being owned or operated by Canadians having Indian status.
4.	As far as can be ascertained, four fishing establishments in the Northwest Territories and one fishing establishment in the Yukon Territory are owned or controlled by American interests.
5.	The normal procedure for the hiring of guides is on a wage plus room and board and tips basis, subject to negotiation by the parties concerned. It has been estimated that the average income for a guide, for a two month season in the Northwest Territories, is approximately $1,000, including salary, tips and the value of free board and lodging.
6.	In the fiscal year 1966-67, 176 nonresident big game hunting licences and 3,184 non-resident angling licences were issued in the Northwest Territories.
7.	Of the angling licences (a) 685 were issued to Canadians and (b) 2,489 to Americans. Of the hunting licences (a) 13 were issued to Canadians and (b) 158 to Americans.


RESULTS IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Andras: In areas designated by the Department of Industry (ADA) for Industrial Incentives, to date, what results have been obtained in attracting new industries or expanding existing industries, since such designation, in communities which prior to designation, had a population under 5,000 people, between 5,000 and 25,000 people, and over 25,000 people, in terms of (a) percentage of the total number of new industries that have located and expansions that have taken place in all designated areas (b) number of existing industries that have expanded in each of the above population classes of community (c) number of new industries that have located in each of the above population classes of community (d) number of new jobs created
November 13, 1967

In each of the above population classes of community (e) percentage increase in population in each of the above population classes of community, since designation, as compared to the national population increase since 1963?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: In answer to parts (a) through (d) the following statistics are based upon active applications received by the area development agency as of September 1, 1967, and refer only to
Questions
establishments participating under the area development program. Active applications include those that have been approved or are under review but do not include applications that have been rejected. The statistics relate to all areas that have been designated under the program since its beginning, July 1963, including those areas that have been de-designated.
Size of community in terms of total population prior to designation
5,000 or	5,001 to	25,000less	25,000	and over Total(a)	Percentage of new and expanded establishments locating within all designated	areas	53.6%	28.9%	17.5% 100%(b)	Total number of establishments undergoing expansion in all designated areas	200	95	42 337(c)	Total number of new establishments locating within all designated areas	215	129	94 438(d)	Total number of direct job opportunities arising out of (b) and (c) above	22,810	13,546	9,998 46,354
(e) Data on population trends are not available in sufficient detail to answer this question completely. Total population increase in all designated and de-designated areas between 1961 and 1966 was 2.3 per cent compared to the national population increase of 9.7 per cent.


OKANAGAN INDIAN AGENCY
Mr. Johnston: 1.	Which Indian reservations are at present served by the Okanagan Indian agency?
2.	What is the population of each of these reservations?


Arthur Laing: 1 and 2.
The Okanagan and Kootenay Indian agencies were amalgamated in 1966 under the new name "Kootenay-Okanagan agency". The following table shows the names of the bands, the reserves they hold and the approximate on-reserve population of each reserve located within the boundaries of the Kootenay-Okanagan agency:
Band	Indian reserve	Approximate on-reserve populationOkanagan	Okanagan No. 1	526Otter Lake No. 2	NilHarris No. 3	NilPriest's Valley No. 6	NilDuck Lake No. 7	19Westbank	Mission Creek No. 8	NilTsinstikeptum No. 9	98Tsinstikeptum No. 10	23Osoyoos	Osoyoos No. 1	98Osoyoos No. 3	Nil
Questions

November 13, 1967
Band
Penticton
Lower Similkameen
Upper Similkameen
Spallumcheen
Tobacco Plains Columbia Lake St. Mary's
Lower Kootenay Shuswap
Indian reserve	on-
Penticton No. 1 Penticton No. 3A
Lower Similkameen No. 2
Narcisse's Farm No. 4
Skemeoskuankin Nos. 7 & 8
Alexis No. 9
Ashnola No. 10
Blind Creek No. 6A
Blind Creek No. 6
Keremeos Forks Nos. 12 & 12A
Range No. 13
Vermilion Forks No. 1 Chuchuwayha No. 2 Chuchuwayha No. 2A Chuchuwayha No. 2B Chuchuwayha No. 2C Wolf Creek No. 3 Nine Mile Creek No. 4 Lulu No. 5 One Mile No. 6
Salmon River No. 1 Enderby No. 2 Sicamous No. 3
Tobacco Plains No. 2
Columbia Lake No. 3
Isidore's Ranch No. 4 Kootenay No. 1 Cassimayooks No. 5 Bummers Flat No. 6
Creston No. 1 Lower Kootenay No. 1A Lower Kootenay No. IB Lower Kootenay No. 1C Lower Kootenay No. 2 Lower Kootenay No. 3 Lower Kootenay No. 4 Lower Kootenay No. 5
Shuswap
St. Mary's No. 1A
(held in common by Columbia
Lake, Lower Kootenay, Shuswap,
St. Mary's and Tobacco Plains bands)
Approximate *reserve population
Nil
12
9
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
174
Nil
77
Nil
9
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil

November 13, 1967


MANUFACTURE OF OOKPIKS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many Ookpiks have been manufactured each month by the Fort Chimo Eskimo co-operative since they were first created there, and how many have been sold since manufacturing began?
2.	Has the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a considerable supply of Fort Chimo manufactured Ookpiks on hand and, if so, what quantity and how will they be disposed of?
3.	Has manufacturing been discontinued recently and, if so, for what reason and for how long?
4.	What royalties have accrued to the Fort Chimo Co-operative from commercial enterprises licensed to manufacture Ookpiks?


Arthur Laing: 1. This information is privileged; the department is not at liberty to provide such detailed information obtained in confidence from this independent cooperative.
2.	The department has on hand 24,883 Ookpiks which will be disposed of through Canadian Arctic Producers.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 1.


PRESS RELEASES BY INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard: 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issue documents with the heading "Press Release Communique" and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since the foundation of the said department?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing the headings (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3. With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) its total quantity (c) its total cost?
4.	With respect to such a document, containing on the front page thereof the following: "Release time: 3:00 p.m.; Pacific standard time; Saturday, August 12, 1967; An address by the Honourable Arthur Laing, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, at the annual Vancouver South Liberal picnic, Vancouver, B.C., Saturday, August 12, 1967", what was (a) the total number of such documents so issued (b) the quantity and cost of the paper so used (c) the number of working hours consumed in the preparation and distribution thereof (d) the mailing costs?


Arthur Laing: In so far
as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned the answers are as follows: 1. Yes, 207 documents.
Questions
2.	(a) $2,116.50; (b) no stencils are used; (c) no mimeographing is involved; (d) total cost of plate making, printing by offset, collating and stapling the documents amounts to approximately $5,969.50, (e) the department is charged for mailing on a bulk yearly basis by the Post Office Department and therefore it is impossible to estimate the cost of mailing specific documents. The cost of the addressing process is estimated at $477.36.
3.	(a) letterhead is on offset book white 40 M.; plain stock paper is white bond 40 M.; (b) letterhead, 415,000 sheets; plain stock paper, 923,435 sheets; (c) letterhead, $2,116.50; plain stock paper, $1,828.40.
4.	(a) 747; (b) letterhead, 747 sheets, $3.81; plain stock paper, 5,076 sheets, $11.23; (c) approximately 4J man hours, excluding the printing time by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau; (d) 360 copies were mailed to members of parliament, in Ottawa. The department is charged for mailing on a bulk yearly basis by the Post Office Department and, therefore, it is impossible to estimate the cost of mailing these specific documents.


AMATEUR BAND RADIO EQUIPMENT
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What has been the annual tariff collected on "amateur band only" radio equipment imported into Canada in each of the last five years?
2.	Do any Canadian manufacturers produce "amateur band only" radio equipment?
3.	In the establishment of tariffs in the past, has consideration been given to differences between "amateur band" and "citizens band" radio equipment?
4.	Have submissions been received by the Department of Finance or the Tariff Board to remove tariffs on radio equipment for use on the amateur band and, if so, what consideration is being given to such requests?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by several departments as follows: 1. Information not available.
2.	No.
3.	The Tariff Board made a comprehensive study of the tariffs on radio and television equipment under reference 123. Its report was tabled March 29, 1965. "Amateur band" radio equipment is mentioned in the report and received consideration. However, in the revised tariff items proposed by the board it would be classified along with other radio equipment rather than being singled out for special treatment.
4.	Yes. The Tariff Board has received and is examining such a submission in the context of reference 134.

November 13, 1967
Questions


REPLACEMENT OF AIR CANADA AIRCRAFT
Mr. Forresiall: What plans, if any, has the government for the replacement of Air Canada's Vanguard and Viscount aircraft?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Air Canada advises that its present planning calls for the eventual replacement on a pro-
1.	1963
Newfoundland	Nil
Prince Edward Island	Nil
Nova Scotia	4
New Brunswick	3
Quebec	20
Ontario	21
Manitoba	4
Saskatchewan	15
Alberta	9
British Columbia	7
North West Territories	Nil
Yukon	Nil
Total	83
New post office buildings under construction	
as of 25th October 1967	
Newfoundland	14
Prince Edward Island	3
Nova Scotia	5
New Brunswick	9
Quebec	18
Ontario	7
Manitoba	Nil
Saskatchewan	2
Alberta	Nil
British Columbia	1
North West Territories	Nil
Yukon	Nil
Total	59
2. Under normal policy, the postal revenue of a post office is not a determining factor in qualifying for a federal building. The main requirement is that an office must be of semistaff category or higher. Semi-staff classifica-	
tion is attained by means of a unit	of work
	
gressive basis of all propeller turbine aircraft with jets of appropriate size and range.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Watson (Assiniboia): 1.	How many new post offices were built in each province in Canada in each year since 1963?
2.	What is the minimum postal revenue required to qualify for a federally owned post office?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: 1964	1965	1966	1967	Total33	31	20	8	924	6	5	1	1618	44	12	11	8921	23	8	15	7041	75	26	58	22033	27	18	17	1166	4	2	Nil	169	11	3	Nil	388	4	3	Nil	244	4	1	4	20Nil	1	Nil	1	2Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil	Nil177	230	98	115	703
survey with definite guideposts which determine the classification. However, in areas of high winter unemployment, small federal buildings have been constructed under the winter works program. For this program, the cabinet has set as a minimum criterion, that a post office must have a revenue of not less than $1,200 per annum.


RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF CARIBOU IN CAPE BRETON PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What action to date has been taken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to implement the re-establishment of caribou in the Cape Breton Highlands national park?


Arthur Laing: The following action has been taken to date: (a) Officers of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have discussed this project with officers of the wildlife service,
November 13, 1967

departments of tourism, fish and game, province of Quebec, (b) Investigations into capture, transportation, and release have been conducted and no obstacles to the projects have been found, (c) The Quebec wildlife service has advised that March 1968 would be the best time to carry out the transplant. The project is being planned for that time, (d) A further meeting has been planned with officers of the Quebec wildlife service late in 1967 to plan final details of the project.


DISCUSSIONS WITH U.K. ON RECIPROCAL PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Since May 30, 1966, the date of answers to similar questions, have there been further discussions between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada pension plan and corresponding legislation in the United Kingdom?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. While there has been no meeting of officials, there has been an exchange of correspondence relating to this matter.
2.	There are no new developments to report at this time.
3.	It is possible that further discussions will be held and, if any conclusions affecting existing arrangements are arrived at, these will be reported to the house.


DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S. ON RECIPROCAL PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Since May 30, 1966, the date of answers to similar questions, have there been further discussions between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada pension plan and corresponding legislation in the United States?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. On July 12, 1966, officials of the Canada Pension Plan met with the officials of the United
Questions
States social security administration to discuss the question of reciprocal arrangements. As the result of these discussions, in November 1966, the United States government recognized the right of certain Canadian citizens to receive, as of the 1st January
1966,	benefits under the United States social security legislation while residing outside the country. Further meetings between the same officials were held on the 26th and 27th September 1967 to pursue the question of reciprocal arrangements between the two countries.
2.	There are no new developments to be announced at this time.
3.	Further discussions are contemplated.


DISCUSSIONS WITH GERMANY ON RECIPROCAL PENSION PLANS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Since May 30, 1966, the date of answers to similar questions, have there been further discussions between the government of Canada and the government of Germany concerning the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with respect to the Canada pension plan and corresponding legislation in Germany?
2.	If so, what conclusions have been reached?
3.	If no conclusions have yet been reached, are such discussions continuing and will a report on such discussions be made to the House of Commons at an early date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Social
security officials of the Federal Republic of Germany met with Canadian officials in Ottawa during the week October 16-21,
1967.
2.	General agreement was reached on a number of points that would form the basis of an agreement between the two governments. These are being referred for consideration by the two governments.
3.	Further discussions are contemplated and a report to the house will be made in due course.


TRANSFER OF ROCKCLIFFE AERODROME TO TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Bell (Carlelon): 1.	Has any proposal been made for the transfer of Rockcliife aerodrome from the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence to the Department of Transport for use as a secondary airport in the national capital region?
2.	If so, what action has been taken in respect of the proposal?
4172

November 13, 1967
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2. Methods of operating Rockcliffe airport on a caretaker basis, for the use of light local and itinerant aircraft have been explored between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Transport but no decision for transfer has been taken.


EXPENDITURES ON NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Caouette: What was the amount spent by the federal government on each of the federal parks for each of the last ten years?


Arthur Laing: 27053-264*


EXPENDITURES IN THE NATIONAL PARKS OF CANADA
[Stage Direction]
1957-58 to 1966-67 (*000's)
1957-58	1958-59	1959-60	1960-61	1961-62	1962-63	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	TotalsBanff	
4,871.4	5,448.2	6,641.7	5,524.6	4,806.6	2,903.3	3,494.8	3,083.9	3,661.5	3,157.4	43,593.4Cape Breton Highlands	
1,544.9	1,340.9	1,946.6	1,921.1	1,574.0	929.2	730.3	836.7	966.0	805.0	12,594.7Elk Island	
260.1	417.1	343.7	590.1	637.7	577.2	642.6	691.4	385.2	515.9	5.061.0Fundy	
461.3	834.1	620.6	605.2	629.2	834.9	595.2	672.5	762.5	681.8	6,697.3Georgian Bay Islands	
59.8	74.6	93.1	65.6	72.8	75.6	74.8	80.4	110.9	108.1	815.7Jasper	
1,370.1	2,601.0	2,877.9	2,860.3	4,556.7	5,752.3	3,113.6	3,607.5	4,616.8	10,429.9	41,777.1Kejimkujik	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	362.6	252.0	614.6Kootenay	
3,774.1	4,076.2	3,507.8	1,626.4	2,547.2	1,516.9	1,339.8	1,525.2	1,393.8	874.5	22,181.9Mount Revelstoke-Glacier	
159.2	253.4	565.2	960.2	1,563.3	1,231.0	1,247.0	1,277.9	1,514.5	1,928.0	10,699.7Point Pelee	
153.0	135.3	149.6	206.4	238.6	250.1	223.7	170.5	437.5	308.6	2,273.3Prince Albert	
545.8	802.5	961.3	978.5	1,164.8	1,220.8	1,206.2	927.2	849.1	780.8	9,437.0Prince Edward Island	
779.8	584.4	1,002.3	1,432.9	843.9	525.1	544.8	752.7	752.4	380.3	7,598.6Riding Mountain	
693.6	955.3	524.5	1,037.4	1,662.5	1,225.9	1,308.0	967.4	937.3	922.4	10,234.3St. Lawrence Islands	
64.1	85.4	101.9	87.3	84.3	102.4	117.7	135.2	125.6	100.9	1,004.8Terra Nova	
240.1	970.8	727.2	600.1	995.5	599.4	834.2	1,041.8	995.1	763.2	7,767.4Waterton Lakes	
349.7	729.3	1,137.5	772.1	1,035.7	1,086.5	910.9	1,505.1	907.9	609.8	9,044.5Wood Buffalo	
-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	553.4	653.7	1,207.1Yoho	
408.2	706.4	994.3	1,010.0	892.5	849.8	692.6	833.9	669.5	702.7	7,759.9Totals	
15,735.2	20,014.9	22,195.2	20,278.2	23,305.3	19,680.4	17,076.2	18,109.3	20,001.6	23,966.0 200,362.3	November 13, 1967	COMMONS DEBATES	4173
Questions
[Stage Direction]
November 13, 1967
Questions

Mr. Caouelie: Have any surveys been made with regard to the building of an air terminal at the Rouyn air field?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: No, but an economic survey report is programmed for completion by February 1968.


STUDIES ON COMMUNICATION BY SATELLITE
Mr. Caoueite: Does the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation intend to enter the field of telecommunications by satellite and, if so, are studies being made in this connection?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: On August 20, 1964, in Washington, D.C., Canada signed the interim and special agreements which had been negotiated by governments of a number of countries with a view to the establishment and operation of an international telecommunication satellite system, and in which 58 nations now participate. Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation was designated by the government of Canada as the operating entity for Canada. The corporation remains active in this field and is operating a satellite earth station located at Mill Village, Nova Scotia, providing telephone and television services between Canada and Europe.


EXPLORATION OF ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	Has the government engaged in discussions with private oil exploration and/or drilling companies with a view to participating in the establishment of a crown corporation for the purpose of channeling public and private investment funds into exploration of the Arctic archipelago?
2.	If so, what are the names of the persons, firms and/or corporations with which such discussions have been held?
3.	Has any agreement been reached With respect to the establishment of such a crown corporation and, if so, what are the details of such agreement?
4.	What is the anticipated investment by the government in the undertaking?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	No.
4.	N/A.


MILL OF KINTAIL AS HISTORIC SITE
Mr. Brand: 1.	Have any approaches been made to the historic sites and monuments board for the purchase of the Almonte home of Dr. Robert Tait McKenzie?
2.	In view of the many representations, is it the intent of this government to designate the Mill of Kintail as a national historic site?


Arthur Laing: 1. No. The
historic sites and monuments board of Canada does not consider the purchase of houses per se.
It has, however, on two separate occasions considered the national historical importance of the home, known as the Mill of Kintail, and its view has been that the mill is not of national historical significance.
In 1958 the board also recommended that the name Robert Tait McKenzie be added to the list of distinguished Canadians. The board recently considered this matter again and recommended the erection of a plaque commemorating McKenzie.
2. In view of the board's recommendation that the mill is not of national historical importance, it is not intended to designate the Mill of Kintail as a national historic site.


STUDY OF FISCAL MATTERS, YUKON TERRITORY
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	With respect to the appointment by the government of Messrs. Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart, chartered accountants, to conduct a study of taxation and fiscal affairs in the Yukon Territory, Is such study to be undertaken on a contract basis?
2.	If so, what is the cost to the government of the study to be undertaken?
3.	If the study is to be undertaken on a basis other than that of contract, what is the anticipated cost of the same?
4.	Was the study specifically requested by the Yukon legislative council?
5.	Was the appointment of Messrs. Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart specifically requested by the Yukon legislative council?
6.	Was the Yukon legislative council consulted with respect to the appointment of Messrs. Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart or with respect to the terms of reference of the study or with respect to any other matter relating to the study?
7.	Is any portion of the cost of the study to be charged against the consolidated revenue fund of the Yukon Territory?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
November 13, 1967

2.	The cost is not to exceed $60,000 plus actual expenses estimated at $6,000.
3.	N/A.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	At a meeting in Ottawa in January-Feb-ruary, 1967, members of the Yukon council discussed the need for and the type of study which would be undertaken by the department. There was no consultation with respect to the appointment of Messrs. Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart.
7.	No.
(a)	United Kingdom
(b)	Common market countries:
Belgium-Luxembourg
France
Germany West
Italy
Netherlands
Totals
(c)	Japan
(d)	Hong Kong


NEAR ACCIDENT AT MALTON AIRPORT
Mr. Sherman: Has the Department of Transport established responsibility for the air incident which occurred on October 2, 1967, at Malton airport, Toronto, involving an Air Canada DC-8 and a small privately owned aircraft and, if so (a) to whom has the department assigned responsibility for this incident (b) what disciplinary actions, if any, have been taken against this person (c) what steps is the department taking to ensure that the lives of commercial airliner passengers will not be endangered in incidents of this kind at Canadian airports in the future (d) has any recognition been conferred upon the captain of the DC-8 for his part in this incident and, if so, what recognition?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Responsibility for the air incident in question has not been finally determined since the matter is still under investigation. Investigation thus far has established that, apparently for reasons not yet fully determined, the pilot of the light aircraft did not comply with clearances given him by the air traffic control tower.
Questions


VALUE OF CANADIAN IMPORTS
Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron): What was the total value of all imports into Canada for the years 1965, 1966 and the first six months of 1967 from (a) the British Isles (t>>
common market countries (c) Japan (d) Hong Kong?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The total dollar value, in thousands of dollars, of all imports into Canada for the years 1965, 1966 and the first six months of 1967 from specified countries is as follows:
Jan.-June
1965	1966	1967$'000	$'000	$'000619,058	644,741	343,63772,027	61,555	31,11596,103	106,651	56,389209,517	235,207	116,77180,279	86,718	51,59356,274	60,489	29,472514,200	550,620	285,340230,144	253,051	140,61031,043	38,911	23,384
Without minimizing the seriousness of any incident of this kind, the investigation of the incident so far indicates that, at no time was there an imminent risk of collision and that the action of the Air Canada pilot in altering his approach was a normal precaution which would be expected of an alert and capable aircraft captain in a potentially hazardous situation.


EXPORT LICENCES TO CHINA
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What number of Canadian corporations applied for export licences to export to the People's Republic of China from January 1, 1963 to June 30, 1967?
2.	What companies have had their licence requests denied or modified and for what reasons?
3.	(a) What companies have withdrawn applications once submitted (b) what was the explanation given for withdrawal?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1. From January 1, 1963 to June 30,

November 13, 1967
Questions
1967, 133 export permit applications were received for export shipments to the People's Republic of China.
2.	Disclosure of the names of companies involved is not in public interest.
3.	(a) Same as for part 2. (b) No explanation is required for withdrawal of applications.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPLICATIONS
Mr. Laprise: How many initial applications were made by claimants to the unempjloyment insurance commission during the years 1965 and 1966?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Fiscal year ending 31 March, 1966, 1,189,617. Fiscal year ending 31 March, 1967, 1,212,740.


FISHERIES DEPARTMENT VEHICLE, SHEET HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Does the Department of Fisheries own a motor vehicle for its operations in and around Sheet Harbour, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so (a) for what purposes is the vehicle used (b) how many miles has it travelled this year (c) is use for non-departmental purposes permitted (d) has the department or its local officials at Sheet Harbour received complaints that the vehicle is used for non-departmental purposes?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minisier of Fisheries: 1.	Yes, two vehicles.
2(a) One vehicle, a 1966 half-ton pickup based in Halifax, is presently used for transport of biological staff and equipment between Halifax and Sheet Harbour and to operational sites on the East and West Rivers as well as other rivers and streams in the general vicinity of Sheet Harbour in connection with a major fisheries resource development project in that region.
The second, which is a fish transfer tank truck, is used to transfer adult salmon from fish trapping facilities in connection with the East river fisheries development and rehabilitation program, and to transport young salmon smolts from departmental fish hatcheries to release sites on the East river, (b) 12,300 miles and 8,700 miles respectively to the end of September, 1967. (c) No. (d) No.


PROHIBITION OF MAIL FOR CERTAIN COUNTRIES
Mr. Schreyer: 1. Do Canadian postal regulations prohibit the acceptance of letter mail and/or parcel post to certain countries?
IMr. Cantin.]
2.	If so, to what countries does this prohibition
extend?
3.	On what dates did these postal regulation prohibitions become effective?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Postmaster General):: 1. While letter mail service from Canada is available to all countries, there are certain countries for which parcel post cannot be accepted.
2.	Parcel post service does not operate to the following countries: China; Republic of Laos; Mongolia, Peoples Republic; North Korea; North Viet Nam.
3.	The parcel post service was suspended on the dates indicated hereunder: China, May, 1949; Republic of Laos, November, 1960; Mongolia, Peoples Republic, the service has never been available; North Korea, July, 1950; North Viet Nam, May, 1959.


CONTINUATION OF OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS AFTER DEATH
Mr. Soufham: Will the government consider the continuation of old age security payments for one year after the death of a recipient, so that his estate may be retained to cover costs of funeral services, and to assist in the rehabilitation or relocation of dependant survivors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No. The purpose of old age security is to provide for current needs of individuals who have qualified for the pension. The law requires that payment cease with effect from the month following death. Because payment is made toward the end of each month, this means that the final payment in the majority of cases goes to the estate. To the extent this is done, there is some money available for post-death expenses.
The suggested change would cost approximately $80,000,000 per year, and would result in a year's payment going to many pensioners whose estates are already able to take care of post-death expenses. It would also mean a year's payment would go to the estate of many pensioners who had no survivors.


FEDERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: On what date does the government Intend to initiate construction of the new federal building that will be constructed in Amherst, Nova Scotia?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: This matter is now under review.
November 13, 1967


POST OFFICE EXTENSION, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Were properties purchased by the federal government to allow for an extension to the federal building in Amherst, Nova Scotia, that houses the post office and, if so, from whom was this property purchased and what was the cost of the property in question?
2.	On what date does the government intend to carry out an extension to the federal building that houses the post office in Amherst, Nova Scotia?


George James McIlraith: 1. Yes, from A. A. Leslie for $16,773.
2. It is not possible to give a date at the present time.


FEDERAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION, PARRSBORO, N.S.
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to construct a new federal building that will house the post office at Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, and, if so, when does the government intend to carry out construction of this new federal building?
2.	Has a site been selected for this federal building and, if so, what is the site, from whom was it purchased, and what was the amount of the purchase?


George James McIlraith: 1 and 2. See reply to question No. 250 as it appears in Hansard of June 26, 1967 on page 1924.


HARBOUR DREDGING, PORT GREVILLE, N.S.
Mr. Coales: Is it the intention of the government to carry out dredging of the harbour at Port Greville, Nova Scotia, and, if so, when will this dredging operation be under way?


George James McIlraith: There are no plans at present to dredge Port Greville harbour.


HARBOUR DREDGING, PUGWASH, N.S.
Mr. Coales: 1.	Will further dredging of Pugwash harbour be carried out in 1968?
2.	What was the cost of dredging undertaken at Pugwash in 1967 and what is the anticipated further expenditure for 1968?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): 1. No dredging is anticipated in 1968.
2. The cost of dredging in 1967 is not yet known because final quantities have not been calculated. The contract award was in the amount of $89,200.
Orders for Returns


EXTENSION OF DEFERMENTS UNDER LABOUR CODE
Mr. Johnston: 1.	Have applications been made to extend the deferments ending December 31, 1967, under part I of the federal labour code, dealing with hours of work and granted to the shipping and air transport companies?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to extend these deferments?
3.	Has any decision been made to fix termination dates for the deferments previously granted to the C.P.R. and all Canadian railways?


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary lo Minister of Labour):: 1. No.
2.	See above.
3.	Discussions are currently being held with unions and managements regarding the termination of the existing Gazette deferments of hours of work on Canadian railways.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouelle: 1.	For each of the years 1964, 1965, and 1966, who audited the financial statements of the C.N.R., the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, C.M.H.C., and the Canadian Wheat Board?
2.	What was paid to such auditors for each of these years?
3.	Does the government intend to carry out the recommendations of the public accounts committee that the auditor general of Canada act as auditor for all government companies and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


CONSULTATIONS RESPECTING TRANSPORTATION IN NORTH
Mr. Nielsen: Since October, 1963, has the government of Canada or any official or employee of the government had any consultations with either the government of the province of British Columbia, or with the government of the United States of America, or with the government of the state of Alaska, or with any official or employee of the said governments with respect to (a) the maintenance or paving of the Alaska highway (b) the maintenance or paving of the Haines cut-off road (c) the construction of a road from Carcross in the Yukon to Skagway in the state of Alaska (d) the acquisition by Canada of a corridor or corridors from the Yukon through the tidewater on the Alaskan panhandle (e) the acquisition by Canada of a "free" port or ports of the Alaskan panhandle?
Return tabled.
November 13, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister that at present on the order paper there still remain some 145 unanswered questions, not counting the returns that were made and the questions that were answered today. I would ask the Prime Minister to prevail upon his ministers to pay more attention to the questions that are directed to them and stand on the order paper, and deal with them as expeditiously as possible so that answers may be given to the hon. members requiring them.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to bring that matter to the attention of the ministers, and I hope my hon. friend will also be able to bring to the attention of his colleagues the form in which questions should be put in order that the answers might be expedited.


Michael Starr: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It is a well known fact, even to the Prime Minister, that questions must be submitted to the Clerk to assure that they are in proper form before they are placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is in a position to announce the date of the supplementary budget.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the house leader, who will have some discussions with the members opposite about the form this announcement should take. We have a date in mind, and as soon as these consultations are concluded we can make an announcement.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on Friday the minister agreed to a budget debate, will he not now accept his responsibility and stipulate an early date?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as posed is argumentative.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General?

Following the announcement of November 10 last, can the minister tell us whether he is considering the possibility of reducing the payment of interest on the national debt instead of reducing the personal income by means of a tax increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel the question is out of order.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Finance, who intends to pay a visit to the New York financial circles. Could he tell us whether he intends to knock at the same door and hopes to be able to kneel before the same people as the premier of Quebec?



COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF BONUS AND OVERDUE INTEREST

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice, but I have been busy on the phone as usual. It is a simple question. Can the Prime Minister inform the house what progress has been made in negotiations with the government of the United States for the payment of the $12 million due for the early completion of the Duncan dam, and the interest involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I accept the hon. gentleman's apology for not sending me notice. I was also busy on the phone. I will be glad to look into the question to see what progress has been made. I know we have taken up the matter in Washington, and it is a matter of importance and urgency. I hope the minister will be able to report tomorrow.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps I should direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the minister's criticism of the
November 13, 1967

United Nations food and agriculture organization, is it the government's intention to recommend any reduction in Canada's contribution to that agency?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement was designed to make sure the money contributed to this very important organization is well spent, and that the administration of the agency itself will make sure it is well spent. This was all he had in mind, to make sure the administration makes certain the money is well spent.


Alexander Bell Patterson: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister's views have been formally submitted to the directorate of the FAO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that the Minister of Agriculture is attending the meeting in Rome and has been in touch with the director. I know also that not long ago the director was in Ottawa and we had a chance to discuss with him the administration of this organization.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question I wished to put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his temporary absence I shall direct the question to the Prime Minister. Has the government received a protest from the government of North Viet Nam concerning Canada's alleged non-neutral position as a member of the international control commission? I ask this question in view of a news report this morning over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reporting this protest.


Mr. Speaker:: The first part of the question is in order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have also seen that news report, but I have had no message of any kind confirming it. I will get in touch with the minister when he returns later this afternoon to see whether external affairs has had any message from North Viet Nam.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: May I
ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister, when speaking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs,
Inquiries of the Ministry would also ask him to look into the question of what steps are taken by Canada, if any, to prevent the export of war materials destined for Viet Nam.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will discuss that matter with my colleague.


VIET NAM-INQUIRY AS TO RECENT PEACE PROPOSALS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alcide Simard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Concerning the war in Viet Nam, could he tell the house whether a recent proposal for a valid and durable peace treaty has been made on both sides by the belligerent parties?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of certain proposals that have been made on one side. I am not aware of any proposals for a negotiated peace having been made on the northern side.


Joseph Alcide Simard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What is the compromise which the right hon. Prime Minister intends to propose to the belligerents concerning the administration of South Viet Nam?


Mr. Speaker:: I think the question is much too broad to be answered now.


POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the continuing controversy concerning air pollution in southwestern Ontario, does the government intend to take action on a national pollution abatement program, and provide leadership on a country-wide basis on this urgent matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am
*180	COMMONS DEBATES	November 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry sure my hon. friend is aware that the provisions of the Ontario air pollution act are capable of dealing with this important situation, and action has already been taken by the government of Ontario. We on our side are preparing considerations that we hope will be reflected in legislative form setting out what we think would be appropriate steps to be taken by the federal government.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: A supplementary question in connection with the program the minister has suggested. Will it include both air and water pollution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Due to the deep concern of the minister over government spending, would he consider as a savings measure the abolition of the Senate or reducing the salary of senators to $1 a year?


Mr. Knowles:: Can we not have an answer, Mr. Speaker?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Secretary of State, but, in her absence, I could perhaps direct it to the Prime Minister, to whom I would apologize for not giving him sufficient notice.
In view of the resignation of His Eminence Cardinal Leger as archbishop of Montreal, and the tremendous loss suffered by the diocese of Montreal, would the government consider, as a centennial presentation, to provide some assistance to the noble enterprise that this distinguished Canadian personality wishes to undertake for the sake of lepers in Africa?


CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Baffle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of health and welfare and arises out of a news release by his department on 
November 10, when the minister announced the appointment of a committee of 12 members to advise on the Canada Pension Plan, which committee included the former member for Carleton. My question is, is this committee the minister's idea of conformity with the government's recently announced economic guide lines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question appears to be argumentative.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the right hon. gentleman aware of a statement being issued this afternoon by the full board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation rejecting the charge of rottenness in unspecified areas of management, censuring the Secretary of State by name, and protesting vigorously the action taken by the minister and the position resulting therefrom? In the light of this unprecedented action of the board of a public corporation set up by parliament, has the Prime Minister any comment to make on this matter for the information of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that a statement has been issued, though coming into the house I was told one was likely to be issued at four o'clock. Apparently my hon. friend has the inside track on this type of information.


Edmund Davie Fulton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am flattered by the last words of the Prime Minister, as to my sources of information, but on the basis of the information which the Prime Minister apparently did receive at the same time I did, has the right hon. gentleman any comment to make?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I certainly have not seen the statement, Mr. Speaker. To that extent my hon. friend has the advantage over me.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have not seen it.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Would the issuance of the statement by the board of the C.B.C. have any effect on shaking the confidence of the Prime Minister in this corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 13, 1967


MANPOWER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration on Friday last in connection with the closing of training centres for immigrants. The minister said he would take it as notice and answer the question on Monday. Can I repeat the question now?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I have inquired about the closing of that school leased by the Toronto school board to the provincial government. The school board has decided to take back for its own use the property leased to the provincial government. We can surely not interfere in that type of transaction.
[English\


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Would he tell the house whether his department has taken steps to deal with the wildcat labour dispute of the Montreal docks?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise or the statement that there is a wildcat dispute. The problems with respect to the Montreal docks arise because the Picard committee report, as the result of an act of this parliament, modifies collective agreements that were signed between the parties some months ago. These collective agreements provide for arbitration. The commissioner's report of 190-odd pages must be blended with the agreements which have been entered into between the parties.
Both sides in the dispute as well as the Montreal port council approached me over the week end and have made certain representations. The most effective way for me to answer the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, would be to read the telegram which was sent in reply to the port council.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The telegram is addressed to Mr. William Baatz, who is the president of the Montreal port council, and reads:
Referring your telegram tenth the collective agreements governing longshoring activities in the St. Lawrence ports provide for arbitration of grievances stop The fact that the agreements have been amended as a result of the Picard report does not affect said arbitration provisions. In view of this and of the urgency of the situation I have sent the following telegram to the Shipping Federation of Canada and the International Longshoremen's Association.
"I am proposing herein to the Shipping Federation of Canada and the International Longshoremen's Association that they agree to the appointment of an arbitrator to be chosen by me to make final and binding decisions with effect until December thirty-first 1967 on the issues which have affected shipping operations at the Port of Montreal and other ports on the St. Lawrence river stop With the end of the active shipping season near and the year-end holiday season fast approaching, it is imperative that full waterfront operations resume at the earliest time stop I would appreciate your immediate advice so that arbitration can proceed."


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell the appropriate persons in Montreal and the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that we in the maritimes will take this business and be glad to get it.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since any provincial governments planning to enter the medicare field next July will need to do a great deal of work, is the federal government giving consideration to deferring the date this program is to be instituted?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that would require legislation, and it is not our intention to bring additional legislation before the house.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria (B.C.)):: My
question is for the Minister of National Defence. I regret that I have been unable to give him notice. Has there been any change in government policy with respect to the veterans preference in the taking on and laying

November 13, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry off of hourly paid personnel at H.M.C. Dockyard and other defence establishments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is asking a question about policy, and I doubt whether it may be answered now. Perhaps there is an element of urgency in the matter which does not appear in the question as asked by the hon. member. Unless there is this element of urgency, I suggest that the question cannot be asked at this time.


David Walter Groos: With all deference, sir, having returned from ceremonies at various cenotaphs across the country which were attended in large part by veterans who have an active interest in the matter, I wish to know if the minister is prepared to answer the question now. If he is not I should like to debate it at ten o'clock.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is urgent.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: May I
ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may not ask another question. I think the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) will agree that his question ought to be debated at the time of adjournment.


Donald MacInnis: May I
put a related question to the minister? Do veterans still enjoy the same preference they have always enjoyed?


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the hon. member's
question is much the same as the one asked by the hon. member for Victoria. Perhaps we might consider both questions at ten o'clock.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: My question was for the Minister of Transport; in the absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. Has the minister received an urgent communication from the president of the Prince Edward Island Federation of Labour in connection with lay-offs on the Borden-Tormentine ferry service, which are reported so drastic as to leave insufficient deckhands to man the lifeboats on some of the ferries? Will the parliamentary secretary take the necessary steps to have this matter brought under early consideration with a view to remedial action?
[Mr. Groos.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is making a representation to the minister, and I assume it will be be taken into account.


OLD AGE SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister now in a position to answer my question of October 18, which I asked again on October 27, as to whether he has found a way by which those receiving war veterans allowances will not lose the $1.50 they will get as an increase in their old age security pensions in January?


Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Not as yet, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we expect an
announcement on this matter at an early date?


Roger-Joseph Teillet: I certainly hope to be in a position to answer very shortly.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagol):: I wish to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport in the absence of the minister. Is the parliamentary secretary aware that handling charges in the ports of Trois-Rivieres, Quebec and Montreal have recently been increased from $3 to $15 a ton? If so, what does the department intend to do about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is a question to be placed on the order paper.


COMPLAINTS RESPECTING VITAMIN CONTENT OF CERTAIN PREPARATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received recent complaints regarding changes made by his food and drug directorate in connection with the vitamin content of certain preparations on the market? If so, what is being done about such complaints?
November 13, 1967


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would think this is a question which might well be placed on the order paper.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock.
INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO REDUCE PRICES On the orders of the day:


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: I have a question I should like to ask the Registrar General. Can the minister assure the house that the government will still take steps to lower drug prices in spite of the letter he received from the Canadian Medical Association expressing more or less contrary advice?


Hon. John N. Turner (Registrar General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: should like to direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that he has now received briefs from the extractive industries, petroleum and mining, and having regard to some uncertainty in those industries, would the minister be prepared to submit the Carter commission report to a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons for consideration before bringing down a white paper?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not think that would be a very profitable suggestion to follow. However, I am considering whether I should make a preliminary statement about the whole matter fairly soon.


INQUIRY AS TO INCREASED INTEREST RATE ON ANNUITIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the government has increased the interest rate on housing mortgages and removed the ceiling from interest rates charged by chartered banks, is consideration being given to increasing the interest rate on government annuities at the present time?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


BRITISH COLUMBIA-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF PAYMENTS TO FISHERMEN
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Maiher (New Westminster):: direct this question to the Minister of Labour; it is related to the subject raised the other day by my hon. friends from Skeena and Burnaby-Richmond when they sought to adjourn the house business to discuss unemployment among fishermen on the west coast.
Bearing in mind the unusual situation which affects about 1,000 fishermen and allied workers in British Columbia due to closure of the herring fishery for conservation purposes, would the minister consider making some amendments to the regulations which would allow the Unemployment Insurance Commission to meet this situation?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: This matter has been discussed carefully, on more than one occasion, by me with the Unemployment Insurance Commission as well as with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries.
The decision with regard to the length of the herring season was taken by the Minister of Fisheries after hearing representations from both fishermen and from the employers, the fishing companies. In these circumstances this is not a case for special action by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Unemployment insurance is based on contributions or credits and is administered on a national basis, not on a regional or sectional basis, and I regret to say that this is not a case in which special action could be taken under the legislation. I might also say that I have agreed to meet with the representatives of the fishermen's union on a visit to Vancouver this coming week end, to explain the situation to them.


MANPOWER
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the minister received complaints from the Indian communities in Manitoba to the effect that because of the standard of educational qualifications now required in order to attend retraining courses the number of Indians attending these courses in Manitoba has been reduced from 1,500 last year to virtually none today?

November 13, 1987
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of having received any such communication, but I will inquire about it. Nevertheless, the question contains a false statement. We have not changed the admission requirements to the training programs.


PAYMENT OF SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCES DUBING CHBISTMAS HOLIDAYS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I wish to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether it is the intention of the government to pay subsistence allowances during the Christmas holidays to those taking courses under the retraining program.


Jean Marchand: This is a matter we are looking into. I hope later to give a clear indication of the way we intend to proceed during the Christmas season.


David Orlikow: When the minister is looking into this matter would he also inquire whether, under the former regulations, the provinces should pay the subsistence allowance during this period?


PROPOSED INCREASE IN AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CASH ADVANCES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: I had
intended this question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary would answer it. Has the department taken any action in connection with the question put by the hon. member for Moose Mountain asking that cash advances on farm stored grain be doubled, in the light of the very difficult situation faced by western farmers in meeting their creditors?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I believe the Minister of Trade and Commerce answered this question in the house on Thursday evening.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. How are we going to make up that 23 cents a
bushel?


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


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with reference to the answer by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to the question asked by the hon. member for Meadow Lake. The parliamentary secretary informed the hon. member that an answer was given to the question on Thursday night last. I have referred to Hansard of last Thursday and his name is not in Hansard of that date.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. After all these questions and points of order I suggest we might return to the business of the house.


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose, I think I did mislead the house in saying Thursday evening. It was on Tuesday evening last, as recorded at page 4027 of Hansard.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has a committee of the cabinet been asked to report to the Prime Minister on the impact of diminishing cash returns from wheat sales?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that type of question cannot be asked. He is asking for communications between members of the government, and that is not in order.


Edward Nasserden: Then may I ask the Prime Minister whether such a committee has been appointed.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: I wish to direct this question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as minister in charge of housing. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to tell us which provinces have accepted the invitation to attend the housing conference on December 11?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Eight or nine, I think. Further acceptances or communications may have come in over the week end.

November 13, 1967


Winona Grace MacInnis: Could the minister indicate some of the principal matters to be discussed?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Housing.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As I have already
announced, the Prime Minister will probably be making the agenda public after it has been settled. The agenda has not yet been settled; we are still working on it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he remembered not to overlook invitations to the Yukon and Northwest Territories representatives to attend this conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Erik Nielsen: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, can the minister say whether these two areas of Canada, which suffer the same housing problems, were invited to send representatives?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the invitations were extended by the Prime Minister to the premiers of the provinces.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I refer him to my question of October 20 when I asked:
Because of the urgency of the situation will he very shortly make a statement in the house regarding cigarette smoking, government intervention in respect of advertising and so on?
To which he replied that he would give consideration to the suggestion. Has he had time to think about it, and has he decided to make such a statement?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did answer at least one question put by the hon. member for Simcoe East since that question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and my parliamentary secretary has made several statements on the late show. At the present time there is no intention of making any further statement, except that I have under consideration the sending of this whole question respecting cigarettes and their
Inquiries of the Ministry effects to a parliamentary committee for study.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question supplementary to that asked by the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the problem of cigarette smoking and advertising. Can the minister indicate when a decision will be made in regard to referring this whole matter to a committee of the house? Will it be shortly?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker; this week.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROVINCES ACCEPTING INVITATION TO ATTEND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker,
two weeks ago today I asked the Prime Minister whether he would consider communicating with the provinces, and thereafter would lay on the table of the house and have printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings, the correspondence relating to the proposed dominion-provincial conference to be held early next year. Has that been done, and when can we expect to have the correspondence laid on the table and printed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I think it was on the same day that I sent telegrams to all the provinces. I do not know whether we have had replies from them all. If we have not, I think we should at least give consideration to tabling the replies of those provinces that have agreed.


COLUMBIA RIVER-REQUEST FOR FURTHER STUDY OF TREATY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources at the request of a number of trade unions interested in this matter, and I apologize for not sending him notice. Would the minister consider submitting the Columbia river treaty to an appropriate committee for further study, so we could have a parliamentary post mortem to assist the government in establishing national water policies?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a post mortem would be very useful in this case, as most of the project has already been realized.
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



REQUEST FOR ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Agreed. Accordingly the sitting of this house is suspended until eight o'clock and consequently I do now leave the chair."]
Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. When the Prime Minister is speaking to his colleagues about answering questions on the order paper I wonder if he would see whether arrangements can be made so that an answer can be given on Wednesday of this week to my starred question No. 618, concerning consideration of a parole for Steven Truscott.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we will have that ready by Wednesday, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a
supplementary question, would the Prime Minister also consider my starred question No. 569, placed on the order paper on October 30, referring to grain?


Lester Bowles Pearson: October 30; is that the date?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will try to get an answer to that.


Richard Albert Bell: As a further supplementary question, when the Prime Minister is considering that would he also go back to September 25 and my starred question No. 387 of that date, relating to the rights of employees of the Senate and the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a point of order, but it might be desirable for certain hon. members, who have asked questions and are wondering why there is delay in getting answers, to get in touch with the minister concerned, who will be able to explain to them in detail how long it will take to answer some of the questions and how many thousands of dollars are involved in answering them.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the particular question to which I refer requires only an answer of yes or no.



Hon. Jean Chretien (for the Minister of Finance) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-164, to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act.


He said: Mr. Speaker, in the twenty-three years in which it has been in operation the Industrial Development Bank has made a significant contribution to the development of small and medium-size business in Canada. Over this period it has authorized over $965,000,000 in loans to more than 14,000 customers.
The bank was established in 1944 to provide a source of medium and long-term finance for businesses unable to raise funds from other sources on reasonable terms and conditions, with particular consideration to be given to the financing problems of small enterprises.
The statute continues to contain the fundamental stipulation that the bank is a lender of last resort, that is, that an applicant must demonstrate that financing cannot be obtained from conventional sources on reasonable terms and conditions. The other major criterion set forth in the act is that the amount to be invested in the enterprise by persons other than the bank and the character of that investment must be such as to afford the bank reasonable protection. The degree of equity and, of course, the degree of managerial capacity in the enterprise are the basic factors which determine whether it will prosper and in so doing contribute to the welfare of the national and local economy as well as the owner or owners.
Operating within this frame of reference the bank has, over the years, fulfilled parliament's desire that it should give particular consideration to the financing problems of small enterprises. In the eleven months ending August 1967, for example, of the nearly 2,000 loans made, 46 per cent by number were for not more than $25,000 and a further 27 per cent by number were for $50,000 or less. Over the whole period of its existence, 90 per cent of the loans authorized have been for $100,000 or less, 70 per cent for $50,000 or less and 50 per cent for $25,000 or less.

Originally the I.D.B. was empowered to lend only to manufacturing concerns, but successive amendments to the act have enlarged its scope of operations and since 1961 the I.D.B. has been permitted to lend to virtually every kind of business enterprise. Forty eight per cent of the total amount of loans authorized in the fiscal year 1966 went to 16 different categories of manufacturing. Some other types of businesses and the percentage of the total they accounted for were
November 13, 1967

as follows: commercial air services, 2 per cent; transportation and storage, 3 per cent; construction, 5 per cent; wholesale trade, 8 per cent; retail trade, 10 per cent; agriculture, 6 per cent; restaurants, motels, hotels, recreation services, 10 per cent.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A continuing effort has been made to ensure that the organization of the bank is responsive to the needs of small and medium size enterprises in all parts of Canada. The bank's head office is located in Ottawa. The operational direction of the bank is centred in the general manager's office in Montreal. Last year a major reorganization of the bank was undertaken to further decentralize administration in line with the I.D.B. objective of improving the quality and speed of service and maintaining a closer contact with regional developments. This involved the establishment of four regional offices-Atlantic, Quebec, Central, and Western-each headed by a newly appointed assistant general manager. Along with these changes, increased responsibility for approving loans was delegated to assistant general managers located at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg. Over 80 per cent of all loans are now approved at regional offices or local branches of which there are 28 across the country.
The I.D.B. continues to bend every effort through its advertising program and its advertised visits to bring the nature of its services to the attention of businessmen. Officers make frequent visits to centres removed from the larger towns in which branches are located. These visits are advertised in advance in the local newspapers and other media and have been increased in number in each of the last few years. Last year 510 visits were made to 197 cities and towns compared with 436 to 143 communities in the previous year.
Over the years the I.D.B. has developed a very competent staff of credit officers, engineers, analysts and so forth. Every effort is made in the investigation of each application to arrive at a viable proposition in which the I.D.B. can participate. It is no surprise, but rather proof that the I.D.B. has been doing its job and taking risks, that on occasion a credit will get into difficulty. Again this is a situation where the staff of the bank do everything possible to enable the business to work itself out of its difficulties.
The cost of the attention and time devoted to accounts and the variety of skills and experience required for their administration
Industrial Development Bank Act is one of the reasons net income before provision for losses is running below one per cent of loans and investments outstanding. Finally, I should say that the I.D.B. gives particular attention to applications it receives in areas of the country of slow growth and to making its services known.
I believe the I.D.B. record is one that invites the confidence of the house in the proposal to increase its lending capacity in order that it may continue and expand its service to the small businessman of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I would like to deal with two questions asked by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) who worried about the effect the increase of the capital of the Industrial Development Bank would have on our money supply. I must tell my hon. friends that the Bank of Canada always takes into account the monetary expansion of all those institutions, and in the case of the Industrial Development Bank in particular, it is much easier because its board of directors is the same as that of the Bank of Canada.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a good deal from the minister about the Industrial Development Bank but very little about the bill before us. I believe that the two questions which most of us ask have not been answered and there has been no reference to them. However, let me comment on the bill itself as far as I can with some reference to the work of the bank as it relates to the changes brought about.
There are really only two matters in the bill. One involves appointing the deputy minister of industry to the board and the other involves an increase in the capital of the bank and funds available for loans. This debate gives us the opportunity of appraising the work of the Industrial Development Bank. I welcome this opportunity which we have all too seldom.
One criticism of the Industrial Development Bank is that while it is called a bank and operates like a bank, its very title obscures its real function which is industrial development with a greater risk factor than commercial lending institutions want to accept. The minister during his introduction described it as a bank of last resort. We must
4188	COMMONS
Industrial Development Bank Act ask ourselves whether the addition of the deputy minister of industry to the board of directors and the substitution of that deputy minister for the deputy minister of trade and commerce on the executive committee will have any effect on the operation of the I.D.B.
I recognize that this change will bring the knowledge of the deputy minister to the deliberations of the bank and in some cases I assume this will be of assistance. However, aside from that I cannot visualuze very much benefit arising from this addition. The whole thing seems to be a bit of a smokescreen. In fact, with the exception of the area development agency, where considerable activity is apparent, the job of the remainder of the Department of Industry is lost in obscurity for many of us. There is a great fear growing among industry and business in this country that the Department of Industry is developing into another massive red tape agency. There are forms to be filled out in triplicate which did not exist before. With particular regard to the administration of the Kennedy round tariff changes, the Department of Industry has not made any real contribution so far as we can see to the realm-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not wish to restrict the hon. member in his speech, but he has suggested that the debate on this bill opens up an opportunity to debate the Department of Industry and its operations. Having glanced at the bill I cannot come to that conclusion. It seems to me the purpose of this bill is to add a certain official, namely, the deputy minister of industry or his representative, to act as an official of the I.D.B. I doubt that this is wide enough to allow a general debate on the Department of Industry.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not intend to debate the Department of Industry at any great length except as it is relevant to the I.D.B. and how it operates. That is what I was leading up to, but perhaps I should come to that now and then refer to the Department of Industry.
I was about to say that the attitudes adopted in the Department of Industry, about which undoubtedly the deputy minister has some knowledge and over which he must have some control, are not the types of attitudes we want brought to the Industrial Development Bank. The situation is bad enough as it is and more procedural roadblocks would represent the worst thing that could happen to the I.D.B.

DEBATES	November 13, 1987
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
There is at the present moment too much red tape in the bank. This is the tenor and burden of the remarks I am about to make. I have no reference at all to personalities because there are no names involved. But the person who holds the office of deputy minister of industry is added to the board. I see no particular benefit in this in view of the way in which the Department of Industry has developed to date. It is possible that the approach, knowledge and methods of operation of the department may become clearer to us and it may then be obvious that it will have something of benefit to bring to the Industrial Development Bank, but at this moment I can see very little use in it.
The Industrial Development Bank has a weakness in that it is oriented toward getting all the paper work done, all the mortgages, collateral chattel mortgages, leases, crossleases, subleases and everything else in proper order. These are important in a sense because the bank does have to protect the public money that is lent. But even the minister's statement today told us that this is an agency of last resort to industry. This conforms to my own idea of the work of the Industrial Development Bank, namely, to provide funds to developing industries which cannot obtain them from normal sources in the commercial field.
I believe that the weakness of the Industrial Development Bank is that it does not attend to the major functions for which it was set up, the support of new industry or the expansion of existing industry. After the field work is carried out and approved I have often seen months go by before the paper work has been completed. I have in my office half a dozen files of cases where the field officers have looked at the project, found good justification for supporting it and have presumably made a recommendation, although these are not always available, but after the recommendation has been made time has gone by as innumerable forms are filled in and further questions are posed and answered. I have known of one or two applications in my own area where the whole project has fallen by the wayside while the people concerned have been waiting for the I.D.B. to complete its paper work.
This is what is wrong with calling it a bank. It is not a bank at all. This is a complete misnomer. It is really a lending agency and an agency of last resort. The approach so often taken is: We are a bank and must make sure that we will get our
November 13, 1967

money back. If they can get their money back, so can a commercial lender. I say, therefore, this should not be the first concern of the Industrial Development Bank, but in many cases I am afraid it is.
I suggest that it is the possibility of the project being successful that counts and not the paper work. I think all or a major portion of the effort should be put into the aspect of the work concerned with getting the field officers' reports and going over the financial returns. Then if the project looks like a good thing for the community and for industrial development, why not carry it out? Even after approval is given to many of these projects there seems to be some delay and nobody can understand where it occurs. This is my criticism of the I.D.B. and I have been constant in this criticism for some time.
There must be paper work. Anybody who practices law or in the commercial field knows that funds must be protected. But surely this can be done in a minimal sort of way, because if the project is going to fail the government does not want the business back. The business is of no value except in its resale. What is really wanted is a producing industry to assist the economy. If a business is no good I say dump it rather than stalling it by a whole lot of red tape.
I should like to turn to another aspect of the bank and be more specific than general. I refer to the tourist industry as it relates to the	work	of	the	Industrial	DevelopmentBank. In 1961, as the minister pointed out, the	work	of	the	Industrial	Development
Bank was expanded to include tourist operations, hotels, motels and other lodgings. In 1961 only two loans were made totalling $110,000. Presumably they were granted under some other category. But in 1962 after the act was changed 145 loans totalling $8,470,000 were made by the Industrial Development Bank under the classification shown in the annual report as hotels, motels and other lodgings. In 1963, 126 loans were made. In 1964, 145 loans were made. This is the highest the program has ever gone. In 1965 the number of loans granted started to go down again and only 103 were made for a total of only $4,803,000. In 1966, 130 loans totalling $6,728,000 were made.
It is obvious from these figures that the largest boost in terms of loans and dollars was in 1962 when the act was changed. In spite of a 25 per cent increase in the total amount of loans and a 15 per cent increase in the total number of loans made by the Industrial Development Bank from 1962 to 1966,
Industrial Development Bank Act the hotel, motel and lodgings item has decreased. In other words, while all other loans have increased by 25 per cent in respect of amount and 15 per cent in respect of number, those made to the tourist industry have decreased.
I think there is feeling in the tourist business once again that it is the forgotten industry. More than any other industry in this country the tourist business requires the stability of public support because it is a high risk business. Bad weather, external events, war scares and even Expo '67 can hurt this industry in any section of the country and on a national basis. My reference to Expo '67 is merely to point out that in this year a great deal of the tourist business was centred in one particular spot. While it was good for that area, it was not as good for many others. So the tourist business fluctuates up and down and the commercial lenders will not touch it with a ten-foot pole, as the saying goes, people in this industry just cannot get loans.
There is some assistance under the Small Businesses Loans Act for the improvement of existing premises and there is some under the Industrial Development Bank Act, but there is very little assistance of any other kind. The tourist industry is still the third largest producer of foreign currency, ranking after newsprint and wheat. The year 1966 showed the travel industry creeping very close to those two industries in volume. It is anticipated that the tourist business will bring in either this year or next, but almost certainly this year, $1 billion in foreign currency from people visiting this country from abroad. We do not have the figures for 1967 and we should not really count this year because of our centennial celebrations and Expo. Undoubtedly the figures for this year will be somewhat unrelated and we have to set off against them the expenditures that were made in connection with Expo '67.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
However, my point is that we were able to spend money in order to bring people to Canada this year and we must not let the tourist industry down in subsequent years. We have to assist our tourist operators in maintaining a high standard of modern accommodation, good food and surroundings comparable with what we showed our visitors in 1967. Expo will disappear to a large extent but apparently some other type of operation will be continued on its site. Visitors to Canada in 1967 were given a very
4190	COMMONS
Industrial Development Bank Act good impression of this country, its architecture and our ability to erect good buildings on good locations. I believe we have to continue to do so in order to attract people to return to Canada. If we provide them with good accommodations, good meals and good surroundings in the future, our tourist industry will keep improving year by year. We certainly cannot do so without spending a little money. I also point out that the money is lent by the Industrial Development Bank, not given away, and in nine cases out of ten it comes back to us. I urge the minister and the bank to give more attention to loans for the accommodation of the travelling public. I think that it will be money well spent on a continuing basis.
Having said a number of things that may not have been very complimentary, I should like to add a word of commendation for the work that has been done. Many excellent loans have been made in all the areas where the bank has operated. I am sure that industrial production in Canada has benefited greatly and the tourist industry itself has had a considerable amount of support from the I.D.B. However, the full potential of the bank has not yet been reached and I think that the provision of further funds under this bill should kelp. If the effect of the bill will be to increase the funds available, if these funds are used in a prompt and efficient manner, and if the bank gives priority to the purpose for which it has set up, then I am sure that some good will come out of the increase. I believe that we must be careful that the I.D.B. does not enter into competition with commercial lending institutions. If it follows the admonition given to it from time to time that it should be a lending institution of last resort, that it should take some risks and that it should consider the likelihood of success of these projects rather than the paper work involved, then this bill will serve some useful purpose. Therefore, I can do nothing else but support it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's brief statement in introducing Bill C-164 to amend the Industrial Development Bank Act. First, may I say that the members of this party have always supported this legislation because we believed that this type of bank would provide capital for small industry and small business which was socially desirable and which was recommended largely on that account. I have some personal knowledge of the administration of the act 
DEBATES	November 13, 1967
and of the benefit it has given to certain small industries in the constituency which I have the honour to represent.
I was very glad to hear the minister mention that in recent years the basis for loans to small business and for the development of the tourist industry has been somewhat widened. He said that the major purpose of these amendments is, first, to provide that in addition to the deputy minister of trade and commerce the deputy minister of industry shall be a member of the board. I think that is a good thing. I like to see co-ordination between the various departments and the lending agency concerned.
I should like to say to the previous speaker that I thought he was splitting hairs when he said the I.D.B. is not a bank. Under our law it operates as a bank and it does not make much difference whether it is called a bank or a lending agency. As the minister told us, it is a bank of last resort for those who cannot obtain credit through the normal channels. I have seen that happen on a number of occasions. I am sure that the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming), who is looking at me now and who for a good many years, has been interested in the lumber business, knows what I am talking about in this respect because I have seen a number of smaller industries which would not have had an opportunity to get started had it not been for the advantages obtained under this act. Since that time they have made a success of their operations, but on occasion it required a little more faith than one can possibly get from the ordinary bank manager. These people had the courage and the knowledge necessary but they wanted a longer term loan and they wanted a little more confidence in their ability to operate the business for which they were applying for a loan.
The other important amendment raises the authorized capital of the bank from $50 million to $75 million, which I am sure we all support.
I was also glad to hear the minister say that efforts have been made in recent days to decentralize the operations of the bank. That was one of the criticisms I had. There was a tendency to feel that because of the lack of decentralization decisions were made by people who were not always on the spot to see the local circumstances and so on.
I am very glad to hear also of the division of the country into various regions for the purpose of the administration of the act and
November 13, 1967

also for the establishment of local offices. As I said before, the act has been of considerable benefit to the area I have the honour to represent, but I support the argument made by the previous speaker when he said that on occasions there is a tendency for what appear to be unnecessary delays on account of what he termed paper work.


Mr. Leboe:: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I see we have a backwoods triangle this afternoon, consisting of the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, the member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), all of whom are interested in the same industry and have had some experience in this regard.
I have noticed on a number of occasions that there appear to be unnecessary delays in coming to a decision with respect to the granting of a loan. I do hope the minister recognizes this and will bring it to the attention of the bank's officials. I know of one or two instances where the delay carried on for some time and people were left in the lurch until they knew exactly what they could do. In the meantime the weather changes. Summer turns to fall and fall to winter and then the operations have to be deferred until spring. I do hope the minister realizes this. I believe this difficulty will be somewhat overcome by the decentralization of the administration.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I have one or two other suggestions to make. I am glad to see that the deputy minister of trade and commerce and the deputy minister of industry will both be members of the board of directors. I welcome this indication of co-ordination between departments because these departments are in a position to supply information that will be required by the bank with regard to certain areas or regions.
I do suggest that some economic research should be done in all areas of Canada in which applications are being received for loans from the bank. Circumstances are changing very quickly in these times. In my own district, for instance, roads and highways are being built today which provide access to certain recreational areas which did not exist five years ago. I believe that the directors of the bank or their staff have to keep in close touch with the economic and social developments of the areas concerned. I believe this will require almost year to year economic research or surveys in the various

Industrial Development Bank Act districts. It is not sufficient to deal with information that was up to date ten years ago.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member who preceded me deal with the tourist industry. I am glad to know that the bank is now making loans for the development of tourist areas. I represent a district comprising 20,000 square miles, a little garden of Eden. This is one of the advantages I have over the previous speaker. There are many opportunities for the development of the tourist industry in my area. In my own constituency, for example, there are six hot springs, five of which are not developed. These excellent springs provide mineral water at high temperatures and offer great opportunities for the people. I am not suggesting they can all be developed immediately, but I do suggest that every consideration be given by the directors of the bank to keeping in close touch with local circumstances. This can be done by maintaining communication with local organizations such as municipal councils, chambers of commerce and other groups that are interested in the development of the district.
I am very pleased to see the interest being taken in my own district by other than commercial groups. I refer to trade unions, farmers institutes, women's institutes and other organizations of that type which are not interested in the profit-making aspects of development but are interested in the total development of the district. In my own district we have two regional boards representing towns, cities and villages and they receive information with respect to the development of local areas. I believe that the information they have and the information these various organizations can give to the staff of the bank will be most useful.
I should like to see a closer relationship between the staff of the bank and the public than has possibly existed in the past. I believe it would be a good idea also if the members of the staff had an opportunity on occasion-I am not sure at what level this could be done-to address meetings of chambers of commerce or trade unions. I think it is most important that the members of our trade unions and other groups become inspired by the possibilities for development in this country.
I have told this story before but I am going to tell it again. Too many young Canadians are growing up without being conscious of how grateful they should be for living in this country. I was in England in

November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act 1956 at the time of the Suez crisis and attended the House of Commons. I said to a friend of mine that I wanted to see what had happened in connection with the rebuilding of the slum areas. My wife and I were taken down to a slum area in a taxi. I said, "Let us get out here and walk around." It was not long before I met an old cockney lady who stopped to talk to me and tell me of her war experiences. She said she was born on that street, she would die on that street and no blooming Hitler was going to blow her out of there. She invited me in for a cup of tea and told me her long history. She said, "I have had a rough old time in life but I have a great deal to be grateful for". I said, "Madam, what have you got to be grateful for? You seem to live in very modest circumstances." She said, "What have I got to be grateful for?" She then told me that she lived in a land of freedom and had an opportunity to do things for other people. She then said, "I have a personal reason, sir. From the time I was 14 until the battle of Britain I had to take medicine for my bowels and I have not had to take any since."
I wish some of our young people would get that spirit and be grateful for the opportunities presented them in this country. With all the difficulties we have today, financial and otherwise, we are very fortunate to be Canadians. I do hope that even in this field the officials of the bank or the appropriate members of the staff will take the opportunity on occasion of informing local organizations of the functions of the bank and its efforts to provide capital for small industries and small businesses that cannot usually obtain capital from the ordinary banks, and the opportunities that exist for the development of our country. This is an agency which provides socially desirable capital for the development of any district by loans to industry or small business.


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take a few minutes of the time of the house to join with those members who have congratulated the officials of the Industrial Development Bank on the excellent job they have done over the years. At the same time, I should like to express a few criticisms I have of the bank to indicate the spheres in which I think improvement can be achieved. First of all, I congratulate the government upon taking the forward step of expanding the bank's authorized capital to $75 million from $50 million. I only hope that now, having given the bank 
this additional capital, the Industrial Development Bank will utilize it in a fashion more in keeping with the 1960's and 1970's.
The Industrial Development Bank was set up in 1944. It seems to me that all the purposes, which the parliament of that time indicated should be fulfilled by the bank, have not been fulfilled. The reason for this is simple. There is always a conflict between the legislators and those who have to administer the legislation. Usually we do not object to officials taking some time to work out the difficulties which they encounter, but it seems to me that in 1967 the Industrial Development Bank should be taking a look around and expanding the services it provides, particularly to those who have come to it as a last resort.
One way in which I think the bank could expand its services would be to remove the existing restrictions on the type of loans it makes. As I understand the situation, the Industrial Development Bank makes loans for a maximum period of ten years and does not accept bonds. This situation imposes a drastic limit on the amount of financing a person or company can accept and also restricts the areas into which the bank might go. It seems to me that under the bank's present charter there is power to accept bonds and debentures from private companies as well as to extend the ten year period. I suggest that 20 years would be a more acceptable period of time, given the interest rate which the bank is now charging. I am told that their interest rate is now 8.5 per cent. It seems to me that any business which the bank might assist, having regard to an interest rate at that level plus the amount of the loan, has to be generating cash on a truly impressive scale. This type of business, one would think, would be looked after by the chartered banks but, as we are all aware, until the passage of the revised Bank Act they have not shown too much initiative in going into these areas.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Another point I should like to make is that several members have risen to suggest that the I.D.B. is not a bank but rather a funding agency of government. This may be true, Mr. Speaker, but in my interpretation of the bank's activities it is a bank. It treats its customers as a bank would and I am told by people who have applied and received loans from the I.D.B. that they undergo more investigation from the I.D.B. than from the more commercial lenders.
November 13, 1967

I think this is a worth-while approach on the part of the bank. I do not believe that government money should be spent on projects that have little hope of success. I understand that the approach of the bank now is to look at an idea and at the management that is going to put that idea into operation. No longer is it absolutely necessary to have the backing of distinguished personalities in the particular area or to have the greater amount of capital needed. Consideration is now given more in proportion to the amount of managerial ability required. My understanding is that the bank is now making more detailed investigations into the capabilities of those who are going to operate these businesses, and this seems to be a step in the right direction as a means of evaluating loans.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties with which we are faced is that this procedure does have the effect of delaying the granting of loans, because such investigation is very time consuming. In addition, one of the other functions of the bank is that of a management training ground for people who borrow money from it. Unfortunately, many people come to the bank with ideas but they lack the knowledge of the market situation that is necessary as well as the managerial ability that is required. Often the bank has been able to provide these people with advice of the sort that is necessary to the successful conclusion of their business.
Another comment I want to make that I should like to see the bank become a little more speculative in its approach. I understand that one of the criticisms of the bank is that it is too much like a commercial bank, that it is too conservative in its approach in areas where such loans might be of a speculative nature.
Coming as I do, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) put it, from the backwoods and being, I suppose, a member of the backwoods triangle to which he referred, I too would like to see more money expended on tourism but only on propositions that are viable and have a chance of success.
Over all, Mr. Speaker, I think the bank has filled a void that has been caused by the highly centralized form of banking we have in Canada. It has filled this void admirably, I think, and I understand that the recent reorganization has assisted even more in making the bank more accessible to people of more modest means who find the road to commercial loans blocked.

Industrial Development Bank Act
However, Mr. Speaker, I urge that the minister refer these comments to the bank, and particularly I urge them to review their lending practices and broaden the variety of loans they presently make in order to provide people who are looking for money with more flexible opportunities than are available under I.D.B.'s existing approach.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonlon-Slralh-cona):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the opening speech of the minister on the amendments to the act but I must confess I was a little disappointed at the paucity of the information. While it is nice to have a general review of the business the bank has been doing, the amount of money involved and the type of investments it has dealt in, I think the minister should have given us some background information as to the reasons for the proposed amendments to the act.
Two questions in particular come to my mind. First, what the government is now doing, in effect, is proposing to parliament that we triple the potential lending power of the bank. Second, we are apparently taking the accent off the Department of Trade and Commerce and transferring their interest in this bank to the Department of Industry. We are adding the deputy minister of industry to the board of directors and substituting him on the executive board for the deputy minister of trade and commerce.
This must be a policy move, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this house would be interested in knowing what exactly these two departments are going to do. What now makes the work of this bank of more interest to the Department of Industry? Bearing in mind that we are going to triple the lending power of the bank, and in view of today's economic difficulties, we in this house have pertinent questions to ask in relation to whether this tripling of the lending power comes about because of a change in policy by the government and whether the government is now easing restrictions so that the bank can now lend money in broader or more speculative fields.
The minister mentioned that the reserve for bad debts has been kept to less than 1 per cent. Is there any thinking on the part of the government that this is unduly restrictive, that it is too much in keeping with the practice of banks in general, that we can safely increase that margin and ease restrictions on lending so as to help more people financially, even though it may mean setting
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act a reserve oi 3 per cent, 4 per cent or 5 per cent for bad debts?
I also hope the minister will tell us before we go into the committee stage the reason for the change of accent from the trade and commerce department to the industry department. Is the deputy minister of trade and commerce, who has always had an interest in the bank, going to maintain his staff that kept in touch with the bank while the deputy minister of industry similarly gathers a new staff about him to keep in touch with the same body? Is there any possibility of removing responsibility from the deputy minister of trade and commerce in this sphere? Does this change mean that we are going to be more interested in domestic trade, in such things as tourism and so on, and that the bank is no longer going to assist people in the manufacturing field who are dependent to a great extent on exports?
I should also like to know whether the change being made in the board of directors means that the government feels that the lending of the bank should be restricted to domestic industry and that riskier enterprises that depend on export trade are going to be downgraded? Will the public get this impression? That is why I say the minister should tell us whether there will be any policy change in connection with the granting of loans by the bank.
Is the bank from now on going to concern itself more with matters of local interest or with depressed areas? How much accent is going to be put on country-wide development, on national problems? Will both the deputy minister of trade and commerce and the deputy minister of industry be on the board of directors of the bank so that the general policy decisions that are made by the bank will have, shall we say, more government direction than used to be the case with regard to our day to day financial problems?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
At a time of high interest rates like the present we know it is more and more difficult for industry in this country to borrow money from the banks. Fewer and fewer of our industries can afford to borrow their operating capital. In view of the objective of the government of tripling the available lending power of the Industrial Development Bank, can we take it that the government is attempting to step into this gap to some extent? Will the Industrial Development Bank fill the gap for industries that two years ago would have been able to borrow

from the commercial banks but because of increased interest rates cannot now afford commercial bank rates? By increasing the lending power of the I.D.B. is it thought by some that we shall ease inflationary pressures in this country? If that is so, may we not expect this matter to come before parliament again next year if inflationary pressures have not eased?
Has the I.D.B. lent all its available capital? The minister has not told us whether the request for additional capital has been instigated by the bank. Has there been a greater demand for the bank's funds than the bank has been able to meet? Have loans been applied for which under normal conditions, had the bank sufficient money, would have been granted? Can the minister say whether a sustained demand for extra capital is responsible for the bank seeking to increase its lending power? Those are legitimate questions.
Does the government think that by appointing two deputy ministers to the board of directors it can influence the fields in which the bank will lend money? Or does the government wish to ease the restrictions on lending, to operate the bank on principles other than those followed by commercial banks and thus automatically create a greater demand for its money? Is there to be a change in the interest rate? We know what has happened to commercial bank interest rates; they have risen. We know what happened to the interest rate on mortgages which are guaranateed by the government; it has risen to a maximum of 8 per cent. Are we to anticipate an increased demand for I.D.B. loans if the interest rate is to be below the commercial rate? Does the government intend not to grant all loans? I ask that because it seems to me that demand for I.D.B. loans will greatly increase. Have all these factors been considered?
In discussing the clauses of the bill we shall be interested in hearing from the minister comments with respect to the deputy minister of industry and the deputy minister of trade and commerce, also details of the administrative changes, why they are necessary, and how the government is to avoid overlapping and duplication of costs. Before closing the debate the minister should tell the house what policy matters are involved in this bill.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be only a few minutes but I wish to make a couple of observations. I note that
November 13, 1967

the main purposes of the bill are to increase the authorized capital from $50 million to $75 million, and to increase the borrowing power of the bank from five times to ten times the aggregate paid-up capital and reserve fund.
At the resolution stage of the bill the Minister of Finance pointed out that the debt to capital ratio of incorporated federal trust and loan companies is 15 times the authorized capital and reserve fund. In this bill the bank's borrowing power has been increased to ten times the amount of its paid-up capital and reserve fund. It strikes me as odd that we should restrict the operation of this bank more than we restrict the operations of federal loan and trust companies.
In his introductory remarks the minister said that mainly the I.D.B. is to be a bank of last resort. I have the impression that the bank takes pride in this appellation. The I.D.B. charges between 8 and 9 per cent interest on prime loans. Since commercial banks, which before the Bank Act was amended were restricted to a ceiling of 6 per cent, can now charge a much greater rate, I suggest that the I.D.B. ought to compete with the commercial banks. One can anticipate that I.D.B. interest rates will increase substantially as time goes on. The banking business is competitive and as commercial bank rates increase I expect that the I.D.B. rate will go up to around 10 or 11 per cent on prime loans. Such an interest rate will add to the cost of living. Any borrower will add the money he is charged by the bank to the cost of his product and as a result living costs will increase. The I.D.B. ought to take that into account. It might be wise for it to adopt the principle followed by co-operatives of rebating a certain amount of money to borrowers who have good repayment records. If 10 per cent, 11 per cent or 12 per cent is charged on loans the cost of living will be bound to increase, and this we do not wish to see happening.
Perhaps the underlying aim of the bank ought to be to foster the development of secondary industries so that they can rationalize and specialize and compete in world markets. With the changes to be brought about as a result of the Kennedy round tariff adjustments, a special emphasis will be placed on our export trade. The bank has a vital function to play in encouraging our secondary industries and in helping them to rationalize, specialize and compete in the markets of the world. Such aims ought to be inherent in the philosophy of the bank. It should not adopt a hold-back attitude, nor

Industrial Development Bank Act should it be, to use the minister's phrase, a bank of last resort. Rather it should be imaginative and resourceful and take the initiative in its lending field.
In the newspapers last week I noted a report that two commercial banks were competing with respect to interest rates on shortterm notes. Those rates had risen to 7 per cent and the governor of the Bank of Canada stepped in and told the banks to stop what they were doing. I should like to see the I.D.B. take more initiative and give the commercial banks more competition. It should not adopt a second-rate position in the financial community.
Bearing all these matters in mind I do not hesitate to commend the I.D.B. for its past work. I hope that we can look forward to the bank playing an important role in the economy of the country in the future.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Vicloria-Carle-ton):: Mr. Speaker, because of the important changes contained in the bill and because of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary I feel compelled to make some comments about this matter. As has been said, the main change in the legislation is the substitution of the deputy minister of industry for the deputy minister of trade and commerce on the board of the bank. If the parliamentary secretary were to ask my advice I would say to him: Leave both those deputy ministers on the board.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Speaking as a person interested in the development of business, it seems to me we should accomplish two things-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: May I point out to the hon. gentleman that they are both on the board, though there is only one on the executive board?


Hugh John Flemming: Thank you. I am pleased to have that correction. I had in mind that there was a substitution. In any event I favour having both men as directors and it would appear now as though through a leak of some kind the government was aware of this.
I was about to offer the observation that two types of business are involved here, as my friend the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) has pointed out. First, the Department of Trade and Commerce would, generally speaking, be interested in the development of trade and industry
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act designed primarily to serve the export market. Second, there is need for the development of industry to produce goods for consumption on the home market. So it appears to me we will get a double benefit from these appointments, and I am glad the parliamentary secretary has set me right.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and as a simple matter of courtesy, I think the hon. gentlemen should refer to the minister as the Minister without Portfolio rather than parliamentary secretary.


Hugh John Flemming: It is true I have referred to the minister as parliamentary secretary, but I do not think he needs help from anybody to set anyone straight. Perhaps he is not so thin-skinned as the hon. member who has just spoken.
I am pleased to learn there is a degree of
decentralization. I know this exists in these various regions. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) said that the Industrial Development Bank was a bank whioh lent money in circumstances beyond the ability of the regular chartered banks to cope with or operate. I think this is correct. To quote the phrase he used, it is considered to be a bank of last resort. Bearing this in mind, the fact that the bank has operated for so many years with so little loss, on a percentage basis, might speak well for its management. On the other hand, it is perhaps an indication that the conditions imposed have been just a little too tough.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) tells us he knows of businesses which have come into being on account of help from the Industrial Development Bank. And so do I. To the extent of my knowledge, I am unaware of any bad debt which has been encountered, so it seems to me we are entitled to take a certain amount of satisfaction in the operations of this bank. In the next few minutes I will suggest a few things which in my opinion would improve things still further; they have to do with the Atlantic provinces, in particular.
I think it appropriate that emphasis should be placed on the so-called designated areas and that it should also be placed on small business loans. In the Atlantic provinces an undue proportion of our businesses are operating under both these general headings. It has always been my submission in connection with monetary policy that a distinction should be made between one part of Canada and another. Even before I came into this chamber I argued that it was unfair to

regions in Canada which were not experiencing inflation to apply the same principles as far as monetary policy is concerned as apply to regions where there is a good deal of inflation.
It seems to me that conditions have not changed and I therefore suggest to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Chretien)-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: -that he take note of this contention. I believe it would be good policy and good business if there were a greater degree of leniency attached to the making of loans in some parts of Canada where the need is greater than in other parts. I have no hesitation in saying that I refer specifically to the Atlantic provinces when I make this statement. We have small businesses and we certainly have an undue proportion of designated areas. This is something which might well be considered by way of further amendment if the government in its wisdom decides to bring in such a provision.
As I have indicated, the Atlantic provinces have no inflation. However, at the present time we are following a policy in the monetary field which applies to the whole of the country, a policy which is uniform in its application. This is what I object to. I believe a greater leniency should be shown in connection with the Atlantic provinces than is shown in other parts of Canada where there is not so much need.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: May I interrupt at this point simply to say that the bank does take account of the fact that a business is located in a designated area? I pointed this out in my speech.


Hugh John Flemming: I thank the minister for that assurance; I am certainly very pleased to hear him make it.
There is one other point I would like to mention before I sit down. It concerns the requirements of the bank in connection with the security upon which loans are made. To my own certain knowledge there have been times when people have been discouraged from making application because of the fact that undue emphasis seemed to be placed on the legalities leading up to the loans themselves. I speak from knowledge when I say that loans which had been approved have been rendered impossible on account of the time lapse in searching titles. I know some people whose applications for an extension of their loan brought about a demand that the same search which had been made a year or
November 13, 19G7	COMMONS
so earlier in connection with title be repeated a second time. This is unnecessary, in my opinion, and something should be done about it. Not only does it cost a great deal of money, and a fee of a few thousand dollars is important to a small borrower, but this procedure causes delay. Very often the time element is important in business.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These are the observations I wished to make in connection with the bill. I hope the minister in charge will take some notice of them. I hope these additional funds be provided so that the provisions of this legislation can contribute to the development of the country even more than they have in the past.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to suggest to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Chretien) that at a reasonably early date the whole operations of the Industrial Development Bank should be referred for study by the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I have a very deliberate reason in so suggesting.
It was the intent of parliament to create an industrial development bank, but that structure which we are now considering is neither industrial, development, nor a bank. I think we ought to get to grips with the issue and see what has gone wrong. In my view-and I have sat on the other side and had some responsibility, as the Minister without Portfolio has this afternoon-one could get a loan from the Industrial Development Bank when one could get a loan from any chartered bank or any other financial institution but very rarely could one get a loan under other circumstances. In other words, this bank has become so rigid in its operations that it does not give the opportunities or the credit that it was the intent of parliament it should give.
If it is to be a development bank then it must be a bank that is prepared to take some risks, an agency that is prepared to participate in the development of this nation. I suggest to you, sir, that in its operations over the past number of years this bank has not been ready to do that. I think the way to come to grips with the matter is to let the officers of the bank come before the standing committee, say what their lending techniques are, why it is that they have adopted such rigidity, why they are so inflexible in their lending policy, and then let the members of the House of Commons decide whether this is good enough for what we call an industrial 27053-265 }
DEBATES	4197
Industrial Development Bank Act development bank, ar, institution which I say is not any one of those three words.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. I must advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: If I may
have a minute, Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell). He has described the situation as I have found it and I only hope that when the bill has been passed the Industrial Development Bank will have a little different outlook.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on this matter this afternoon, but the words of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) struck home in a personal way, since for some years I also have received at my office numerous complaints over the delays and complications entailed by the administrative procedure of the Industrial Development Bank.
I should like to support the request made by the hon. member for Carleton that this bill be referred to a committee of the house so as to enable us to discover the weaknesses in the present set up of this federal organization.
Several businessmen could have saved their businesses had it been easier for them to obtain the funds which this organization places or should place at the disposal of Canadian business leaders.
If I had the opportunity, I could give the minister cases of hardship where people had to mortgage the business which they were launching with, presumably, substantial help from the Industrial Development Bank but which entailed responsibilities involving not only the business itself but the private life and property of the people seeking financial assistance from the Industrial Development Bank.
There are some extremely serious cases where, as was said by the hon. member for Carleton, that government agency mortgages the rolling stock, the industrial machinery and the building, so that the borrower finds himself in a situation where he owns nothing and where everything is in the hands of that corporation, thus restricting his ability to borrow further with the banks in order to facilitate the current administration of his business.
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act
In view of the present business situation and competition, we understand that business people must on occasion obtain sometimes substantial credit on a temporary basis. It happens sometimes that such credits are frozen due to the requirements of the Industrial Development Bank.
I should like to ask the minister to grant the request presented to him by the members of the opposition and also by the government member who has just given us his support in that respect, so that we may review not only the internal structure but mainly the over-all structure of that body, so that those who need funds for the expansion of their business may get them with easier standards than those in force at the present time.
I think that all those who have had to go to that crown corporation know that it is more difficult for them to obtain a loan from that federal organization than from an ordinary chartered bank and that the conditions of the loan are often far more severe than on the normal credit market.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the minister to kindly consider the request made by the members of the opposition.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, before the bill receives second reading I should like to reply to some of the comments made by opposition spokesmen and by some members of this side of the house. First, I want to thank hon. members for their very positive approach to the matter. They made some criticisms and I am glad they did so. Many of the criticisms were factual. As a private member of the House of Commons I found on occasion that the paper work involved in obtaining a loan from the bank was quite excessive in relation to the amount of the loan involved. I assure hon. members that I will inform the officers of the bank of their criticisms in this respect.
One of the questions raised concerned the membership of the deputy minister of industry on the bank board. To me it seems obvious that with the establishment of the new Department of Industry it was important for the sake of the bank's good administration to have the deputy minister of industry appointed a member of its board. But in making such an appointment the policy of ihe government with respect to the bank was not changed and is not changing. The appointment was not made because the bank wanted to put more emphasis on local or internal industries and not to take into
[Mr. Valade.l

account as well those industries which produce goods for export abroad.
Further, because this is an industrial bank it was decided that it was preferable to have the deputy minister of industry on the executive committee rather than the deputy minister of trade and commerce. On the executive committee we have to retain a balance between those who are civil servants and those appointed from outside the government service and, as I say, because of the nature of the Department of Industry and because the bank is an industrial one, the deputy minister of industry was appointed to the executive. This does not change the policy of the government. The bank will continue to make loans to all types of industries and there will be more funds available for this purpose.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I am glad to have the opportunity to reply to the question of the hon. member for Ed-monton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent). Let me assure him that there is no purpose or intention to permit the Department of Industry to become involved in the operations of the bank.
An hon. member also asked why we decided to increase the amount of money available to the bank. It was felt by the government that the increase was necessary because in a short time there would be no funds available to the bank to lend to industry. For this reason we have been obliged to propose this increase. The total commitments of the bank at the end of September amounted to $387 million. At this time the bank cannot lend more than $420 million. One can see that the bank is rapidly approaching the point where funds will not be available. With the change proposed in the bill the bank will have a lending capacity of $1,045 million. This will facilitate the operations of the bank.
That is about all I have to say at this time but I will be pleased to answer any questions hon. members wish to ask during the clause by clause consideration of the bill. Let me again thank hon. members for their suggestions. I was pleased to note that the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) apparently agrees with the operation of the bank and the proposed increase. Members of his party are usually very critical of any financial matters before the house. I believe his suggestion was very good that the bank should publicize its operations to a greater extent.
November 13, 1967	COMMONS


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the minister answer a question?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am glad the minister gave some information in respect of the increase in the funds available. I ask the minister whether there have been requests for money which exceed the amount now available. Is it necessary to increase the amount available by three times and does this mean there will be a change in the method of lending or the amount of risk to be involved? Is it the opinion of the government that the bank's lending capacity should now be tripled and will the bank continue to do business as it has in the past?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the bank is rapidly approaching the point when it will have used up the available funds. Normally it is not necessary in this type of thing for the government to come to parliament every year for authorization. We have tried to forecast future money needs, and we have agreed with the bank officials that we should triple the amount available in order to make it possible for the bank to continue its operations according to the law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Bank continued.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question relating to both clauses one and two. Why is the deputy minister of industry being appointed to the board of directors under clause 1 whereas under clause 3 he is being substituted for the deputy minister of trade and commerce on the executive committee?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, this was felt necessary because of the nature of the Department of Industry and the Industrial Development Bank. The government felt it was appropriate to have the deputy minister on the board. It was felt that the deputy minister of industry should be substituted for the deputy minister of trade and commerce on the executive board because of the nature of the Department of Industry and its close relationship to the development of industry in this country. It was judged more appropriate to have the deputy minister of industry rather than the deputy minister of trade and commerce on the executive committee. There was only one
DEBATES	4199
Industrial Development Bank Act position available and we wanted to maintain a balance between those individuals from the administration and those from outside. This is what the government has attempted to do.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The minister has indicated that because of the structure of the Department of Industry it was desirable to have the deputy minister on the board. That does not answer our question. Why is it necessary for the purposes of the bank to have both these deputy ministers on the board of directors? I am not clear as to the distinction between the jurisdictions or duties of these two gentlemen and I cannot understand why it is necessary to have both on the board of directors. I can understand one or the other acting as spokesman for the government to present government policy, but at this time when we are trying to keep down the cost of administration why can we not just have a straight substitution? Surely it should be possible to have one deputy minister assume the responsibility of acting as spokesman for government policy and thereby avoid this proliferation of administrative costs.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It was our feeling that the deputy minister of trade and commerce could be very useful because he meets representatives of all kinds of industry in Canada which have products to sell abroad. As there was only one position available on the executive committee it was decided that we should have the deputy minister of industry. As I said, it was felt that the deputy minister of trade and commerce could make a useful contribution to the board.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am still not satisfied with the answer. If I understand the situation, it is the function of the board of directors to guide the policies of the bank, and it would be the deputy minister's responsibility to pass along government policy and make sure that policy was followed. Surely there must be sufficient co-operation between these two deputy ministers that either one could act as the voice of government without the necessity of maintaining two staffs. Can we not cut down a little on this cost?


Bert Raymond Leboe: Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate whether or not there will be any change in the lending policy of the bank in respect of designated areas?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I said earlier, the bank uses the fact that an area is designated as another argument in favour of granting a
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act loan to an applicant. As I said, the function of the Industrial Development Bank is to be a lender of last resort for the benefit of the industrial development of the country. The government has designated areas in which the growth of industry is too slow. There should, therefore, be an incentive to the bank to lend money for development in these areas, and I think the bank does this.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, did I understand the minister in closing the debate on second reading to say that one reason the deputy minister of industry was being put on the board of the bank was to help maintain the balance between civil service and public representation on the board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not what I said. I said that some people are appointed to the excutive board from outside the civil service and others are appointed who are civil servants. Therefore, in order to keep the balance between them we decided to replace the deputy minister of trade and commerce with the deputy minister of industry. If we had appointed only the deputy minister of industry we would have lost the balance.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In other words, Mr. Chairman, there would be too much civil servant influence if both deputy ministers were put on the board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We need enough civil servants, but not too many.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Executive committee.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I
believe clause 3 is the one to which the minister was referring when he spoke of keeping the balance between appointments from the administration and those appointed from outside. Perhaps the minister would refresh my memory as to the exact composition of the executive committee. As I recollect, the directors who are members of the executive committee of the Bank of Canada are the governor, the deputy governor, the deputy minister of finance and one other. That would mean we have three inside and one outside. With the deputy minister of industry it will be four and one, and one other director selected by the board. This means four administration and two nonadministration, if my recollection of the situation is correct.


I am not prepared to concede, of course, that you can ever have too many civil servants. I think I represent more civil servants than any other member and I really do not think there are quite enough civil servants. But apart from that, I should like to see that the balance between administration and nonadministration is kept equal.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I see in the report of the bank that those who are members of the executive committee of the Industrial Development Bank are Mr. Bryce, Mr. McIntosh, Mr. Taschereau and Mr. Warren. With the change Mr. Warren would be replaced by the deputy minister of industry, so we will have the same kind of board as we had before.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Alternate member.
The Chairman:: Shall clause 4 carry?


Richard Albert Bell: Before clause 4 carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I think the minister has confirmed precisely what I said, namely, that there are four internal and two external members of the executive committee.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, but if we had another civil servant the balance would be worse than it is now.


Richard Albert Bell: I would not use that
particular adjective in this connection.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Capitalization.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, this clause has to do with increasing the authorized capital. Would the minister give us a rundown of the principle in calling up the stock? I understand that by the end of 1965 shares had been issued amounting to $38 million out of $50 million. At the end of 1966 the figure was $41 million. I refer to paid-up capital stock. As of September 30, 1967, the figure was $44 million. There was an unused balance there of $6 million. Five times that would give an additional lending power of $30 million. I am not saying that the additional lending power requested should not be granted, but I am wondering what the principle is behind the issuing of this capital stock.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand the hon. member's question. I said previously that the commitments of the
November 13, 1967	COMMONS
bank at the end of September were $387 million and there was a possibility of $421 million being required. Therefore we were coming to the end of the money available and this is why it was decided we should proceed at once to increase the lending power of the bank in order to be sure that we will never be short of money for the operation of the bank.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I gather that the stock is issued as required. In this case there will be an increase to $75 million. Of course, the figure will be ten times that, including the reserve. I gather that the stock will be issued to the Bank of Canada only as the money is required for lending purposes.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, the remarks 1 wish to make apply to both clauses 5 and 6. Concern has been expressed by several hon. members as to the method of lending by the bank. The question asked in many of the speeches made on second reading was, will the bank's lending be broadened? I gather from the minister's reply that the lending will be on exactly the same terms and there is no change in policy with respect to the bank's operations. I understand that the government is just looking forward a long time, having regard to the present rate of lending and the using up of the allowable capital, and is providing in effect a long-term leeway by asking for a tripling of the amount of money available.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The policy of the government is that the bank shall operate to the best possible advantage. The policy of the bank is in the ultimate result the responsibility of the director of the bank. But it was made clear in my statement at the beginning of the debate on second reading that we want the bank to make funds available for the development of industries, particularly the smaller industries, in Canada. It is the intention of the government that because of this bill more money will be available, and we hope and expect that the bank will operate in a way that will be efficient for those who want loans from the bank. We hope this measure will make it easier for people to obtain loans. But the bank is a lender of last resort, and one of the conditions is that a man has to prove that he cannot obtain funds from the normal lending institutions. He has to establish this.
The bank should keep in mind too the viability of the project. We cannot, as a government, decide in each case and it is up to
DEBATES	4201
Industrial Development Bank Act the management of the bank to make the decision. But because we made some changes over the last few years whereby we have opened offices everywhere in Canada, rather than having a very centralized operation it will be easier for the banks to make loans and for those who need loans to get them. Therefore the communication will be better between those who need money and the bank. I think this change in the administration of the operation will enable more loans to be made to those who need them and can meet the requirements of the bank.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to be sure that the only change, in the minister's mind, that might occasion more money being lent is the fact that more offices have been opened and they are readily available to people who wish to obtain loans. But no matter how many voices may be heard in the house we hope that the functions of the bank will be broadened and the lending policy eased to some degree so that the bank will take a little higher risk. None of these things are factors in the increase of money now being granted and we do not see the bill accomplishing any of these objectives. All we are doing is providing additional funds for the bank to operate in the way in which it has operated until now. The only improvement, as the minister said, is that it may have more lending power because more offices have been opened and ordinary citizens may approach the bank more readily. Is that essentially what we are trying to achieve in the bill?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What we are trying to do here is to give more money to the bank. That is what this bill is designed to do. I believe that what has been said in the house today will be considered by the bank officials. However, the goals of the bank will not be changed by the bill. This bill is designed solely to increase the capital of the bank. However, I can assure the hon. member that this will be a step in the right direction and that the comments made in the house will be kept in mind by the officials of the bank.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, subclause 2 of clause 2 reads:
The Bank of Canada shall subscribe for the seven hundred and fifty thousand shares referred to in subsection (1) at par and shall pay the amount of such subscription at such times and in such amounts as the Board may determine.
Why should the Bank of Canada subscribe totally for the purchase of the shares? Is
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act there a restriction that only the Bank of Canada can subscribe or is it possible for the public to subscribe? Has the minister any idea on whether the Canada Development Corporation will be permitted to subscribe in the future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I understand the bill, only the Bank of Canada can subscribe. However, the hon. member should keep in mind the fact that the operation of this bank is not necessarily a profit making one. The bank is there to help those who are in need of funds and cannot obtain them from other sources. It is not a bank which is in business to make money. So if the public wants to buy some shares and make no profit it is up to them, but I think only the Bank of Canada will be interested in doing that.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Can the minister tell us whether or not the bank actually has made money?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: According to the report it is making some money but in relation to the size and the nature of the loans it is a small amount.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I assume that the question I put to the minister earlier in the form of a statement is correct in that the stock is only issued and paid for by the Bank of Canada as required so as to maintain the proper ratio to the loans made.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I have one other question and I assume this is the only place where I can ask it. In the financial statement for the year 1965, other liabilities are listed at $500,990. In 1966 this figure was reduced to $411,659 but as of September 30, 1967 it is up to $9,754,000 plus. Can the minister give us any reason for the tremendous increase in this figure?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Unfortunately I do not have this information at hand at the moment.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Could the minister send a memo up to the gallery? I should like to point out that I think the minister should sit in the front row with his officials in front of him so he can answer these questions. The other night we ran into the same difficulty with another minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think I will be in a position to give an answer to this question in a few minutes. May I suggest we go on with the other clauses, Mr. Chairman?


John Gilbert: Could the Minister without Portfolio tell us what is the range of the interest rates charged by the I.D.B. at present?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: My information is that the interest rate charged on the latest loans was in the range of 8.5 per cent. The hon. member mentioned a few moments ago in his speech that he expected the bank to lend money at 10, 11 and 12 per cent. I have been informed that in the past the bank has never lent money at such rates.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, what I said was that probably in the future that is what the rate will be. The minister has told us that at present the interest rate is 8.5 per cent. Does he anticipate an increase in the interest rate similar to the increase in the interest rates presently charged by banks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I cannot give the hon. member any assurance on that point because this is a matter of policy to be determined by the bank directors.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I only have one or two questions for the minister.
A few moments ago, I think he said that the Industrial Development Bank was a nonprofit organization. But the minister also said that the bank had made some profits. In which way does the department dispose of the profits of the Industrial Development Bank?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, the Industrial Development Bank has the same board of directors as the Bank of Canada. If profits are made, they must naturally be added to the assets of the bank and they are used for other financial operations within the bank. These funds are not disposed of in any other way.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite in order but I should like to put a question to the minister. It is not related directly to this clause but I think it will help fill the intermission. I would like the minister to indicate what can be done by the staff to inform persons interested in the activities of the bank. I am thinking of chambers of commerce, trade unions or other groups which would like to hear about the operations of the bank and the facilities it offers to particular groups, regions or districts.
November 13, 1967


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Would the hon. member kindly repeat his question? I hope he will excuse me but I was in conversation when he asked me his question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister inform the house what can be done by the staff of the bank to inform groups interested in the operation of the bank and its application to the circumstances of a particular town, city, municipality or region so that they can be informed of the relationship between the bank and the area in which they are directly concerned?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I stated at the beginning that the officials of the bank travel throughout the country and meet businessmen so as to provide them with the information required. If the hon. member has any suggestion to make in order to help his area in that respect, the bank will be happy to heed it. Mr. Chairman,
I am a bit embarrassed by the question asked by the hon. member for Perth. It is always easy for lawyers to embarrass people by using legal terms. The hon. member is an accountant, but I am a little bit confused by the question.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Jay Waldo Monteith: May I repeat it? I will put it in very simple terms. At the end of September, 1966, other liabilities are listed as $411,659, and at the end of September, 1967, other liabilities are listed as $9,754,140. Why is there such a big increase in one year and what goes to make up that increase?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The reply to this question is that there is an interim statement issued and when the normal statement is issued it indicates a difference in the kind of liabilities that are tied together. This is where the difference appears. I believe that when the last statement is issued there will not be this difference.


Jay Waldo Monteith: In other words, the statement appearing in the Canada Gazette, part I, of October 28, will not be the final statement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, sir.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 5 carry?


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not understand the difference between an interim statement and a normal one. I wish the minister would explain that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: When the last statement appears there is a wider coverage and that is why there is a difference between the two.

Industrial Development Bank Act


Jay Waldo Monteith: When the final statement is prepared could there also be included an explanation as to why the figures published in the Canada Gazette of October 28, 1967 are different from the final figures?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that is a very good suggestion and I will inform the bank officials of your statement.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. minister whether he could give us some information which I consider rather important for businessmen who, at a given moment, must find financial help within a relatively short time.
I should also like to ask the hon. minister whether he can tell us how long an industrialist or a businessman must wait after he has applied for a loan before actually receiving the money. Could the minister tell us whether maximum and minimum delays have been fixed for these loans?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Of course, it is rather difficult, Mr. Chairman, to give the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) an exact answer, because that depends to a great extent on the nature of the loan, the type of operation involved and the guarantee which the business itself may represent.
If, for instance, a guarantee on real estate is involved a search must be made on titles and all sorts of legal operations are needed to make sure that the titles are true, and that takes considerably more time than if the guarantee offered consists in stocks or movables.


Georges-J. Valade: On this point, Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us the minimum time required for a loan, let us say, of a relatively small amount?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am advised that, sometimes it takes no longer than a week, but I am under the impression that this is not always the case.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Chairman, this is a very important matter to which I would like the minister to give some attention. That is the whole justification of the Industrial Development Bank.
As far as the question I put to the minister is concerned, it often happens that businessmen are in a situation where they need money whatever the current rate of interest; it matters little to contractors whether they
November 13, 1967

Industrial Development Bank Act borrow at 8, 10 or 12 per cent in some circumstances.
II the minister tells me that sometimes a loan is granted within a week, I think that he is picking an exception. In fact, I have been aware of certain cases where, for loans from $10,000 to $50,000 at the maximum, borrowers have had to wait more than 3 months before securing such a low loan, when they had the minimum of securities required by the Industrial Development Bank.
I wanted to ask the minister if he could give the assurance that the administrative formalities will be simplified, so that those who need money will not be forced to wait until their enterprise is in danger. That is the assurance I would like to get from the minister.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the hon. member that his remarks have been noted and that they will be submitted to the board of directors of the bank. I said earlier in my remarks, on the debate on second reading, that as an individual or member of parliament I had had to put up with delays on a few occasions, something which had not pleased me. I feel, on the other hand, that the bank is doing what it can. It might be a good thing, however, if it speeded up its operations a little.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Chairman, just to keep the record straight, am I to understand that the figure for other liabilities totalling $9,754,140 for the Industrial Development Bank, which appears in the Canada Gazette for October 28, 1967, will be reduced when the final statement comes out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Am I to understand also that when the annual statement does come out, the report of the president and statement of accounts for the fiscal year 1967, the difference will be explained, that is, why other liabilities are not this figure of $9,754,140 but somewhat less? If there is any great difference between the previous fiscal year and this fiscal year, I think that should be explained also.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, I agree; that is a very good suggestion. I was confused at the beginning because I did not have the figures at hand so I was not in a position to compare them. The hon. member has a very good point and I think the bank will take the
[Mr. Valade.l
necessary steps to make this situation clear in the future.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 5 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to. e (5:20 p.m.)
On clause 6-Aggregate liabilities.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 deals with the amount of paid up capital and the total contingent liabilities of the bank. I should like to make some inquiries of the minister as to why the loss ratio between the various categories of loans is not shown in the annual statement of the Industrial Development Bank.
The loans that are made are shown by category, being broken down into the type of industry to which the money is lent and so forth, and this does give us some idea where the bank is investing its money. However, I think it will be of help to hon. members if we know where these losses are sustained and in what categories of loans the bank's operations are too far out on a limb.
This whole problem relates to the matter raised by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie as to the degree of risk that the bank is prepared to take and the amount of security that it requests. This matter concerns not the field staff or the district offices but the attitudes of head office and the administrative procedures that are adopted. If we had some idea of the loss ratio between the various categories this might explain the reluctance to make certain loans. It might also explain some of the delays in the procedure. Would the minister tell us whether these losses are broken down and, if so, where we could find the breakdown?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Chairman, on this point, I think that what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) has just said is most appropriate. Unfortunately, at this time, it is not to be found in the annual reports of the bank. However, I shall pass on the suggestion of the hon. member, because it would enable people interested in the operations of the Industrial Development Bank to see how the loans are authorized and where the greatest risks are involved in the loans that they can make.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
November 13, 1967

Jean Marchand: the third reading of Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was considered some time ago in committee of the whole house attempts were made by the opposition to require that the council being established by the bill lay before parliament an annual report. This suggestion, which I think by the time my speech is finished will be proven to have ample precedent in Canadian as well as English practice, was rejected by the minister. Later in my speech, Mr. Speaker, I am going to move an amendment that the bill be sent back to committee of the whole for the purpose of inserting in it an extra clause requiring that an annual report be made to parliament by this council. However, I hope it will not be necessary for me to move the amendment. I hope the minister will indicate that he and the government have changed their minds and will accept some form of reporting on the part of this important council to the house as a whole.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must give the minister and the government marks for the fact that this council and the various boards established under the legislation will mean in effect the participation of many citizens, perhaps hundreds of citizens, in a very important field of government. These citizens will be able to give to the minister and his department, and I hope to parliament, their suggestions and advice on matters pertaining to manpower and immigration. I therefore hope that my hon. friend the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) will accede to what I think is a pretty reasonable request by members on this side of the house and will take the initiative to implement my suggestion, in which case I will not have to move my amendment.
Before I cite some 50 to 75 examples of exactly how various corporations, boards, commissions and other statutory bodies established by parliament make their reports, I should like to make one very brief observation and then raise some questions which I hope the minister will answer. I realize that at this stage unanimous consent would have to be given the minister to answer, but I hope the house will do exactly that.
27053-266J
Manpower and Immigration Council
Since the bill received committee study, Mr. Speaker, there have been several significant developments. The bureau of statistics has reported that in the one year period between October of last year and October this year there has been a very sharp increase in unemployment. In recent days this was brought home drastically to us when the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railways laid off large numbers of their workers across the country. Initially the number was 4,000, but if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) is looking into the right crystal ball the number may be in the neighbourhood of 10,000, the figure he mentioned in the house the other day.
This situation poses important problems for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and for the policies being pursued by the government. I also wish to ask 10 or 12 questions that I think should be answered at this time. For example, how much of this problem is caused by the lack of sales of wheat and coal in western Canada? How much of the problem is caused by technological change in Canada? How much of it is caused by our productivity problems?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said in a speech to the chamber of commerce in Quebec on November 8:
One of the reasons why our prices and costs have been increasing rapidly is that in recent years the increase in our productivity has not been satisfactory. This disappointing increase has not been due to insufficient demand nor is it the result of inadequate investment.
To my mind, the causes are deeper and more complex. They lie in the weaknesses of our system of education and training, and this is equally true of management and workers. They lie in the lack of manpower mobility; and in the need for greater specialization in our industrial structures. We must concentrate on those areas where we are strongest and our productivity is highest.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I suggest that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration knows that these are factors that make his duties more difficult. I also hope that the minister will call to the manpower and immigration council experts who will offer their advice as to how the government may overcome that problem which was so aptly delineated by the Minister of Finance.
My next question has to do with inflation. The governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Rasminsky, spoke to the Canadian Club of Winnipeg on Wednesday, November
4206	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council 10. I quote in part from the report of his speech carried in Thursday's Globe and Mail:
The .. . recent substantial increase in interest rates, which has occurred in spite of a flattening out of private investment and a large increase in the money supply.
This turn of events is unusual, since it seems to be a departure from what has happened in the past. How will this affect our problems in respect of manpower and immigration? The minister of natural resources of Saskatchewan last week told the Saskatchewan wheat pool that Canadian capital is moving from this country to help to develop other countries which have fewer resources than we have. Again I ask, how will this factor affect the minister's ability to deal with the proper use of Canadian manpower resources? Because of the anticipated adverse effects some industries may experience as a result of the implementation of the Kennedy round tariff decisions, what has the minister in mind? Then there is the slowdown in the construction industry.
Another question I wish to ask is with respect to manpower and unemployment insurance. Those two functions of the department which were carried on under one head, so to speak, have now been separated. Has that separation created additional problems? On this point I understand that the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is to elaborate later in this debate.
What is the government doing to help to create new jobs? What can the department of manpower do to enable farmers, who face a real problem in finding help in times of mounting unemployment, to obtain help on their farms? These are some of the questions that the minister ought to answer. The matters they raise touch on policies that the minister, his department and the government must develop to overcome the problems our country faces. As the minister did not answer certain questions when his estimates were before the house, I hope he will answer some of those which have been put to him during this debate.
I wish to talk about the amendment I shall present later which will embody a requirement for the new manpower and immigration council to report to parliament. The minister's argument on this suggestion is found on page 2524 of Hansard. One point he made was that if the council were required to report to parliament, labour and management would attempt to take special stands.
[Mr. McGleave.l
DEBATES	November 13, 1967
Sir, economists and men from all walks of life make up the Economic Council of Canada. They will never agree unanimously on any proposal. But when that council makes a most thorough report in its annual review we may take it that it represents a consensus of opinion within the council. That report ought to be heeded. If the members of the economic council can reach agreement on certain proposals, surely it is not asking too much for representatives of labour and management to reach agreement with respect to certain matters that affect them.
The minister's second argument is also found on page 2524 of Hansard. His contention was that the sort of amendment I propose ought not to be accepted. He said, in effect, that the chairman of the council might try to embarrass the government. This, I submit, is a strange argument to come from the mouth of one of Her Majesty's ministers. I hope that the minister or any subsequent minister in his position will appoint the best man for the job. I hope that he will not appoint some Charlie McCarthy who will echo any partisan bias uttered by the minister's party. The man who is appointed to the job should do a job, in the interest of all Canada; he ought not to work for the minister or the minister's party. As we know, political parties come and go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says, "Hear, hear." I do not wish to become partisan. My only point is that I do not think the minister's argument holds water. He ought to look for the best man in the field and not for one who, when the government changes, will embarrass the new administration.
The minister also said that he could report to the house on the work of the manpower and immigration council when his estimates are being considered. Possibly he could report and possibly he could answer questions. Nevertheless, under the guillotine system with which we unfortunately shrouded this chamber it turned out that the minister could not answer questions when his estimates were considered since the time for discussion expired before the list of speakers was exhausted.
I am trying to be as non-partisan as possible and I hope the minister will not mind my dealing with his argument. In the past, when dealing with these matters, both sides have been at fault. The point I am trying to make is that the questions involved here have to do
November 13, 1967

with remoteness of control, or closeness of control-it depends on how you look at it. It must not be forgotten that the council is being created in this chamber, and it is in this chamber that the money for its operations as well as other government operations is authorized. I hope the minister shows his wisdom and changes his mind. I hope he will adopt something similar to the first part of the Economic Council of Canada Act which deals with how that body is to report to parliament.
In referring to specific examples of parliamentary creations in the past and their relations with parliament, we must remember that under the Prime Minister of this country there are the Economic Council of Canada, the Science Council of Canada and the Company of Young Canadians. All those creations of parliament report directly and independently to this house.
I am about to refer to the 1966 Canada Year Book and to a list of government agencies or bodies set up by legislation found therein. I have made no deletions from that list. There have been some organizational changes and some bodies that reported to one minister or came under one department now come under another minister or department. I may say that to present my argument most conveniently I am following the 1966 year book.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
First, under the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) we have the Agricultural Products Board, the Agricultural Stabilization Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Farm Credit Corporation, all of which issue separate reports to the House of Commons. In one or two cases they address their reports to the minister but the minister tables them in parliament.
Under the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) we have the International Boundary Commission, the Atomic Energy Control Board, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Dominion Coal Board, Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, Eldorado Aviation Limited and the National Energy Board, all reporting to parliament.


Jean Marchand: Does the hon. member recognize that all these boards have executive powers?


Robert Jardine McCleave: If I read the whole list I believe the minister will realize that not all these statutory bodies are in that category.
Manpower and Immigration Council
The Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names reports to the same minister and its work comes before us in the minister's own report rather than as a separate report. The work of the Board of Examiners for Dominion Land Surveyors is described in the minister's annual report. We are told that in 1964 the board tested 44 would-be land surveyors, only 11 of whom passed. I noticed this information in the report of the department of mines and technical surveys for 1964. The Canadian Council of Resource Ministers issues a separate report to parliament.
Under the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) the External Aid Office issues a separate report to parliament. The International Joint Commission, Canadian section, reports to the minister.
Next I turn to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General of Canada (Mr. Sharp). The Royal Canadian Mint, the Bank of Canada, the Industrial Development Bank, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Department of Insurance, the Municipal Development and Loan Board, all issue separate reports to parliament. The Tariff Board reports both through the minister and by the issuance of separate reports, and the Inspector General of Banks is required to report under certain sections of the Bank Act. These are separate reports to parliament.
Under the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud), the Fisheries Prices Support Board and the Fisheries Research Board of Canada issue separate reports. The International Fisheries Commission reports to the minister.
Under the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) the Eastern Rockies Forest Conservation Board makes a separate report.
I turn now to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Laing). The Commissioner of the Northwest Territories, the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory, the Northern Canada Power Commission and Northern Transportation Co. Ltd. each make separate reports. The National Battlefields Commission lays its budget separately before parliament. Only the Historic Sites and Monument Board is included in the minister's report.
In the department of the Minister of Industry and Defence Production (Mr. Drury) the Canadian Government Printing Bureau, Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Polymer Corporation Limited,
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council and the National Research Council report separately to parliament. The Adjustment Assistance Board reports through the minister's annual report, as does the National Design Council created by a former government. Most of these bodies have reported separately to us. I note that the Area Development Agency reports separately through the minister's report.
Under the Minister of Labour, the Canada Labour Relations Board reports to us from time to time and also reports through the minister's annual report. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation reports separately as does the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The Merchant Seamen Compensation Board reports to the minister for inclusion in his annual report. Their report for 1966 is to be found at page 54 of the departmental publication.
Under the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) we find the National Advisory Council on the Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons and the National Technical and Vocational Training Advisory Council issuing separate reports to us. So there is precedent within the minister's own bailiwick for the course I am suggesting.
Let us turn to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux). Defence Construction (1951) Limited reports separately to us. Then there is the Defence Research Board. Though my research took more than a week I failed to find out how the Defence Research Board reports or to whom it reports.
The next department on my list is the Department of National Health and Welfare. I could not find out how the Advisory Council of Consumers reports. The Canadian Council on Nutrition reports through the minister's report as does the Dominion Council of Health. The National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport issues its own separate report and also is in the minister's report. I do not know how the National Council on Welfare reports. This minister has lately taken on responsibility for the Atlantic Development Board which reports separately to us.
Turning to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson), we come to the Tax Appeal Board whose decisions are, of course, published from time to time. Under the President of the Treasury Board we find, of course, the Treasury Board whose warrants are issued and reported from time to time. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) is responsible for the National Capital Commission which makes a separate report.
[Mr. McCleave.l
Under the Registrar General (Mr. Turner) we find the Director of Combines Investigation and Research, the Patent and Copyright Office, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission and the Trade Marks Office, all of which make separate reports.
All the diamonds in the widespreading crown of the Secretary of State (Miss La-Marsh), with one exception, report separately. Listed here are the Board of Broadcast Governors, Canada Council, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Centennial Commission, Public Service Commission, National Film Board, National Gallery, National Library, National Museum of Canada, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer, Public Printing and Stationery Department Publications Branch (Queen's Publisher) and the National Arts Centre Corporation. The Office of the Representation Commissioner reports to the minister and Public Archives sends a report separately though there is no statutory obligation to do so.
Responsible to the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell), the Canadian Penitentiary Service, the National Parole Board and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police all issue separate reports.
Under the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) we find the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, the Corporation and Labour Unions Returns Act Administration, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Exports Credits Insurance Corporation, all reporting separately to us.
Beneath the wing of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet) we find the Army Benevolent Fund Board reporting separately, and the Canada Pension Commission and the War Veterans Allowance Board which issue reports to the minister for incorporation in his annual report. I do not know how the Commonwealth War Graves Commission reports.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Finally we come to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), that figure of unified fun. Air Canada reports separately, as does the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, the Canadian Maritime Commission, Canadian National Railways, Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. All these issue separate reports. The only one in the minister's empire that does otherwise is the Air Transport Board. That could be in the minister's
November 13, 19G7

annual report, although I went through a couple of them and could not find it.
So, sir, I suggest there is ample precedent as to the general practice over past years for a statutory body such as is being set up here to report in some way to the House of Commons.
In my researches I also went to the classic writers on this subject. Again the question is the closeness or remoteness of control exercised by parliament. Since it seemed to me that this matter had been approached on a somewhat pragmatic basis, and probably more so in Canada because there is less dealing with this subject here than in England where there is some but not very much, I started with good old Edmund Burke-a Tory should start with a Tory-in order to try to find a philosophy that could be suggested in regard to this matter. In his work published in 1808 Burke had this to say:
The House of Commons was supposed originally to be no part of the standing government of this country. It was considered as a control, issuing immediately from the people.
Burke depicted it as being to the higher part of government what juries are to the lower part of government. Then he said:
-this character can never be sustained, unless the House of Commons shall be made to bear some stamp of the actual disposition of the people at large.
I suggest that the actual disposition of the people at large, if they have any preference or think of it at all, is to want to know rather than to have it otherwise.
Finally, I quote a constitutional authority of the past, Walter Bagehot. In his work on the English constitution he defines the real function of the house as comprising three elements: first, "to express the mind of the people"; second, "to teach the nation what it does not know"; third, "to make us hear otherwise what we should not."
As I pointed out at the start of this address, there are grave and important responsibilities resting on the shoulders of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I do not think anybody in this house wishes him ill in the discharge of those responsibilities. Indeed, we all wish him well. We hope that his manpower and immigration council will gather to it the best talent that is available in Canada, giving citizens the right to participate and play their part in dealing with the difficult problems, some of which I have enumerated.
Manpower and Immigration Council
Therefore I hope that in dealing with the question of whether or not the council should report to parliament we will approach it on the very broad basis that parliament should be jealous of its right to require such reports and very reluctant not to do so under such circumstances unless there is good reason otherwise. I do not think any group of citizens on the council or on the boards set up by this legislation will feel themselves inhibited in any way. Certainly those on comparable councils have not from knowing that their chairmen at least would draw up a report on their activities dealing with some of the problems they had explored and reporting on them to the House of Commons. Therefore, sir, to make my point I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Regimbal):
That Bill C-150 be not now read a third time but be recommitted to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of adding a clause which would require the proposed council to report to parliament annually.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, in the minute or two before we adjourn at six o'clock I do not wish to discuss the amendment but I do want to speak on the bill itself for which third reading is being sought.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, some hon. members are seeing the clock at six.


PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, 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 Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Federal-provincial conference-inquiry concerning the agenda of the next conference; the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie), Transport-Borden-Tor-mentine ferry service-reported numerous lay-offs.
4210	COMMONS
Manpower and Immigration Council [English]
At this time the Chair has a certain intuition that hon. members wish to suspend the sitting until eight o'clock. Is this unanimously agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Agreed. Accordingly the sitting of this house is suspended until eight o'clock and consequently I do now leave the chair.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marchand for the third reading of Bill No. C-150, to establish a Canada Manpower and Immigration Council, and the amendment thereto of Mr. McCleave.
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I composed my words, partly with the understanding that the minister would be here-and I am glad to see that he is arriving. During the resolution, second reading and committee stages on this bill we expressed our views that the council for which provision is made in the bill might well be very useful, and therefore we have approved of its creation. I do not intend to repeat what was said in the earlier debate, but I think the usefulness of the council, as with all councils, will depend very much on its composition. I notice it can contain up to 15 members and I know the minister will appoint representatives of business and labour.
Let me point out that during the hearings of the special joint committee on immigration we received extremely helpful advice from a number of groups, especially groups and organizations of new Canadians. It is my hope that there will be some representation on his council of these groups, which in themselves are composed of former immigrants, because in part the council will have to deal with the problems of immigrants.
We also received excellent briefs from trained and experienced social workers. I hope they also will be represented. It is unnecessary for me to suggest to the minister
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]
DEBATES	November 13, 1967
that a council of this sort without a woman member would not be of the proper council. At the risk of having the minister think we have a tiresome habit of repeating some ideas again and again I want to repeat a theme we have discussed in this house from time to time. I refer to the suggestion that the manpower training program is being allowed to lag because of overly rigid regulations.
Mr. Michael Fenwick, who is a vice president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, speaking recently at Niagara Falls used some harsh language about the minister. I do not endorse this language, but he said the minister was scuttling the adult job retraining program in Canada. Perhaps that is not true, and unfair, but some of the things Mr. Fenwick said are disturbing, and I should like to put them to the minister to give him the opportunity of replying. I might add that Mr. Fenwick is not only a vice president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, he is also a member of the metropolitan Toronto advisory committee on manpower and retraining. I presume he knows what he is speaking about in respect of this particular field. He said:
-the whole program of adult education and retraining is going down the drain because of the restrictions placed on the unemployed who want to upgrade themselves.
He then went on to say, referring I suppose to the metropolitan area of Toronto:
-referrals by the manpower department for training have dropped from 2,000 a month last April to 500 in September.
I have other figures in this regard, as I am sure the minister has. Mr. Fenwick went on to say:
-that manpower training has been a victim of the government's program to cut expenditures.
Mr. Fenwick then explained in a little more detail what he meant when he said there was no retraining for unemployed persons who could find a job in their trade in another community. I can understand that there might be situations in which, if a person was ready to move to another area and qualified to fit into a job which was open to him somewhere else, there might be some reason for questioning whether or not that man should in every case be allowed to take a retraining program. However, as the retraining program is for the purpose of upgrading skills, and in many cases if a man is married with a family it might be impractical for him to move to some other area, this rule which suggests that there is no retraining is far too rigid. I should like to ask the
November 13, 1967	COMMONS
minister whether that rule exists and whether it is as rigid as Mr. Fenwick apparently thinks it is.
Mr. Fenwick went on to say some other things. For instance, he said this:
-as a result of the government's austerity program, the Riverdale collegiate training centre, where immigrants had been taught, is closed, as is the Castle Frank centre.
I asked the minister about this on orders of the day, and if I understood his reply correctly he said it was true the centres had been closed, but suggested this was because they belonged to the board of education, which needed them for its own purpose and had asked to have them back. I should like to ask the minister whether an effort is being made to find other locations where this training can be carried on. It seems to me there must be other premises in the city of Toronto which could be made available for this purpose.
Mr. Fenwick made another statement which I think is very serious, if it is correct. He said that-
-A. W. Fair, co-ordinator of manpower training in Toronto, has reported to the advisory committee that 80 teachers have left because they feel there is no future for the program as a result of the economy move.
I presume he referred to 80 teachers in Toronto. If this is so, or even if this figure is a mistake, it would seem to cripple a program of this kind. I do not know what sort of educational institution or organization could lose 80 teachers in one area, because they do not have confidence that the program will continue without crippling its program.
When I raised this same matter during consideration of the minister's estimates he was not able to speak in the house but very kindly wrote to me and other members in explanation. He seemed to imply in his letter that the training program was going to expand. However, if it is going to expand, it is rather serious, if it is true, that 80 teachers in one area have left because they do not have confidence that this program will continue.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
These are not just the views of Mr. Fenwick. Although Mr. Fenwick is on the advisory council, he may easily be mistaken. I have here another newspaper clipping which appeared in the press at last week where Mr. DEBATES	4211
Manpower and Immigration Council
R.	M. Warren, executive director of the manpower services division of the Ontario labour department said this:
The fact that negotiations dragged on this long has kept the level of the program down.
He is referring to the two governments that used to share responsibility for the adult retraining program. I understand that negotiations are continuing with the provinces. If I understand correctly, until recently Ontario and British Columbia had not signed agreements, although they may have by now. It is six months since the act was originally passed. Mr. Warren went on to say, and I presume he is dealing with the Ontario figures, that before April the division had
8.000	trainees enrolled in on-the-job courses. The number fell to 3,000 in midsummer, but has since grown to about 4,000. Mr. Warren was speaking in November. I know that the minister when writing to me on this subject, and no doubt to other hon. members, said there was a temporary lull during the summer and the apparently unsatisfactory figures are due to the fact of the seasonal lull and full employment. Now we have not full employment, and the seasonal lull must surely be over. The same article quotes Mr. E. L. Kerridge, administrator of the Ontario manpower department's retraining program, who said that the monthly enrolment is running at 70 per cent of the level in 1966, when
60.000	took the department's retraining courses. Again, I suppose he is speaking about the province of Ontario, which he would know. But this 70 per cent figure does not fit in at all with the rather soothing letter the minister sent to me in which he indicated that the temporary lull was over and there would be a gradual increase in this program.
I do not think Mr. Fenwick, Mr. Warren or Mr. Kerridge would make these statements unless they were correct. The total result of these figures seems to indicate a rather serious lack in this program. I ask the minister to give an assurance to the house that this manpower training program will not be cut down because of any economy drive or axe wielding by his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), because in my judgment it would be a shortsighted and foolish policy to cut down on this type of government spending. It would not do anything to cure inflation.
We can understand that the Minister of Finance is anxious to cut down government expenditures in order to halt inflationary trends in the economy. There may be some fairly obvious places to make these cuts, and
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council I could suggest a few myself. But I think it would be the height of folly to cut down on programs that are designed to increase productivity and the employability of Canadian workers.
I hesitate to get into the dismal science of economics and the painful subject of inflation, but I understand that a major cause of inflation is excess on the demand side of the economy as against the supply side. The direct cutting down of expenditures can of course reduce demand. But if the cuts are directed at programs like manpower, then productivity and economic growth are diminished and all you have done is keep the inflationary pressure just about where it was before, but at a lower level of production and employment. I hope the minister can assure us that if economies are necessary they will not be carried out at the expense of training programs designed to increase the productivity of Canadian workers and upgrade their skills so they can produce more. It would be a very foolish policy if it were so.
I now wish to refer to a particular branch of this program as it affects a particular group of people. In so far as there are reductions in these training programs, and in so far as they especially affect immigrants, this would be doubly disastrous. It would be disastrous for the immigrants themselves and disastrous for Canada. The government's white paper on immigration throughout bases government immigration policy on the contribution that trained and skilled immigrants can make to an economy of growth. The white paper first of all assigns responsibility in this respect. It says on page 39:
Thereafter-
That is after the immigrants have come to this country.
-the manpower division will assume responsibility for the counselling and placement of workers and such family counselling as may be needed in addition.
I commend this white paper to the minister. I know he produced it himself, or his advisers did. It was produced with some fanfare, as I recall it. The white paper goes on to say in paragraph 103:
People who come to Canada should receive the kinds of services they need to start productive employment as soon as possible. They may need language training, short courses in Canadian techniques and standards in their occupational field, labour market information and counselling, and even internal mobility assistance. These are manpower services. Immigrants must be made aware of them and be put in touch with the manpower organization which can provide them. Conversely, 
the manpower organization will be in the best position to assess labour shortages in industry and to advise immigration authorities about these. Thus there will be a close working relationship between manpower and immigration officials in assisting immigrants both before and after they arrive in Canada. Sufficient financial and personnel resources will be made available to ensure that no immigrant will lack any help he may want in getting established or fail to realize that such help is available.
I commend that passage of the white paper to the minister. It obviously makes sense that if you are bringing people to this country as immigrants, one of the main policy reasons for so doing is that they may add to the productive resources or pool of this country. It does not make any sense if they are not given fully adequate retraining facilities, as this paragraph of the white paper provides. If you are closing down training centres and making regulations that may make it difficult for immigrants to obtain retraining, you are in my view denying the very policy put forward in the white paper.
Manpower and immigration must work together. The minister heads both these departments. I do not think they can be working together very well if, as I hear from quite a number of my constituents, they were participating in these training programs, receiving on-the-job training and being supported during this period, as is necessary, but were then cut off from the programs. I ask the minister to again look into this question. I ask him whether Mr. Fenwick is wrong and whether the 80 teachers who have resigned are wrong. If the minister is right in saying that this has nothing to do with the government's austerity program and there really is no endeavour to cut down manpower training, but in fact the reverse, I hope he will make this crystal clear. There is obviously a lot of misunderstanding, even in circles which ought to be fairly well informed about this particular matter.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I do not wish to belabour these points and I do not desire to discuss at length the amendment which was proposed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave). It seems to me that it deserves support and I hope the minister will consider it. As I understand it, it proposes that an annual report be made to parliament by the manpower council which we are are setting up. I cannot imagine what harm that would do. In fact I think it will do some good. The minister said once before that this council is merely an advisory body, not an executive one, and that it does not
November 13, 1967

have any power. Why should not the benefit of at least some of its advice come to parliament in an annual report? I think the minister will agree that the parliamentary committee consists of many members on all sides of this house who are knowledgeable with regard to matters of immigration, and I am sure there are many members of the house who are knowledgeable about manpower matters. The more information given to parliament on this matter, the more effectively can parliament do its job.
The minister has shown good judgment in accepting many of the suggestions made by the parliamentary committee and those made by various members of the house in debates on his estimates. I cannot imagine any reason why he should be afraid of having an annual report made. As I understand it, this does not mean that every little bit of advice that is given to him by this council has to be produced in the annual report. It does mean that this council, which will broadly represent all of Canada, will deal with subjects of extreme interest. Manpower policies play a bigger and bigger role in the up-to-date economy, an economy that is looking for growth. This is a tremendously important subject but a new one. Immigration policies on the other hand have benefited for years by open and frank discussion in the house. Therefore I think the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) deserves support and I would suggest to the minister that he might seriously consider accepting it, rather than requiring the house to divide on it.
In short, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to support that amendment and to support the bill, because we think this manpower council may be worth while. But we take this opportunity to say we are very disturbed by reports-whether they are made accurately or inaccurately the minister will have to say- from reliable and knowledgeable people which indicate that in fact the manpower program is failing and is not doing the job it was supposed to do.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make some comments with regard to the third reading of Bill C-150, an act to establish a Canada manpower and immigration council, primarily because of the fact that owing to the velvet glove form of closure which we have on debates of the estimates of the departments I was not able to participate in the discussion of the estimates of this department when they came up on October 26. One way of silencing debate is to have the house leader of a party
Manpower and Immigration Council announce that agreement has been reached between the party house leaders. It is rather interesting that the house leaders of some parties do not even consult the members of their party, but simply inform them that they have reached an agreement without prior consultation with the party members.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speak for your own side.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am speaking for this side and I have no hesitation in identifying it. I do know of another party, the house leader of which consults the members of his party, and knows what they think.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: It is pointed out in the bill that the council is set up to advise the minister on all matters to which the duties, powers and functions of the minister extend; to advise the minister on all matters pertaining to immigrants to Canada; and to advise the minister on such other matters as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration. I take it, Sir, that this council will have full authority to cover the entire field under the domain of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), and I wish to make some comments in that regard.
I sincerely hope that under clause 11 (e) which states that the council will be asked by the minister to advise the minister on such other matters as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration, the minister will ask them for some consideration of the use of the words "deportation" and "deport" when it comes to dealing with would-be immigrants to Canada. The words "deportation" and "deport" have a bad connotation in the minds of a great majority of the public. When people think of someone being deported, they think of banishment or exile. We remember well the history books in which we were told about deportation to Australia or deportation from France to Devils Island off the South American coast.
I know no reason why these two words should be emphasized so often in the interdepartmental correspondence and rulings of the department, and I would certainly like to see this new advisory board asked for their opinion on it, because I am certain that the great majority of its members, if not all of them, would be against the use of these words. In the army when soldiers are absent without leave they are not called deserters: Heaven forbid. A soldier can be absent without leave for a large number of reasons and
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council he is then known as being A.W.O.L. The army would not think of classifying these men as deserters until there had been a protracted absence from the army parades, longer than an absence of two or three days or even two or three weeks. This is termed as A.W.O.L., not desertion. The army knows that the word "desertion" carries connotations which would make the family of the soldier quiver. Certainly when we use the words "deport" or "deportation" in matters of manpower or immigration we are using words which carry evil connotations in the minds of a great majority of the public. In fact, there is a ruling in the department that once a would-be immigrant has been deported, he has tremendous barriers to overcome before this application for the status of a landed immigrant in Canada would even be considered a second time.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a few cases of which I have personal knowledge and ask him if he would not have these regulations reviewed by the new council of manpower and immigration, if the department itself will not change them. I am not a lawyer myself, therefore I am unable to collect from immigrants when I give them advice on how to meet the officials of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, but I have had a great deal of first hand information because I have taken immigrants before these special inquiry officers, and before the immigration appeal board. Let me quote a case in point. A few days ago we were discussing the subject of capital punishment. Some are endeavouring to prove that a policeman is more important in the scheme of things than, for instance, eight civilians such as the ones who were killed in Saskatchewan. If this law is passed, the man who killed the eight civilians might receive a life sentence, but if he had killed one policeman he would be hanged. The Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) informed us of the number of Canadian murderers whose sentence of death had been commuted, after which they were paroled and are now moving around in Canada.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Speaking on the immigration matter, I will give hon. members a case in my own riding of York-Humber involving a European couple who have eight children, all living in Canada. The man and his wife came to Canada on a visit eight or nine years ago. When they arrived at Halifax the mother was told she could stay, but the father was told

he had to take the next boat back to the country from which he came. The mother came through to see their eight children, one of whom lives in York-Humber. She returned to her homeland in Europe and a couple of years later the mother and father, anxious to see their children, flew to Canada once more. The mother was told she could stay and visit, but the father was told he would have to return to his homeland. He returned to his homeland and the mother of the eight returned to her homeland also. Now the father who is 76 and the mother who is 74, are anxious to be landed in Canada where all eight children reside. Five of these children are Canadian citizens and the other three are waiting to fill out the five years residence in Canada before they can apply.
These two people in Europe have no other family than the eight children in Canada. The father is told he cannot come here. Our moral attitude toward this man is so high that because he was convicted of theft 37 years ago in his homeland and spent six years in the penitentiary in his homeland, he is not a fit nor proper person to associate with Canadians. Why, it might lead us down the primrose path to hell, if we had a thief wandering amongst us. This man is the father of five Canadian citizens and the father of three people who hope to be Canadian citizens. We will not let this convicted thief from Europe who did six years in the penitentiary lead us astray, but we parole convicted Canadian murderers. How ridiculous can we get? Are we going to say that paroled convicted Canadian murderers have such a high moral attitude they are fit to associate with us, but we cannot allow a convicted thief to come into this country because of the influence he would have on people residing in this dominion?
Another point I should like to have the minister refer to this new advisory committee, if the department will not take steps to have the regulations changed, concerns a man residing in York-Humber. He has resided there for the past several years. He was born in Europe and his mother and father brought him to this country when he was three years old. When they had been here seven or eight years, the father applied for Canadian citizenship and his application was granted. A year or two later his wife applied for Canadian citizenship, and it was granted to her almost automatically. I don't know why they did not apply at the same time. The boy, who as I have said was three years of age when the mother and father brought
November 13, 1367

him to this country, was about 11 when the father and mother applied for Canadian citizenship.
Only last year this boy, now a man of 34 and residing in York-Humber, who is married and has a family, had reason to approach the Supreme Court of Ontario with regard to a slight change in name. When the application was made through his lawyers, he was asked if he were a Canadian citizen. "Certainly," he said, "I am a Canadian citizen." They asked him to produce proof he was a Canadian citizen-and I make no apology for talking about citizenship at this time, because this man was an immigrant during the time of which I am speaking, he has only been a citizen for about three weeks. As I have said, his reply was, "Certainly, I am a Canadian citizen." The law courts asked him to produce evidence. Of course he was supposed to get his father's citizenship papers. Fortunately he was able to do so because his father is still living about a quarter of a mile from the northern boundary of York-Humber. He lives in the riding of York West. The interesting fact is that when the father's Canadian citizenship certificate was produced, the department was asked if this gave the son Canadian citizenship. The father had been granted citizenship in 1947. Lo and behold, we were told, because I checked the certificate with the department myself, the boy was not a Canadian citizen. His name did not appear on the certificate issued to the father in 1947.
This strikes me as ridiculous. This boy was 11 years old when his father applied for Canadian citizenship. I was told that the boy was being protected by the Canadian government because if he did not want to become a Canadian citizen when he was 21 he did not have to be a Canadian citizen. He could retain the citizenship of his birth. Surely when a boy is a minor and the father and mother apply for Canadian citizenship it should be granted to the minor in the family as well as to the mother and father who have made the application. After all, the minor could not apply at that time.
I have a brother who was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, when my mother and father were there in 1904. I can assure you that this brother of mine never applied for Canadian citizenship in this country. They returned to Canada when he was eight or nine months old and he simply grew up as a Canadian. When he became of age, he voted as a Canadian. 1 have never found any immigration or citizenship official chasing him
Manpower and Immigration Council around to say that his name does not appear on his father's or mother's birth certificate and therefore he is not a Canadian citizen. Why should this boy, who was brought from Europe, be forced to apply on his own behalf to have Canadian citizenship granted to him?
I regret to advise you that this man has been employed for the last several years with an aeronautical engineering firm which has government contracts for the defence department. Since he has access to what they call classified information, he was checked out twice by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as to his loyalty to the country. My regret in this matter is that although he was not a Canadian citizen he was passed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on two occasions as being a loyal Canadian citizen and a British subject.
Well, when this matter was drawn to the attention of the immigration department, because he was only an immigrant, and to the department of citizenship when we were applying for citizenship, I must say we got immediate and speedy action. I was at the citizenship court hearing of the application and I do not believe it took more than 90 seconds. I am happy to say he got his citizenship papers. Why is there a regulation to the effect that minors are not Canadian citizens unless their names appear on the father's or mother's citizenship certificate? If their names do not appear, those children remain citizens of the country in which they were born until they are 21 years of age and make the decision for themselves. In my opinion, this is something that should be cleared up by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, without waiting for this advisory council. Surely we do not need to have an advisory council to indicate the injustice of that situation.
Another matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister and the department-and I hope he will draw it to the attention of the advisory council for some advice, if the department cannot make up its own mind-concerns an article that appeared in last Saturday's Toronto Daily Star. The point I want to emphasize relates to what used to be called an illegitimate child, but I thank God that some years ago the province of Ontario had enough intelligence and spirit of compassion to prompt it to change the birth certificates of children, so that there are no more illegitimate children born in that province. There may be illegitimate parents, but how can there be illegitimate children?
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council The child has nothing whatever to do with the fact that he has been born.
On the page opposite the editorial page of the Toronto Star, there was a letter written by Ralph Drummond of Vaughan Road, an address in the riding of York South. The letter reads in part:
In England some years ago I became the father of a little girl. I wanted to marry her mother, but she wasn't the marrying type. We did live together happily for six years, and then she deserted me and the child. A little girl needs a mother, so in my desperation I sent her to my mother and father-to be taken care of and later I followed her there.
In 1963 I came to Canada as a landed immigrant and two years later I got married here, hoping to make a new home for my daughter. Now, the Canadian immigration officers tell me she can't come to Canada because I am not regarded as her father.
This child has already had trouble enough in her life without suffering more because of a silly law like this. What can I do?
Ralph Drummond Vaughan Rd.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The Toronto Star, after checking with the immigration department, advises that the immigration department does ask Victorian questions about the legitimacy of people seeking to enter the country. It goes on to say:
Immigration policy is that a child of an already landed immigrant may be admitted to join her father-if she meets the definition of a child laid down in immigration statutes. That definition is a simple one: "A child is the issue of lawful wedlock."
Mr. Drummond has told the Star that he was not in a state of lawful wedlock when his daughter was born; therefore for Canadian immigration purposes his daughter is not a child. Thus it follows by natural extension that Mr. Drummond is not a father. Then the Star article asks "See?" It goes on:
Mr. Drummond is caught in a bureaucratic nightmare: and the most interesting thing about it is that if he had been living in Ontario when his daughter was born, and he were now trying to arrange for her to join him in some other country, he would have no problem at all.
The question about illegitimacy Canadian immigration officers ask, Ontario authorities refuse to answer-and they have worked out an eminently civilized system for the protection of the child in this kind of situation.
When a child is born in Ontario the birth certificate gives only the details relating to the child: name, sex, place and date of birth. Nobody is ever going to find out about illegitimacy from that source, and that is the most practical help any such child could be given.
I was thinking about this Ralph Drummond and his little girl and how she has not been admitted to Canada, a country with

such a high moral atmosphere that it allows convicted murderers out on parole to live among us, to associate with our women and children. Yet it cannot allow a little child such as this to enter this puritanical and pristine paradise.
This reminded me of William Wordsworth, one of the greatest poets ever produced by England. When I asked a number of members of parliament here this afternoon if they could tell me what happened to William Wordsworth's daughter, who was born of a French mother, when he made a trip to France in 1792 and 1793, they expressed amazement when I questioned them. They did not know that William Wordsworth had a daughter before he was legally married in England to Mary Hutchinson many years later. William Wordsworth had a daughter by Annette Vallon, and my authority for this is a book I have in my hand which I obtained from the parliamentary library entitled "William Wordsworth and Annette Vallon".
I would ask hon. members whether they realize that under our immigration laws, which state that the child of an already landed immigrant may be admitted to join her father only if she meets the definition of a child laid down in the regulations, the issue of William Wordsworth, who was later poet laureate of Great Britain, would not have been allowed into this country. How ridiculous can we get, Mr. Speaker?
The Department of Manpower and Immigration seems unable to change these regulations. In the name of heaven I ask the minister to make such a policy change the first item of reference when this advisory council is appointed so that the little girl of Ralph Drummond of Vaughan Road is allowed to arrive in Canada and live with her father who is willing to look after her. The article in the Star continues:
Mr. Drummond is a decent man trying to do the best he can in a difficult situation; and it is sad that for two years he has had to thrash about in this kind of quibbling quagmire.
It is the department of immigration that the Star is calling a quibbling quagmire.
Twice he has appealed the immigration department's ruling, the last time with documentation from England to prove that there he is regarded as the father of his own child-and twice his appeals have been denied.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the minister will refer this matter to the advisory council, as I am sure he will find good sense among the people he plans to appoint to that board.
November 13, 1967

I now come to another interesting case which has been given wide publicity this past week end in the Canadian publication Weekend which has a circulation of more than two million copies an issue and more than 10 million readers.


David Orlikow: Are they audited figures?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked whether these are audited figures. The hon. member is now invading a field in which I spent more than 30 years of my life. The circulation figures for Weekend are not audited, and the circulation figures for the Canadian magazine are not audited.
I will tell the hon. member the reason for this. When the audit bureau of circulation in Chicago, which consists of Canadian and United States publisher members, audits a daily newspaper it gives only an average figure over a 12 months period; it does not give an audited figure for any day of the week. Much as Weekend would like to have an audited figure for Saturday circulation it is unable to get it. The audit bureau of circulation audits only on a day basis, if there is a more than 15 per cent variation in the Saturday circulation compared to the other days of the week. So that this question brings forth the answer that the figures are not audited; but I know the total circulation is more than two million and the number of readers is more than 10 million.
This article has something to say about the Canadian immigration department. They do not call it a "quibbling quagmire"; they refer to it as "Ottawa's red tape jungle". The story has to do with a young couple from South Africa-he the son of a Capetown publisher and she the daughter of a well-to-do lawyer. They have now been accepted for enrolment by Simon Fraser University in British Columbia next January, but the entire article in last Saturday's Journal, which was also featured in last Saturday's Montreal Star and Toronto Telegram, has those terrible words "deport" and "deportation" all the way through it.
This young couple are the type of people that our immigration officers abroad are seeking. But because they came here of their own volition and paid their own fare, as the article says "Ottawa's red tape" practically strangled them. This article gives us the facts and figures and relates several weeks of embarrassment they endured in Halifax. It refers to the marvellous assistance given to them by the present member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave), and it would appear there is some
Manpower and Immigration Council hope that the immigration department is going to realize that they should be allowed to stay in the country.
The interesting thing is this, Mr. Speaker. This couple has been here now for about a year. On October 18 a baby, Shannon Neill, was born in Halifax-a Canadian. I am wondering whether the department of immigration will advise the deportation of the mother and father and if they are going to keep the baby in Canada, because the baby is native born. I should like to see the baby remain here, as well as the mother and father.
The article goes on to point out that the department of immigration has taken tremendous umbrage over the fact that the Neills were, the department said, in Canada as immigrants without the required medical certificates. I have bumped into this situation so often, Mr. Speaker, that it is appalling. People come over here on visitors visas. They have never been in Canada before; they see the country and they like it. That is not so strange, because we like it too; but having seen it and liked it these people desire to stay. They are then immediately accused by the department of immigration of having lied when they said they were coming in as visitors.
The department of immigration officials point out to them that they did not come in as visitors but came in with the single, solitary intention of staying on as immigrants. It almost appears as though a person cannot form an opinion of Canada while here on a visitor's visa or on a three month visit without being accused of lying if he says he would like to remain here as an immigrant.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have had this situation thrown up to me too often by the department of immigration when I have talked to them about would be immigrants. They even say that the man in question "admits" that he came into this country wishing to be an immigrant. I contend that the word "admits" should be struck from the vocabulary of the officials of the department of immigration. A man or woman may say that he or she likes the country and wants to stay; but immediately they are charged by the department with the statement that they have admitted they wanted to stay when they first came. In fact they may have only concluded that they would try to stay in the country a week after they arrived. I suggest that this practice is unfair to would be immigrants. If hon. members have not read this article in Weekend which deals with the fortunes of these young people from South
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council Africa, I urge them to do so as it will open their eyes as to the manner in which the immigration department operates.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The article talks about how this couple left Capetown, South Africa. They worked their way through nine countries in South Africa and eight in Europe. They worked their way to The Hague where they applied at the Canadian immigration office for entry into Canada. The article says that Mike did a stint as a deckhand on a Rhine river barge, with his wife as barmaid; then he got a construction job; that he worked in a candy factory and she waited on tables in a college dining hall. Everywhere they paid their way. They came to Canada by air line, again paying their own way. But when they got here they were told that they had misled the immigration department because they were not tourists, but would-be immigrants. The article says:
Immigration officials in Halifax believed the Neills had tried to trick them-and nothing makes civil servants more angry. The Neills, they felt, had wilfully misrepresented themselves by claiming to be tourists when they had every intention of remaining in Canada; they were not tourists at all but immigrants without visas. Said one official: "If the Neills had only told the truth when they arrived, instead of trying to put one over on us, we might have been able to help them."
I am happy that one official in the immigration department knows what is the truth. Pilate asked: What is truth? And human beings ever since have been trying to find the answer. But this immigration official knows the truth; oh yes. If they had only told him the truth he would have known it right away.
Then the article contains this interesting statement:
Then Canadian immigration ordered the couple deported. And the bitter part of deportation is that once the offenders are sent out of Canada they are seldom permitted to return.
I have already said how ridiculous it is to tell people, "You have no medical certificate with you, therefore you should be sent back to the land from whence you came." In the name of heaven, why can't they be examined in this country? We claim to have the finest doctors in the world. Even if there is some brain drain to other nations, I do not for a moment admit that the general average of medical practitioners in this country is lower than the general average of medical practitioners anywhere in the world. If doctors in Europe, Africa or South America can issue medical certificates that the immigration

department will accept, surely to heaven the immigration department of Canada will accept a medical certificate that is signed by Canadian doctors who have examined the would-be immigrant here. I think that the proposed manpower and immigration council would make such a recommendation the moment they were asked for an opinion on the matter.
I have appeared with immigrants before these so-called special inquiry officials or officers, and before the Immigration Appeal Board. I regret to say that I am not 100 per cent happy with the qualifications of the special inquiry officials and I am not happy with some members of the former immigration appeal board. I remember a case in point, which involved a Jamaican who was refused landed immigrant status here. He started off in the regular way by making an application, and he was sent to be examined by a special immigration officer-the term may be "special inquiry officer" because the initials are
S.I.O. I went to the hearing with the Jamaican and I was disgusted at the way one official of the immigration department plied the would-be immigrant with questions, just as if he were a crown attorney questioning the accused in a court case.
A stenographer was there taking down the replies and questions. After finishing the questioning the special inquiry officer disappeared, and while he was out of the room he changed from his role of crown attorney, which he had taken up while examining, to the role of judge. He sat in judge's chambers for a while, came back in about 15 minutes and said, "Oh, we have considered the matter and you are not a suitable person to be in this country. You will have to get out." You have all heard the expression judge, jury and executioner? Well, the immigration department have a crown attorney and a judge, all in one person. I do not believe that these functions should be carried on by any one official of the department of immigration.
In one recent case that I had, not being a lawyer I could not collect; had I been a lawyer I would have expected to collect from the immigrant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The special inquiry officer asked a number of questions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps I ought to raise a question of privilege.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: The immigration official asked this fellow from Jamaica a trick question in
November 13, 19G7	COMMONS
mathematics; the Jamaican, who was under tremendous pressure to give the right answers so that he could stay in this country and bring his family in, made a mistake. I give full credit to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand); he granted this chap a special minister's permit and I give him full credit for his compassionate spirit.
The Immigration Appeal Board takes a different view from that of the minister. The special inquiry officer asked this man a trick question and he gave a wrong answer. He was wrong in his mathematics and that, therefore, showed that he did not have sufficient education to enter this country.
I have a daughter, Mr. Speaker, who has taught school in Jamaica for the past two years and she has been interested in the history of that country. I say to you, in all sincerity, Great Britain has been the dominant and controlling power in Jamaica for 300 years. What do you think of an educational system that is bequeathed to Jamaica after 300 years of control which makes a Jamaican who is under great pressure answer that four times two and a half is ten and a half? I do not consider that a reflection on the Jamaican; I consider that to be a reflection on the educational system. Oh yes, we talk about the white man's burden; but I can tell you, some white men do not pick up too heavy a burden, even though they talk about it a great deal. I think that that is a reflection on the educational system that was established in Jamaica with a lot of fuss and fanfare, as if it were 100 per cent all right. For a man to answer that four times two and a half is ten and a half is a reflection on the educational system, and not on the man.
Let me carry this further. This special inquiry officer asked questions about almost everything, and the would-be immigrant, if he wanted to enter, had to answer correctly. For instance the officer asked when the first world war broke out; when did the second world war break out; when was the date of this and the date of that, and he got some very intelligent answers, I can tell you.
Then all of a sudden the special inquiry officer said: "What was the date of the armistice in the second world war?" I said, "Just a moment, just a moment." I had not said a word until then. I said, "There was no armistice in the second world war; there was unconditional surrender, and nothing else." After that the special inquiry officer said, "Oh. Then, what was the date of the unconditional surrender in the second world war?"
DEBATES	4219
Manpower and Immigration Council
There we had an immigration official who didn't know what he was talking about, so how could the would-be immigrant answer correctly? Mr. Speaker, the minister has said on several occasions that we have to upgrade the quality of the staff in the immigration department. Believe me, I know we have to, and I know where the minister can start making the improvements. I shall be glad to give him the name of the man; I shall gladly tell him who the official is, I can assure you.
Gentlemen, I ask the immigration department to give attention to the four cases I have brought up. They show that the regulations are ridiculous. They should be corrected or scrapped. I do not know what better description there can be of the regulations under which the department's people are working than the Star's description of "a quibbling quagmire." I sincerely hope that the special advisory council for the Department of Manpower and Immigration will be instituted quickly, because the immigration department surely needs help.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly not follow along the same lines as the previous speaker, even though I always like to hear the hon. member for York-Humber deal with a matter which makes everybody wonder what he is driving at. While listening to him talk about abortions, illegitimate children and parents, I thought he would ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) to provide retraining courses for those babies and their parents.
But, on the contrary, he merely dealt with bureaucratic mistakes in matters of immigration, and I think that such mistakes are being made not only in the immigration branch of the department, but also in the manpower branch. The more progress is seemingly made, the more the government is heading towards a totalitarian bureaucracy which will prevent it from acting according to its own standards, in spite of statutes which, at first, often seem effective.
With regard to Bill No. C-150, since I shall only deal with the Canada Manpower and Immigration Council, I must say that it surely looks, at first sight, like an amendment to the previous bill. It corrected some deficiencies of the previous bill, but I am afraid that the staff which has just been appointed to implement this bill will cause the greatest upheaval ever seen. In fact, according to the
November 13. 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council bill, the council will consist of 16 responsible members who will be assisted by four different boards, advisory boards made up of 60 members, which makes a total of 76 members. All those people, as stated in the bill, are to advise the minister. In other words, our minister will have plenty of advice from now on.
They will have:
(a)	to advise the minister on all matters pertaining to the effective utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada, including immigrants to Canada and their adjustment to Canadian lile;
(b)	to refer those matters that the minister requests or that the council deems appropriate, to the appropriate board for a report;
(c)	to advise the minister with respect to any report received by the council from a board;
(d)	to advise the minister on the establishment of local and regional manpower committees pursuant to Part III; and
(e)	to advise the minister on such other matters as the minister may refer to the council for its consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I suppose that after all those referrals, the candidate will have to wait two, three, four or five months, maybe a year, before being told finally: My friend, you cannot qualify for those retraining courses. We already have abundant proof of such a situation.
In fact, I have communicated with the minister who is quite favourable to our requests in that regard. It is not the minister that I wish to blame. I mainly want to stress the intricacies of this legislation similar to all the others, to indicate that those who are responsible for the implementation of those pieces of legislation are mixed up themselves, in short, that they often cannot see their way clear. Then, we come up against cases as funny as those which have occurred in my area the past week, that is since the beginning of the courses. For example, just to mention one of those cases, when we were discussing the eligibility of a candidate, and since the minister was quite often out of his office, I received from his executive assistant the following letter, and I quote:
Under the new-
That letter dates back to July 28.
-adult occupational training program in operation since April 1, 1967, the federal government pays the full cost of the training courses including allowances.
That is rather clear.
-training courses are purchased from the government of the province, from private institutions or from industry after consultation with the provincial authorities.

That is where some difficulties arise because if a list of the institutions involved was available, it would be more useful. In fact, the case that has occurred is precisely one involving a young man who went to take a course in hairdressing and it is only after repeated investigations, after a month and a half, that it was discovered that the institution had not been recognized by the government.
At first, this might seem like a trifle but if such cases are multiplied, I guarantee you that many are lost. It seems to me that in order to correct such a situation, it should be possible to obtain from the department a list of the institutions officially recognized by the government so as to direct those who write to us.
After all, our job as members is to serve our people, and to guide them and I think this would be of some help to us. Then, we would not have to keep running to the minister or to the department to try to find out the truth in this area.
Just recently, I questioned the minister again about certain things. I find that, in spite of his reply, there remains some ambiguity in certain respects. His reply, dated October 31, read as follows:
Last Thursday, during the debate on the estimates of my department, you asked certain questions on our manpower programs. I had hoped to answer them without delay but, as you know, I did not have the opportunity of doing so. I am therefore writing to you to explain at least the main points you brought up.
I want to thank the hon. minister because he never fails to answer our questions promptly. Frankly, I was afraid he might grow tired of all the questions, all the letters, but no, we always receive a proper reply.
You have mentioned the three-year rule applicable to training allowances. You seem to think that, to be part of the active population since the last three years, it is necessary to be registered in our manpower centres.
In this respect, when I asked the minister-and I am very pleased with his information since, as it happens, I discussed the matter with some manpower centres officials in my riding, who told me that it was necessary to be enrolled at the manpower centres to be part of the labour force-he answered that it was not necessary. Again the matter is solved. I continue quoting his letter:
I should like to clarify this essential aspect of eligibility to the training program. Anyone who has quit school, in other words, who has not had formal training for a year, and is a year older than the mandatory school attendance age, is eligible for the training program.
November 13, 1967

This is a very embarrassing clarification indeed for some manpower centre officials. Two different manpower centres will often give a different interpretation of this rule.
I will give a few examples in a moment.
Therefore, the program applies not only to workers but also to most housewives.
There, things become complicated.
Moreover, it is not indispensable for apprentices to have been out of school for a year.
There things get even more complicated. In the case of an apprentice, if he was a student, if he has not been out of school for a year. I just had such a case-the person had left school nine months before. I told him: It is useless, you have not been out of school for one year. There, we are given another precision. I do not know their definition of the word "apprentice". If he is an apprentice who works as such in a shop, it is not necessary for him to have been out of school for a year, I think.
I hope the minister will be kind enough to correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the technician has completed his course and has gone to work as an apprentice; if, after nine months, he wants to get training in another field, he can be allowed to take those courses.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The three-year rule applies only to training allowances. The program that the Acting Leader of the Official Opposition initiated in 1960 provided only for small training allowances. Those allowances were far from enough for the workers who needed retraining. As a result, even though that program was designed to help the jobless, the average age of those who attended our training courses was only 22, whereas the average age of the unemployed was 35.
The new program is designed to help adults who need it most.
On that point, I fully agree with the minister that adults who need it most should be helped. Not old people. Last winter and also this year, people of 57, 58, 60 and 61 years of age have been seen to return to school at the 4th or 5th grade level. What a joke. The only reason they go there is to get their cheque and meanwhile, they take the place of workers of 32, 33 or 34 who wish to retrain.
They are entitled to allowances if they have dependants.
I must stress the fact that nobody has to register in a Canadian manpower centre or in any other institution, or to really have a job in order to be considered a member of the labour force.
Things get a little complicated here and what is happening now? Well, if a mother of ten or eleven children decides at the age of 49

Manpower and Immigration Council or 50 to complete her studies, she will leave her family diring the day to take these courses, but not really to study. Of course, some of these women start afresh to improve their minds, but they go there mainly to get their cheque and they come back in the evening. This will not bring much profit to our population.
All this means, is that it is not necessary to be at school or at home, instead of looking actively for work. I understand that your criticism applied in fact to the former Program 5 which was replaced by the new act adopted in April 1967.
I thank you for having given me, through your speech in this house, an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of training in our act.
I think that if the crowd of new employees that will deal with these functions can interpret this act as clearly as you can I think it will benefit the population in the years to come.
But, once again, that is not what happens. On the one hand, there will be 76 federal employees, and the other hand, the provincial employees as in all the other joint plans. That is the source of the conflict.
There comes a time when the representative of the school board does not sing the same tune as the federal representative and the victim of the misunderstanding is the candidate who is simply turned down.
That is the type of case we have in our areas at the present time. I studied this one case: a fellow who is unemployed, the typical guy for admission to the course went to the office at Roberval. He was just turned down. He went to the Dolbeau office, where he was accepted. Then, a transfer was operated. In the meantime, his wife, who had completed the 9th grade years ago, wanted to repeat that year again, in order to attend a high-fashion training course for which Grade 9 education was required. In view of this complication, the man was accepted but his wife was turned down the next day, and I am still wondering why. We are now trying to locate the person actually responsible for this situation, but with all this red tape, I think it will take a long time to find out who was responsible.
I have here the case of a young man who dropped out of school four years ago. He has a grade eight education, but he was refused. Why? There is no way of knowing. Unemployed, he simply wants to acquire skills, but he is refused. One Monday, the representative of a regional school tells him: We have no more room, no more classrooms, no more
4222	COMMONS DEBATES	November 13, 1967
Manpower and Immigration Council teachers. When he is not refused there, he is refused by the manpower office.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will have to see to it that things are cleared up, so that federal and provincial officials may work along the same lines. They must interpret the same act the same way, and I want, tonight, to call especially the attention of the minister to the matter about which I talked to him this afternoon concerning agricultural courses for the farmers.
As I said earlier, these past years in our region we have had amateur farming. We have some solid farmers who simply want to learn more about running a farm or attend some other courses, mostly to learn more about farm management and, in my opinion, these courses should take precedence over all the others this winter, at least for the farmers in my riding. We expected to have at least three or four courses in the whole region, because the regional school in my riding concerns the whole county of Rober-val. The regional school, Louis Hemon, is for the whole county. While we expected about 200 or 250 young farmers-not old ones, but young farmers around 30, 32 and 35 years of age-who are settled on good farms and who want to acquire new skills to enroll for courses, we have been told this afternoon that a maximum of 80 can be accepted. This reminds me of the selection which was practised for a long time and which still exists today in certain faculties at university level: fifty per cent of the candidates are automatically eliminated. Eighty only are admitted while it would be easy to accept 200 or 250 candidates. Eighty for the whole area, out of a population of 54,000. We shall have eighty farmers who will take these courses.
I think this is abnormal and absolutely insufficient. Just this morning, I received a letter from the president of the UCC which reads as follows:
I got information from the Roberval Manpower Center. Mr. Beaudet came to meet a group of farmers from St-Felicien, La Dor6, Ste-Methode to tell us that the government allowed only 80 farmers to take courses in the Louis Hemon regional school area, that is, for St-Felicien-
-the most important agricultural parish-
-St-Felicien only, 7 to 8 farmers would he entitled to these courses. It is ridiculous because every day, on the radio, farmers are invited to register when it is well known that they are not accepted.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Therefore, I think it is very bad publicity for this new bill which will be passed. I myself heard on television this advertisement inviting farmers to register for those courses.

Imagine all these young farmers who want to do well, who wish to improve, being told: the government so decided. I myself got in touch this afternoon with the minister who told me: There is a board and there is an agreement. He admits that it is a federal-provincial agreement.
Mr. Speaker, after getting the reply "That has to do with the federal-provincial agreement", you get the impression that everything has been said, but in fact nothing has been said. I think they will never agree about that federal-provincial agreement. In fact, I notice that the representative of the provincial government seems to compete a little with the representative of the federal government. Each one pulls his own way and all that time our people who are waiting for the retraining courses will wait all winter without getting anywhere.
The amendment moved by the Conservatives reads as follows:
That Bill C-150 be not now read a third time but be re-committed to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of adding a clause which would require the proposed council to report to parliament annually.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is an unreasonable request. The filing of a report once a year is required from all those boards. I think that it is normal and I am even surprised that it does not appear in the bill. It is probably an oversight. Normally a board must at least submit a complete report once a year. It may perhaps present short reports scattered here and there as mentioned in the bill, to advise the minister and his officials of the various advisory boards. There will be at least 50 of those boards, namely an advisory board on adult occupational training, an advisory board on the adjustment of immigrants, an advisory board on the co-ordination of rehabilitation services for disabled persons and an advisory board on manpower and immigration research.
With all those boards and councils, the minister will need a good head; otherwise he will be quite mixed up with all the small reports which will reach him, and everything will be done in a haphazard fashion and, as usual, it will be the worker who will have to wait for service somewhat adapted to his needs. As I have already said in this house, it will be another of those pieces of legislation which will probably be used as a smoke screen to brag about achievements, when, in fact little or nothing will have been done.
November 13, 1967	COMMONS
That will not be because of the legislation but because of the attitude of those who will be called upon to implement it and who very often do not have the required qualifications to execute the government's programs, which I believe are well-intentioned. But I think the main weakness in the implementation of this act will be with the bureaucrats, that there again the government will be completely submerged by the voices and opinions of the bureaucrats, that it will end up by saying what it always says: Those are the agreements, those are the federal-provincial agreements. In fact, it is a little like when a department wants to rid itself of a problem, it establishes a royal commission. That is a sort of royal commission of enquiry to rid the governments but I think it creates a most unhappy situation for those who are waiting for such legislation to try and better their lot and make agriculture take a step forward in the province of Quebec.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I thank the members of the official opposition for greeting my intervention with such enthusiasm, but to reassure those whom it might worry, I shall say that I intend to be very brief.
Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that if it was the privilege of the opposition to introduce such an amendment to the motion for third reading, it is surely my privilege to object for reasons I deem reasonable.
If the responsibilities of the council which is to be established by this bill are considered it will be noted that its function under clause 11 is:
To advise the minister on all matters to which the duties, powers and functions of the minister extend, and in particular-
(a)	to advise the minister on all matters pertaining to the utilization and development of manpower resources in Canada, including immigrants to Canada and their adjustment to Canadian life:
(b)	to refer those matters that the minister requires or that the council deems appropriate, to the appropriate board for a report;
Mr. Speaker, if all the advisers and ministers whether in commissions or as individual were required to report to parliament-and I regret to differ from my colleague from Ro-berval (Mr. Gauthier) who said that the minister would need a very sound head to consider this-I believe that parliament would be considerably embarrassed tomorrow if in addition to the reports we already receive from crown corporations and from all departments concerned, all advisers of the minister were to report to us in detail.
DEBATES	4223
Manpower and Immigration Council
My impression, Mr. Speaker, is that this amendment is not consistent. It is not motivated and it is quite sufficient for us members of parliament-and speaking for parliament as a whole-to have each year a report from the minister who himself would be responsible for the good or bad advice supplied by his advisers and if his report of the minister based on the advice of his advisers or of the boards established to help him to administer better, is not satisfactory, the opportunity will be given us to hear it once a year, to criticize it and to put to him the necessary questions.
I think that in this perspective must be considered the function of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and the function of the members who want to question and find out what is happening within the department and who also occasionally want to bring up grievances. But I do not think it is reasonable to ask all the advisers of all the ministers of all the governments to report to us on top of that.
Besides, I have the feeling that under certain circumstances, their advice to the minister will be confidential. It would be unwise to publicize those matters, and hon. members would be the first to realize that there are cases, mainly with regard to immigration, which are confidential.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I therefore intend to object to this amendment, because I find it neither justified nor logical in the circumstances.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) said earlier that he could not understand why some courses are not more readily provided. I am always sorry to disagree with him because he is a hard worker who is greatly interested in his constituents.
I have had the same experience in my riding. I found out myself that since education comes under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government cannot intervene if the province decides against selling those courses, to use a current expression, or if the province feels it cannot afford to sell those courses to the department of manpower.
I do not think that the constitution allows for federal taxes to be used for education purposes. I can hear the general outcry this would give rise to in many quarters, even if it were for as praiseworthy a purpose as that of giving courses to farmers or those who are in need of retraining.
I submit once again to my colleague for Roberval, for whom I have the greatest respect that he should try to set up some
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council liaison between the provincial representatives in his area, the members of parliament and the ministers, in an attempt to make them understand that closer co-operation is urgently needed between the provincial and federal governments if we want the manpower retraining policy to work smoothly.
I would have just a few words to add, Mr. Speaker. Besides, I want to be brief. However, I should like to remind the minister-I do not want to give the impression that I am blaming him, because I know the enormous work he had to do to answer my many requests-that there are in my county immigrant cases which are delayed unfairly.
I think that tonight I will do something I never did before, though I spoke of it on several occasions. I thank the minister for all the trouble he went to and for the voluminous correspondence which he sent me dealing with these problems. However, I see that all the decisions of the department concerning the cases in which I am interested, are based on the report of the local official.
He must not be just a nobody, since he signs "senior immigration officer". Surely he must rate pretty high.
Now, I am quite tempted to lay a formal charge against this senior immigration officer for failing to give his immediate attention to the reports requested by the minister and his senior officials and moreover for showing a lot of ill-will.
It is not very often that I agree with the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), but earlier, when he spoke of this kind of red tape which has given some sort of a complex to some government employees in some departments-I think this is to be found in the immigration department-I did. They have this sort of complex which makes them feel that immigrants try to fool them. They do not realize that these people, these new immigrants, have to adapt to new conditions, to discuss or answer questions, while being handicapped, right from the start, by all these things they have to learn and get used to.
Now, I return to the case and I think it is not necessary to repeat the names in this house. The hon. minister has them on his desk. I think there are three cases outstanding. One of them is particularly sad, because the act compels this young man to six months' apprenticeship if he wants to get the diploma for which he has taken courses, but he cannot work without the permission of the department of immigration. The local senior

officer has been troubling him with all sorts of red tape for at least seven or eight months to my knowledge.
I think this is an intolerable situation. Once again, I do not blame the minister, but I mention it because if it is multiplied by 265 counties, our productivity will be deplorable although the minister is trying to modernize and to increase the efficiency of his retraining branch of the manpower and immigration department.
The other case concerns a Frenchman and seems unexplainable. He has been granted permission to immigrate and has been starving since his arrival. He was given, from time to time, a small allowance that did not even cover his room and board. It is unthinkable in my opinion, that this young man should have been allowed to immigrate here, without first making sure that he could adapt himself to those new conditions.
Moreover, I fail to see why provincial authorities in Quebec, who always lament the fact that French-speaking immigration is below expectations, should totally neglect a French immigrant, full of good will, who met all the requirements when he came here, in brief, why there should not exist some type of welcoming committee to help him understand, as well as adapt to this new environment in which he will have to live.
I think, therefore, that the blame is to be laid at the doorstep not only of federal immigration officers, but also of those people in Quebec who have the responsibility of welcoming French-speaking immigrants and helping them adapt to this new environment with which they will have to cope.
There may also be some false propaganda in France, because we are so anxious to attract French-speaking immigrants that we dazzle these prospective immigrants with the possibility of living in a sort of little Klon-dyke where they will easily discover a small gold mine which will enable them to live quietly and well, whereas that is not exactly the case.
I shall limit my comments to these few words, Mr. Speaker, if only in order to give an example to the hon. members opposite who objected earlier to my intervention and to teach them to make their remarks brief and to the point.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, as for the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) on my speech, I would like to ask him whether he heard me when I said
November 13, 1967

that the minister had replied that a federal-provincial agreement was involved after I had indicated to him that only 80 candidates had been accepted by the Louis Hemon school board. So it is not the sole responsbiility of the provincial member as the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres seems to indicate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already made his speech, he cannot start over again.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I could discern a question, even though it was wrapped up in all sorts of precautions. I presume you will allow me to reply rather briefly. Obviously, there is a federal-provincial agreement under which, as I understand it, Ottawa buys the training from Quebec. Quebec sells the training it can and will give and the federal must submit to the decision of the province, because if the province does not wish to sell the training, then the federal government is powerless. I know for a fact that Ottawa is prepared to buy all the training the unemployed might need. I am not trying to defend the minister, since I know he is able to defend himself. It is because I have lived through that experience at home and, at first, I had the same feelings of revolt that the hon. member has. However, the operation of the machinery was explained to me by both sides.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to be too long, and I certainly have no intention of holding up the debate, although I do hope that at some point we would get answers from the minister to some of the questions we have asked.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member will have to complete his remarks before ten o'clock if he wants some answers tonight.


David Orlikow: It is now before ten o'clock. But I want to say to the minister that perhaps I would not have taken the floor tonight had the minister treated me in the same way as he has treated some other hon. members. I have not quite figured out how he divides the sheep from the goats, and whether my colleague and deskmate, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) is a sheep or a goat, because he received a letter from the minister answering some of the questions which he raised and even some he raised tonight, while I have raised the same questions with regard to the sharp drop in the number of

Manpower and Immigration Council people who are taking retraining courses in Toronto, and particularly the sharp decrease in the number of immigrants who are able to take courses in English, and have never received an explanation from the minister as to precisely what are the reasons for that sharp drop.
The minister, of course, continues to assure us that the money is there and that in the coming year the department intends to spend more money than the federal government has ever spent in retraining. But the fact is that all the figures which we have been able to get from various sources indicate that the number of people taking the retraining courses in some of the big Canadian cities such as Toronto and Ottawa has decreased very sharply.
.However, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question which was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schrey-er), several weeks ago and about which I have some new information which I want to bring to the attention of the minister. I am not doing so with the hope or the expectation that he can do anything about it tonight, or even that he can answer the questions and doubts which have been raised and which I will recount, but I list them in the hope that the minister will look at these problems in the next couple of weeks and rectify what I think are serious errors in the approach to retraining on the part of his department. I am referring to the problems of training courses for Indians which have come to light in the province of Manitoba. I want to tell the minister that I hope we will not get the same answer from him on this problem as we received in connection with our criticisms and our questions about the training of immigrants. We were told then that we received our information from the wrong people, that is from the provincial departments of education which were really hostile to the department of manpower for reasons which were not justified.
The information which I will give the minister today, in connection with the catastrophic drop in the number of Indians in the province of Manitoba who are being trained in the retraining program, came to me from officials of another federal department, that which deals with Indians, namely the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to the information which I received today, in the last year, before the Department of Manpower and Immigration took over the whole program of manpower training, there were between 1,800
November 13, 1967

Manpower and Immigration Council and 2,000 Indians in Manitoba who were able to take courses under the old Program Five. The courses they took may not have been of much use in terms of getting jobs in the cities of Canada, but they were a great deal of use for Indians working in and around their reservations. There were courses last year on how to build houses, a very important one on Indian reserves. There were handicraft courses and courses in agriculture. All these courses under the old Program Five which, as the minister knows, was administered by the provinces although paid for by the federal government, were available and, as I said, there were 1,800 to 2,000 Indians who qualified and took these courses before the federal department of manpower took over the retraining programs. This year, which is only in its seventh month, the number of Indians who have taken courses and who will begin the courses which have been approved is less than 200. Even if one assumed that the year started very slowly because this is a new department, and even if one tripled that number for the five remaining months of the year, the number of Indians who will qualify for retraining courses in Manitoba in the coming year will be not more than a third of the number who qualified for these courses last year.
I want to say to the minister-and I do not say this in a critical sense-that I think the minister will agree with me that there is no group of people in Canada who need the opportunity of education and of manpower training courses more than our Indians. The department of Indian affairs has done a tremendous job in upgrading the education of Indians in recent years, although perhaps not as much as some of us would have liked, and I am sure not as much as the officials of the department would have liked. But the fact is that they still have a long way to go and I think it is a tragedy that what was a promising program last year has now virtually come to a halt.
I asked the minister a question about this during the question period today and he told me it is not true that the educational standards the department requires now before people can qualify for retraining courses are higher than they were previously, before the department operated the manpower retraining courses. If that is his answer, then I wish he would communicate his policy to the field officers in the locality. I have been told, and as I say this information came to me today from officials in the Indian affairs department, that the reason for this drop is that the
[Mr. Orlikow.l
councillors working for the manpower department have pretty well adopted the policy that if a person does not have a grade 8 education, or the equivalent, he is not eligible to enter one of the manpower retraining courses. The fact is of course that there are a number of Indians, particularly those who are in their thirties and forties, who do not have more than a grade 6 education or its equivalent. It is for this reason, to a very large extent, there has been this substantial drop of which I have been speaking tonight.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I understand that the deputy minister held a meeting in Winnipeg with the various officials and said that, in his opinion, the manpower training courses were available for any person who was willing to work. However, the manpower councillors in Manitoba have repeatedly, particularly in isolated areas where the Indians live, questioned the Indians on whether they have applied for work. The Indians have said; No, we have not applied for work. They meant they had not applied for work because there would be no point in applying for work in those areas, since there has not been any work available. These Indians therefore have been turned down when they have applied for permission to qualify for the manpower retraining courses.
I have heard stories to the effect that when 40 or 50 Indians have applied for permission to take courses, these councillors have only approved three or four applications. I want to say to the minister that I find this a very disturbing situation. I do not expect the minister to be able to give answers tonight, but this situation is one he should look at very carefully, and if the facts which have been recounted to me by the officials of the Indian affairs branch are true, then a good deal more co-operation and consultation is needed between the two federal departments. I consider this to be a retrograde step and I hope that the number of Indians taking the training courses will be increased in the very near future.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret I have only a few minutes left to answer all questions that have been asked.
Since I consider it urgent that the bill before us should become law, I shall answer briefly the main questions, even if I have to
November 13, 1967	COMMONS
take other means to convey the answers to those who asked questions which I consider as less important.
The main point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is suggested that under the new manpower training program, there will be less training in Canada this year than last year.
I think that some members and especially the member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) pointed out that at a certain time during the year there were fewer people in training than last year. They are right and I gave them the reason. Of course, it is because of the period of the year but especially because of negotiations taking place between the provinces and the federal government. I can assure all those who follow this problem very closely, and rightly so, that for next year- and here, I am not making arbitrary forecasts-we signed with the provinces for at least 8 million hours of training, that is for 135,000 persons in Canada, plus 82,000 who were already in training on April 1, under the former program, which means that more than 200,000 persons will be trained next year, and that under a formal agreement signed with each province. That, Mr. Speaker, is more people than we ever have in the past. It is three times the number there was when the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), was heading that department. It is three times as much as in 1963.
I understand the concern of the members of the house, Mr. Speaker. It is a new program, there are uncertainties as there are also in the field of immigration. New regulations are being put into force, I am not blaming anyone for asking himself questions but I think that some hon. members are really too hard at this time when those legislative innovations are barely a few months old.
In any event, I will take the time to answer those questions in detail. For instance, under the new manpower program, the jurisdiction is clearly divided between the provinces and the federal government. That has not been understood.
Therefore, there are groups of workers, of unemployed or of trained persons who, in the past, came under program No. 5 and who come now under provincial responsibility. Now, that distinction may not be readily admitted, but it is actually included in the new legislation. I hope to have another opportunity to restate the underlying principles of our programs.
DEBATES	4227
Manpower and Immigration Council
The Indians, for instance, are in that case. They have a rather special status in Canada, and the federal government has a special role to play with regard to them, in that it carries out provincial responsibilities, but under the manpower program only, Indians are placed on the same footing as other Canadians by my department, and not by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. And it is the same thing for immigrants.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker. I want to conclude my remarks at once with regard to the amendment. Since it is strictly an advisory council which has no other power than to advise the minister, I do not see why as suggested by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) we should ask that council to report directly to the house. All the information which the council has in hand, the house could get from the minister, on other occasions. The crown corporations or government agencies which the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has listed, are all corporations with an executive power while this council is simply an advisory council to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Mr. Speaker, even if I am convinced that the amendment is submitted in an effort to help and not to hinder the department unnecessarily, I think that it would complicate the legislation and change the nature of the council if the house agreed to send the bill back to the committee of the whole and to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Brown:: I was paired, Mr. Speaker. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Tucker:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question on the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous
agreement. Should I submit the matter again to the house as to whether there is agreement that we proceed with the main motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Jean Marchand: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government house leader could tell us what the business will be for tomorrow and the following days, if possible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we will continue with the second reading of the bill on capital punishment. When that is passed we will go into committee and complete the committee stage. Following that we will go into committee on the bill on corporate and consumer affairs, and then we will deal with the budget bills. We will discuss these items in this order.


Michael Starr: When the house leader mentioned the budget bills did he mean the first half of the budget bills?


Richard Albert Bell: Surely the minister meant the resolutions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, the resolutions. I thank the hon. member for Carleton.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) a question to determine whether the agenda of the federal-provincial conference which is to take place shortly had been decided upon.
November 13, 1967

Furthermore, I insisted to get a definite answer, simply because recent events led me to believe that the provinces and especially the province of Quebec-invited to submit the various problems they would want to see discussed during this federal-provincial conference, would like to debate the famous problem that has been the subject of a resolution which created a great stir; it was agreed to by the political commission of the Progressive Conservative party, agreed to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), agreed to by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), and by all the others who are in favour of the two nations concept.


Mr. Churchill:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. This is the third time the hon. member has made that statement in the House of Commons, twice in my absence, and it is untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Yes, sir. My question of privilege is this: This is the third time the hon. member has made that statement. Twice he made it when I was overseas and now he repeats it. It is untrue and should be withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, this is a question of debate. The hon. member makes a statement and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) denies it. It is the duty of all hon. members to accept the statement made in this house by an hon. member standing in his place, in the way that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has done. I take the liberty of reminding the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he must, of course, limit his contribution to this debate to the essence of his question, which is whether a certain matter will be considered by the federal-provincial conference. This is what he should be discussing at this time.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has at long last repudiated the policy of his party.
The question I put and that I repeat this evening in more elaborate fashion is the following: As the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) has indicated in a speech in Quebec city that the door is 27053-2671
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion open for a discussion of a much wider gamut of issues at the coming federal-provincial conference to be held in January, and as everyone knows that Marcel Faribault, who convinced the Conservative party at the Mai-son Morency to adopt the two-nations theory, is now one of the main advisers of Mr. Johnson and of the Quebec government, I want to know whether or not the Quebec government has asked that the two-nations concept, with all the implications it involves, be discussed at the coming federal-provincial conference.
Two founding peoples means that there must not be any more federal-provincial conferences in the future. If there are two founding peoples in Canada, it means that in the future we will have conferences where on the one hand representatives of the French-Canadian nation will discuss with representatives of the English-Canadian nation on the other. That and nothing else is what the two founding peoples theory means, a theory adopted by the Conservative party, repudiated by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who, tonight, is ashamed of that political group which betrays his hopes, his ideal, his philosophy. If the hon. member is honourable, let him dissociate himself from such a policy, that is all I can suggest to him.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I ask what the agenda will be, if it has been determined? What kind of agenda have the provinces submitted to the federal government for discussion in January next of the two founding peoples theory? Will the question of the two founding peoples concept be raised as it is expected by Mr. Johnson and the Conservative party or will the question of a centralizing federal system be raised, along the thoughts of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Carleton.
We would like to know those things, because they are important. We have had enough of the political hoax plainly shown by the Conservative party since its famous new look which we have noted this evening as being-

The same old look and the same old gang of the Conservative party.

This is the question which I am directing to the Minister of Justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
November 13, 1967

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]


An hon. Member:: You go with Gregoire.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, if the reply is reduced to its barest essentials, it is sufficient to say that the agenda of this conference was suggested by the federal government and that a constitutional bill of rights will be discussed. However, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) also indicated that he was open to any suggestion from the provinces in respect of this agenda. The Prime Minister has stated to the house that the replies had not all been received, but that he would try to get leave from the provinces, as soon as possible, to table their replies in the house. Eventually, we shall be able to draw up an agenda, when all the replies will have been received.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)



TRANSPORT-BORDEN-TORMENTINE FERRY-REPORTED DRASTIC LAY-OFFS

Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question today arose after my visit to Prince Edward Island this past week end. I am sure that had the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) been able to be here for question period he would have raised it. My colleagues from the province and I have discussed it today. Whether the Prince Edward Island federation of labour or any of its members have formally protested to the minister, I do not know. I do know however that there is widespread anxiety over the matter in Prince Edward Island, and that Prince Edward Island labour was represented at the recent meetings held in Moncton.
We have few enough sources of employment in our province and our region, Mr. Speaker; we can ill afford further diminution of these opportunities. Unemployment in the Atlantic region is chronically too high. Since 1963 decisions of this government have contributed to loss of jobs for Island people.
For example, there was first of all the closing of the repair and maintenance depot at Charlottetown airport in 1963, early, I believe, in those "60 days of decision". The Queen Charlotte naval base has been closed. Other factors contributing to the situation are these. The new car ferry promised in 1967, called after a father of confederation, will not be completed in centennial year; I am advised that it is already a year late. The causeway, tenders for which were called in 1965, was with maximum progress to have .been finished in 1970. The Prime Minister's


press release in July 1965 indicated that $30 million a year would be spent on this great and useful project. How far we are off the target date, both in work accomplished and in funds expended, is now a matter of record.
What calls me here tonight, Mr. Speaker, is that the possibilities for new employment opportunities which have been missed in this connection are immense. The ferry is late, the causeway is late and the trains are getting later still. The train from Moncton now arrives in Charlottetown, when it is on schedule, at 12.45 midnight, six hours after leaving Moncton. It used to arrive at 9 p.m. It is therefore not surprising that this train is not overwhelmingly popular with the travelling public in this, the jet age. Unless the trains have better and more comfortable facilities, and swifter schedules, it is unlikely that they will be favourites of the travelling public.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that part of the Canadian National Railways troubles in Atlantic Canada is its failure to update its equipment and its services to the public. In this particular instance the C.N.R. must be strongly criticized for its handling of the situation, for its abrupt dismissal of hundreds of employees, many with long years of faithful service. Men whose whole life was railroading now find themselves in the ranks of the unemployed and faced with a workless winter of discontent. I have been advised that about 40 men from Prince Edward Island were among those to be separated from their employment. I have recently been told that this is a conservative estimate.
It is said that unusually heavy cuts are being made in the Prince Edward Island-New Brunswick ferry service. Men of experience in these matters feel that there are not enough deckhands being retained to man the lifeboats, should an emergency arise. This is a very serious matter and I hope that corrective measures will be taken if this is the case. I know of no technological advances which suggest that a cut in the crew of these ferries is propitious. If x men were needed to man these ships last year, they cannot properly be manned, it seems to me, with a smaller crew this year.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, our unemployment figures are disturbing. Just because Atlantic Canada has long been at the top of the list in unemployment figures and at the bottom of the list in statistics relating to income is no reason to make us special targets for this present phase of job losses. That a crown corporation in an area of
November 13, 1S67

unique dominion responsibility, such as this ferry service, which was one of the essential terms of confederation in our union with the dominion in 1873, should become a major contributor to unemployment, is utterly deplorable. I therefore appeal to the minister or his representative to see that special efforts are made to diminish the economic distress which this new blow will bring to our people.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, since receiving notice that this matter would be raised this evening, perhaps owing to the holiday we experienced difficulty in obtaining figures about the loss of employment complained of in the question raised this afternoon.
The question I have to answer is with respect to the reported drastic lay-offs on the ferry service between Borden and Tormen-tine. I was not apprised of the other questions that the hon. member for Queens was to raise this evening, about closure of airport
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion services and so on. I regret, as does the government, that the island suffered difficulty through unemployment in transportation services. I am sure, nevertheless, that the one incident complained of cannot be the major contributor to unemployment in Prince Edward Island. The information I have been able to obtain is that two ferries are operating between Borden and Tormentine, the Prince Edward Island and the Abegweit. Two men have been laid off on each ship, which means that one crew member per shift on each ship has been laid off.
This does not appear to constitute a serious problem. We have been assured by the Canadian National that the reduction of one man per shift in no way represents a hazard, nor will that lead to inefficiency in the ferry service. As a matter of fact, the contrary is true. The Canadian National are prepared to argue that this step will contribute significantly to the efficiency of the operation.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Tuesday, November 14, 1967