1968-12-02

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill S-3, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act, to which the concurrence of this house is desired.



HON. M. J. COLDWELL FELICITATIONS ON EIGHTIETH BIRTHDAY ANNIVERSARY

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because the gentleman to whom I should like to make a moment's reference is a distinguished member of the Privy Council, I am sure you will grant me this moment of time. The Hon. M. J. Coldwell, former leader of the C.C.F. party and a distinguished member of this House of Commons for 23 years, is today celebrating his eightieth birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am sure I speak for all who knew him when I say there never was a finer man to sit in this House of Commons. We who worked with him found him a tremendous leader, and I think it is fair to say that both throughout the house and throughout the country he was and is widely respected. During his years in this house he advanced the cause of our movement. I believe it can be said as well that he added to the good name of parliament. I am sure I speak for all members when we wish Mr. Coldwell "Many happy returns".


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a word on behalf of the government, and to say I am in complete agreement with what the hon. member has just said. We all have a very high regard for Mr. Coldwell. Long before 1 joined a political party I had heard him often at
political meetings. My predecessor, Right Hon. Mr. Pearson, also had great admiration for him, and I believe it was he who named Mr. Coldwell to the Privy Council.
This shows, Mr. Speaker, that on this side of the house we are always ready to recognize great politicians with great ideas. Mr. Cold-well has rendered some very important services, not only to parliament but recently to this government as a member of the royal commission on security. I do want to add congratulations from the government side to Hon. Mr. Coldwell on his birthday.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the words of tribute paid to Hon. M. J. Coldwell. He comes from a province that has given many outstanding parliamentarians to this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the applause indicates that this is well known by members in all parts of the house. I am not here for the purpose of advertising Prince Albert, but Prince Albert is the only constituency in Canada that has had three prime ministers represent it.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
That is indicative of the state of affairs in the province of Saskatchewan.
I have known Mr. Coldwell for many years, and sat with him in the house from 1940 to 1957. He was a fine parliamentarian, always courteous and always effective. I know I speak for all when I express the hope that this momentous landmark will be one of many to come, and that he will be spared for many years to make his contribution to Canada.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, er, following the very pertinent remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the right hon. Prime
December 2. 1968

Dominion-Provincial Relations Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the right hon. member tor Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), we the members of the Ralliement Creditiste are very happy to join in offering our best wishes to hon. Mr. Coldwell. Although I am too young to have known him myself, I want to say that his reputation goes beyond the artificial barriers which age can create between older and younger people. We join the previous speakers in expressing our congratulations and our appreciation of hon. Mr. Coldwell's indisputable merits.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be the duty of the Chair and my personal pleasure to convey the congratulations and good wishes of the house to Mr. Coldwell.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I announced in the house that the government would soon be able to make an important statement with respect to offshore mineral rights.
The question has been a matter of controversy for some time. Last November the Supreme Court of Canada provided an authoritative clarification of the legal position with respect to the areas off the west coast and lying outside the harbours, bays, estuaries and other similar waters which were regarded as inland waters at the time the province entered confederation. In brief, the court opinion was that the federal government is entitled to proprietary and other rights in these new areas offshore from the historic boundaries of British Columbia, which were defined generally as the ordinary low-water mark. The court thus confirmed the view previously reached by the law officers of the crown that all rights held or acquired by Canada in submerged lands lying outside the boundaries of any province accrue to Canada as a whole.

The reference to the Supreme Court was designed to determine in the most authoritative way where the jurisdiction rests. My predecessor, Mr. Pearson, indicated at the federal-provincial conference of July 1965, and I repeated in the house on September 19, that we intend to proceed now by negotiation. I

am announcing today certain steps the government is taking and certain proposals we are making to the provinces which we believe to be both important and equitable.
In the light of the Supreme Court's unanimous finding in favour of the crown in right of Canada, on the basis of principles that would appear to be substantially applicable to the east coast as well as to the west coast, the main problem becomes one of delineating the areas concerned to meet the practical requirements of mineral resource administration. That is, it is necessary to establish lines for the purpose of differentiating between submerged lands to be administered by the federal government and lands to be administered by the provincial governments.
There are certain difficulties in using for this purpose the boundaries described by the court, since it is difficult to ascertain what would have been considered as a bay or harbour for the purposes of international or domestic law at the time most of the provinces entered confederation, and since the lines of low tide are shifting and uncertain and our seacoasts are characterized by deep indentations, straits, innumerable islands, and inlets of various configurations.

After exploring a number of alternatives, it has been found that the geodetic grid system provides the best basis for delineation of areas of offshore administration. This method is already utilized for the issuance of exploration permits. The geodetic grid system is the reference system of lines of longitude and latitude used to identify the precise positions of points on the earth's surface. Using this system we have drawn so-called mineral resource administration lines, always well within the area of federal jurisdiction on the basis of the principles laid down in the Supreme Court opinion, with the intention that the federal government will administer all offshore mineral rights seaward from these lines. It should be noted that the mineral resource administration lines are not to be confused with the base lines from which Canada's territorial sea and fishing zones are measured in keeping with international law.
We are taking into account the undertaking of equitable arrangements made by Mr. Pearson. We are offering to work out in conjunction with each of the coastal provinces a
December 2, 1968

method whereby they would in effect administer any offshore mineral rights under federal jurisdiction on the landward side of the mineral resource administration lines. In addition the federal government is prepared to concede to the coastal provinces all revenues derived from the mineral resources of the submerged lands within these lines.
The proposed administrative lines enclose several offshore areas which are linked closely with adjacent provincial lands. Off the west coast these include the sea bottom between Vancouver island and the mainland, as well as appreciable areas in close proximity to the mainland and offlying islands. Off the east coast they include large areas of the sea bottom in the bay of Fundy, Northumberland strait and the passage Jacques-Cartier. These areas will also include historic bays and waters adjacent to numerous offlying islands thus making substantial territories available for administration by each of the coastal provinces.

In view of the many aspects of national significance involved, the government regards it as essential to retain the administration and management of mineral resources seaward from the mineral resource administration lines. With respect to the revenues, however, Mr. Speaker, the government wishes to seek a fair and reasonable basis whereby the provincial governments would share in the revenues that may be derived from these national resources which lie off the coasts of the provinces. It would be the intention to place the revenues accruing from these resources in a single national pool from which half the revenues would be made available to the provinces concerned. This would be purely a financial arrangement and would not imply involvement by the provinces in the jurisdiction and administration of mineral resources in those areas beyond mineral resource administration lines.
I am issuing today maps showing the locations of the mineral resource administration lines off both the east and west coasts. Similar lines will also be drawn in the regions of Hudson Strait, Hudson Bay, and James Bay, where it will also be necessary to define a boundary between the submerged lands adjacent to the provinces and those adjacent to the Northwest Territories and Arctic Islands. Acceptance of the mineral resource administration lines is the necessary first step in resolving the offshore situation. We can then work together with the provinces in finding a
Dominion-Provincial Relations satisfactory basis upon which the provincial share of revenues would be divided.

The question of the basis upon which the provincial share of revenues would be divided is one on which the federal government is open to suggestions. We would be agreeable to any proposal that the provincial governments themselves feel is acceptable. It may be that in discussions among themselves the provinces have already touched upon a basis or method which can be utilized in this connection. We would be prepared to hold the provincial share of revenues in escrow for a reasonable time until a satisfactory formula has been decided upon. If it would help in reaching an acceptable solution within a reasonable period, we would be willing to make constructive suggestions. I have written on Friday to the premiers on this subject, and I hope they will respond favourably to the federal offer within a relatively short time. Then we can proceed to work out details.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
It is essential to reach a settlement of the offshore situation with all possible dispatch. The continental shelf areas adjacent to Canada comprise a vast new territory estimated to be almost 40 per cent as large as the total land area of Canada. Several regions favourable for the development of mineral resources are probably present, particularly as concerns oil and gas.
It is clearly in the interest of all levels of government that conditions are such as to facilitate the rapid development of Canada's offshore minerals. For our part we wish to do everything possible to avoid jurisdictional disputes that would hinder or delay the development of these natural resources. This is the spirit in which we are offering to work out these arrangements with the provinces.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, may I first be permitted to welcome the Prime Minister back from his adventures in Toronto. I am sure we who had a chance to see him on television and watch the determination with which he kicked off will examine with great interest the result he achieved in the light of what happens to the just society from here on.


Mr. Trudeau:: Stopped by the press.
December 2, 1968

Dominion-Provincial Relations


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Prime Minister with great interest. This is indeed an important subject. It has been estimated that there are 250 years supply of oil alone beneath the sea, based on present yearly consumption, and that the continental shelf contains as much mineral wealth per square mile as dry land. So it is indeed a very important matter with which the Prime Minister has dealt today.
First I want to say quite clearly that it is not possible at this stage to indicate that the proposals made by the Prime Minister are in fact equitable, or to examine clearly the extent to which there will be fair sharing between the provincial governments and the federal government under the terms of the proposals he has made. That has to be considered later. However, I would make several other comments.
In his statement the Prime Minister said we intend to proceed now by negotiation. As I listened to him delineate very clearly what the federal government intended to do and what the provincial governments would be allowed to do, it struck me at first blush that there was remarkably little negotiation involved. It may well be that as the matter proceeds further negotiation will indeed be permitted, but if the Prime Minister is saying on behalf of the federal government "This is the way we intend to do it", and the provinces will be entitled only to such resources as lie within the area delineated in his statement, then I say this falls far short of the true kind of negotiation which we should expect.
There are still one or two questions which have to be answered. Certainly this is not the forum in which to go into details, but to what extent is the judgment applicable on a national scale? The Prime Minister indicates that it does have national application, but as one examines the answers given by the Supreme Court of Canada to the questions, one discovers those were specific answers to specific questions related to the province of British Columbia alone. While it may be true that these proceeded on certain principles, I think it is a well known legal maxim that where there is a specific question, and a specific reference, the answers are applicable only to that reference.
This is a question which must yet be determined. In spite of the fact that the Prime Minister has indicated that the law officers of the crown, in the right of the federal government, have taken a certain view, this may not necessarily be the view which the provincial governments will take.


The second question is, to what extent is the federal government free to negotiate, to give away or withhold as it sees fit, resources which its legal advisers have told it belong to all the people of Canada, resources which, pursuant to the constitutional decisions, to the British North American Act and other constitutional statutes, belong to all the people of Canada? To what extent would it be possible for the federal government to make a binding disposition of such resources without such a decision being subject to challenge? I cannot take any position at this time, but I think this is a very important question which must still be decided. Certainly if the Prime Minister's statement is a basis for discussion and negotiation between the federal government and the provinces that is fine; but I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, to the members of this house that the only type of decision which in fact can be fair and probably binding in law as well as in equity is one arrived at after full discussion between the provincial and federal governments. Until that time comes we will have to look at this issue very, very carefully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in sending us in advance a copy of this important statement. I confess that when an opposition spokesman receives a statement an hour in advance, he spends that time in trying to find things that are wrong with the statement. I must also confess that in the hour I had I found little that one can really complain about so far as this statement is concerned.
The importance of this subject is impressed upon us by the remarks the Prime Minister made and by the statistics just given by the hon. member for Peace River. We also realize that there is a very real issue at stake, namely to whom shall go the revenues from the huge oil and mineral resources that probably are to be found under the waters adjoining this country.
It seems to me that the essence of the Prime Minister's statement is very simple; that is, the jurisdiction is clearly federal, but common sense calls for some sort of a share the wealth program. We see this statement as seeking to implement those two principles, and to that extent it would seem to us to merit the approval of the house.
I did look in this statement for some reference to the international aspect of this whole question of mineral resources under the sea. It would seem that this has become a subject of concern at the United Nations. I looked for
December 2, 1968

something in the statement, but it was not there. Perhaps we will get that on another occasion. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has taken the position that the matter is federal and, therefore, that certain decisions have to be declared a starting point but that the federal government is prepared to negotiate with the provinces from that point on. I hope there will be an early effort, on the part of both the federal and provincial governments, to settle this very important question.
We are grateful to the Prime Minister for having made this statement without further delay. It is a very important issue.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, first of all we wish to thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his statement on off-shore mineral rights.
I should like to make a brief remark on one specific point, namely the sharing of revenues derived from the exploitation of mineral resources means or suggests the sharing of responsibilities. The federal government having indicated that consultations would be held with the provinces with regard to the basis for the distribution of half the revenues derived from mineral resources. I feel that the provinces will also wish to participate in the administration and operation. Now, if the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister is studied carefully, it does not seem sure that the provinces can participate directly in the operation or administration if the federal government takes over those rights and it may not necessarily be to blame. I feel that it is a matter of jurisdiction and once again we go back to the very basis of our constitution which must delineate clearly the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Speaker, if this case is treated the way Labrador was, I fear that no solution will be reached. The privy council reached a decision in 1927 concerning the ownership of Labrador which led to a now historical bone of contention. It was to decide to whom Labrador belonged-to Quebec, to Newfoundland or to the federal government-and the privy council settled the matter in 1927. A few months ago the right hon. Prime Minister replied to me saying that nothing had changed and I think that the federal government does certain things when they serve its purpose, but it remains mute when that is more suitable. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to speak to the extremely timely statement of the Prime Minister and urge him to reconsid-
Questions
er his decision concerning the ownership of Labrador, because I feel it is somewhat related to the matter now under discussion, that is off-shore mineral rights.
I therefore feel that it would be both in the interest of the federal government and the provinces to meet and define clearly the jurisdiction of the governments, on the federal and provincial level, because, in the final analysis, it concerns the very essence of the B.N.A. Act.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Schreyer: Has any research been conducted in Canada to test, under field conditions, the possible biological effects of microwave energy, both in its thermal and non-thermal effects and, if so, under whose aegis was the research done?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is aware the answer is as follows: At the level of intensity such as may occur in the vicinity of airport radar equipment, microwave communication systems, etc., work is believed to be in progress at the University of Manitoba (animal science division) to determine the long term effects of microwaves on the productivity of populations of chickens.
At a higher intensity corresponding to the "slightly thermal" level, research is being conducted at the National Research Council and supported by the council at Queen's University in relation to the behavioural influence that can be exerted on birds to keep them away from airports and commercial flight lanes.


MARC LALONDE
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
1.	What is the present position of Mr. Marc Lalonde in the Office of the Prime Minister, what are his duties and what is his salary?
2.	Did the said Marc Lalonde hold any previous position or positions in the federal government and, if so, what was this position or positions and with what department or departments of government was he associated?
3.	Did Mr. Lalonde hold a position with the Royal Commission on Pilotage and, if so, what was this position, how long was he employed in this position and what was the total amount he received in salary and expenses from this position?
4.	On what date did Mr. Lalonde first assume his present position in the Office of the Prime Minister

December 2, 1968
Questions
and was he formerly employed by the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice and, if so, what was his position at that time and what was his annual salary?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Mr. Lalonde is principal secretary to the Prime Minister. The principal secretary is the Prime Minister's chief of staff and has direction of the Prime Minister's office.
The terms of his previous employment with the government were continued when he was appointed to his present position. His remuneration is on a fee basis and not to exceed $33,000 per year.
2.	Mr. Lalonde was special assistant to the Hon. E. D. Fulton, Minister of Justice, in 1959-60; junior counsel to the industrial inquiry commission in the disruption of shipping on the great lakes in 1962; special adviser to the chairman of the royal commission on taxation in 1962-63; special adviser to the Privy Council office on securities, corporations and federal-provincial matters of a constitutional character in 1966-67; special adviser to the Prime Minister, April 1, 1967-June 26, 1968.
3.	No.
4.	June 27, 1968-the answer to the second part of the question is no.
2.	What is the total assessment of these buildings?
3.	What were the total federal grants paid in lieu of taxes to each of the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto in each of the years 1964-6S inclusive?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.
Number of federal buildings and other properties assessed according to 1967 applications for grant in lieu of taxes submitted by municipalities in metropolitan Toronto:
City of Toronto	31
Borough of Scarborough	7
Borough of York North	10
Borough of Etobicoke	7
Borough of York	4
Borough of York East	2
TOTAL	61
2.	Total assessment on federal properties listed in answer to question (1) above, according to applications for 1967 grants:

City of Toronto	25,013,115
Borough of	Scarborough	1,090,985Borough of	York North	15,012,065Borough of	Etobicoke	608,825Borough of	York	409,125Borough of	East York	35,165FEDERAL. BUILDINGS, METROPOLITAN	42 pgg 280


TORONTO
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 573-Mr. 1. How many federal Metropolitan Toronto?	Robinson: buildings are	there in	3. Payments, respect of the follows:	made by years 1964	municipality, to 1968 wereName of	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968Municipality	$	$	$	$	$City of Toronto	1,767,302	1,926,911	2,147,511	2,427,801	2,410,227*Boroughs (Townships) Etobicoke	30,795	31,891	36,614	55,272	63,918Scarborough	28,704	93,895	102,616	49,424	37,705York	615	394	38,991	42,911York East	-	-	-	2,930	3,240York North	1,319,415	1,396,962	1,388,456	1,139,063	-Towns** Leaside	1,994	2,051	1,985	-	-New Toronto	5,514	6,081	6,919	-	-Weston	17,737	18,745	19,639	-	-Villages** Forest Hill	449	471	511	-	-
* Partial payment.
** As of January 1, 1967, these municipalities became parts of the boroughs listed above. 
December 2, 19S8

Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Was Roland Madjiwon employed at Lac la Croix Reserve as a teacher and drug dispenser?
2.	If so, by whom was he employed and for how long a period?
3.	What were Mr. Madjiwon's formal academic qualifications as (a) a teacher, and (b) a pharmacist?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. During the academic year 1967-68, the department employed Mr. Rolland Nadjiwon as a teacher-aide at the Lac la Croix school. Teacher-aide is a classification used for teachers who do not hold valid training certificates. He was not employed as a drug dispenser.
2.	The department employed Mr. Nadjiwon from September 1, 1967 to August 31, 1968, inclusive.
3.	(a) Mr. Nadjiwon completed senior matriculation and one year at Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology, (b) Unknown.


EXCHEQUER COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce in the House a measure to modify the powers of the Exchequer Court of Canada and, if so (a) what changes will be proposed (b) will a court of first instance and an appeal court be established?
2.	Are the rules of procedure of the Exchequer Court of Canada available in French and, if not, when will such rules be available in that language?
3.	What have been the expenditures of the Exchequer Court of Canada during each of the past ten fiscal years?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to decentralize the Exchequer Court of Canada in order to make it easier for citizens to have access to this Court?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minisler of Justice):: 1.	The government has under consideration legislative proposals that will modify the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada and establish an appellate branch or division but specific details can not be disclosed prior to introduction of a Bill in the House of Commons.
2.	At the moment there is a 1966 Consolidation of the General Rules and Orders of the Exchequer Court of Canada in English only. This Consolidation was translated but not published because by the time the translation was available, the rules had and were
Questions
being substantially amended. Since it would have cost nearly $9,000.00 to publish the translation, it was considered more advisable to wait until the Court had completed its amendments to the rules, at which time a new English and French Consolidation would be published. It is expected that the new bilingual edition will be published early in 1969.
3.	Including administration, judicial salaries and travelling allowances total expenditures were: 1958-59, $243,094; 1959-60, $252,1601960-61, $261,178; 1961-62, $255,205; 1962-63, $285,249; 1963-64, $326,691; 1964-65, $363,358; 1965-66, $392,048; 1966-67, $453,625; 1967-68 $591,204.
4.	The government has under consideration various ways and means that might be adopted to further decentralize the operations of the Exchequer Court of Canada.


IMMIGRANTS FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	To date in 1968, what is the cost to the Government of Canada for (a) transportation, and (b) accommodation for persons coming to Canada from Czechoslovakia as (i) immigrants (ii) refugees?
2.	How many persons have come to Canada in 1968 from Czechoslovakia as (a) immigrants (b) refugees?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. While a refugee classification has been used for statistical purposes, all Czechoslovakians admitted to Canada under the special measures adopted by the government have, on arrival in Canada, been granted landed immigrant status in the same way as any other immigrant to this country.
(a)	(i) and (ii) On the basis of arrivals up to November 8, 1968, the cost of transoceanic transportation is estimated to be $698,490 most of which is recoverable. A further $18,864.57 has been expended on inland transportation in Canada.
(b)	(i) and (ii) It is estimated that up to November 8, 1968, the department has expended $662,907.28 on assistance in Canada to Czechoslovakians for such items as accommodation, meals, groceries, clothing and other necessities. No breakdown is available showing expenditures under these various items.
2.	(a) and (b) As of November 8, 5,002 Czechoslovakian refugees had been granted landed immigrant status in Canada.

December 2, 1968
Questions


PRESS RELEASES, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Public Works issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2 What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (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) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes; 179.
2.	(a) $24; (b) $150; (c) $37; (d) and (e) $642.
3.	(a) No. 7 bond 16 lb.; (b) 30,000 sheets 8jxl4-$75.
4.	475 hours.


SCIENTISTS SENT TO JAPAN BY GRAIN COMMISSION
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What are the names of the senior scientists sent to Japan by the Board of Grain Commissioners?
2.	What was the duration of the visit?
3.	What was the cost involved in conducting this mission?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Dr. I. Hlynka and Dr. W. O. S. Meredith.
2.	Dr. Hlynka, 27 days; Dr. Meredith, 20 days.
3.	$3,046.90.


TELEVISION SATELLITE PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it the government's intention to have a Canadian satellite program to provide satisfactory TV reception in all parts of Canada?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to license individuals and/or companies to use the Canadian satellite in the field of CATV?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: In so far as telecommunications is concerned -1. The government's intention has been outlined in the white paper presented by the Minister of Industry on March 28, 1968. Detailed planning is now being carried out in accordance with the principles enunciated in the white paper.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
2. No. The white paper stated that the proposed corporation would own both the satellites and the earth stations of the satellite system.


DYKE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM, MANITOBA
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What was the total cost of the dyke construction project undertaken under the ARDA-FRED program since 1965 in the area east and north of Riverton, Manitoba?
2.	What was the federal share of the construction cost in percentage and absolute terms?
3.	How many miles of dyke were constructed?
4.	Were any of the dykes constructed under this program removed or lowered?
5.	If so, for what reason?
6.	If so, what footage of dyke was so lowered or removed and at what total cost?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. No dyke construction was undertaken under the ARDA or FRED programs in the area east and north of Riverton, Manitoba.
2 to 6. N/A.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES SERVICE
Mr. Godin: 1.	Do all the provinces avail themselves of the weights and measures service provided by the federal government?
2.	How many times a year are commercial concerns visited by an inspector of that service?
3.	In the course of his regular work, how many concerns does an inspector visit in one month?
4.	Is the service provided free and, if not, what is the cost and what are the conditions?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The weights and measures service operates in all provinces, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
2.	One each year, unless more frequent inspections are requested, or unless devices require reinspection following repairs.
3.	On the average, each inspector visits 77 concerns each month. In 1967, 472,365 trade devices were inspected, ranging in complexity from gasoline meter pumps to electronic railway track scales, and 671,765 packages were checked for accuracy of quantity declaration.
4.	Fees charged for inspection of measuring devices used in trade are in accordance with schedule IX of the weights and measures regulations established by order in council P.C. 6894 dated December 19th, 1951 and amendments. No charge is made for tests leading to
December 2, 1968

type approval of new models of weighing or measuring machines, or for inspection of prepackaged goods.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Is the government planning the construction of any new post office buildings in Prince Edward Island during 1969 and, if so, how many are planned and where are they to be built?
2.	Were any new post office buildings constructed in Prince Edward Island during 1968 and, if so, where were they built and at what cost?


Arthur Laing: 1. No.
2. One at Cornwall, costing $21,069.94.


MOUNTED POLICE BUILDING, HALIFAX
Mr. McCleave: 1.	What buildings have been built or are being built under Vote 20 of the current estimates of the Solicitor General, where and at what cost or estimated cost?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the new RCMP building considered, but postponed, for the Halifax area?
3.	Will the building be included for the next fiscal year?
4.	What continuing use, if any, would be made by the RCMP of its present building in Halifax?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1. For the Royal Canadian Mounted Police
a) Sub-division administration buildings at
Corner Brook, Nfld.	*Cost $ 650,000.00
Sydney, N.S.	550,000.00
Brandon, Manitoba	550,000.00
Laboratory building (temporary) at	
Vancouver, B.C.	140,000.00
Detachment quarters at	
Bay d'Espoir, Nfld.	34,295.00
Placentia, Nfld.	97,745.00
Richibucto, N.B.	74,270.00
Gaspe, P.Q.	81,209.00
Nipigon, Ontario	72,000.00
La Loche, Sask.	85,000.00
Lanigan, Sask.	69,500.00
Buffalo Narrows, Sask.	28,806.00
Roam Lake, Sask.	70,000.00
St. Paul, Alta.	150,000.00
New Denver, B.C.	76,950.00
Lake Harbour, N.W.T.	52,000.00
Questions
d) Cell block buildings (separate) at
La Ronge, Sask.	42,000.00
Watson Lake, Y.T.	47,000.00
e) Married quarters	
(separate) at	
Seven Islands, P.Q.	24,791.00
Pakenham, Ontario	55,135.00
Lynn Lake, Manitoba	33,616.00
Pangnirtung, N.W.T.	39,445.00
Aklavik, N.W.T.	47,200.00
f) Warehouses, workshops and	
patrol cabins at	
Cape Dorset, N.W.T.	10,520.00
Fort Norman, N.W.T.	7,109.00
Fort Simpson, N.W.T.	6,600.00
Fort Providence, N.W.T.	3,635.00
Fort Resolution, N.W.T.	6,220.00
Frobisher Bay, N.W.T.	6,335.00
Fort Franklin, N.W.T.	2,475.00
Rankin Inlet, N.W.T.	6,600.00
Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T.	8,944.00
Fort Wrigley, N.W.T.	2,716.00
Hay River, N.W.T.	12,000.00
Old Crow, N.W.T	6,400.00
Dawson, Y.T.	8,077.00
Whitehorse, Y.T.	30,783.00
Carmacks, Y.T.	14,320.00
Watson Lake, Y.T.	. 8,220.00
g) Radio repeater stations at	
Granite Village, N.S.	3,595.00
Italy Cross, N.S.	3,360.00
Dauphin, Manitoba	4,000.00
Martin Mountain, Alta.	100.00
Skiff, Alta.	3,420.00
Fort McMurray, Alta.	80.00
Elkwater, Alta	3,336.00
h) Boat house at	
Cumberland House, Sask.	1,608.00
i) Aircraft hangars at	
Peace River, Alta.	109,040.00
Prince Rupert, B.C.	129,700.00
j) Dog kennels at	
Fort Saskatchewan, Alta.	945.00
*Costs indicated are estimated	total costs,
not necessarily amount shown	in current
estimates.	
2. $2,250,000.	
3. No.	
4. None, when new R.C.M.P.	building is
completed present building will	be declared
surplus.

December 2, 1968
Questions


POSTAGE RATES ON BOOKS
Mr. Monleilh: 1.	What is the rate of postage for a book mailed by a book seller or his agent?
2.	What is the rate of postage for the same book if mailed by a member of the general public?
3.	Would the Postmaster General consider a subsidy for the book trade by way of a special postal rate?


Eric William Kierans: 1. 14 cents for the first 10 ounces, 1 cent each additional 2 ounces or fraction to each separate address, up to a maximum weight limit of 25 pounds, when mailed for delivery in Canada under the postage rate category recently established for mailings of books posted by publishers, book clubs and retail and wholesale distributors. Books may also be posted by such mailers at the regular third or fourth class rates of postage, in which case the normal 1 pound limit of weight for third class mail or the normal 25 pound weight limit for fourth class mail applies.
2.	For delivery in Canada, 5 cents for the first 2 ounces and 3 cents each additional 2 ounces or fraction thereof to each separate address up to and including 1 pound. Over 1 pound up to and including 25 pounds, the fourth class zone rates of postage apply.
3.	No. The special postage rate mentioned in question 1 was introduced 1st November 1968.


&quot;CARRILLON CANADA&quot;
Mr. Howard (Okanagan: Boundary):
1.	What is the cost per issue, including staff employees' salaries, of producing the new Veterans Affairs departmental magazine "CARRILLON CANADA"?
2.	How many copies are printed and who gets them?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. The estimated cost of the first issue of this staff magazine is $3,400, of which about $300 was for non-recurring design charges and approximately $1,100 for salaries of public relations division staff.
2. The print order was for 12,500 copies, of which 11,400 were required for distribution to personnel in the Department and its associated agencies. Copies of the first issue have been distributed to senators and members of the House of Commons, to several deputy ministers and other senior government officers, to the members of the Ottawa and

overseas veterans' contingents, to the dominion council of the Royal Canadian Legion, leaders of the public service staff associations and a few others.


LAKE ONTARIO CLAIMS TRIBUNAL
Mr. Mather: 1.	When was the Lake Ontario Claims Tribunal established?
2.	When did the Tribunal make its report?
3.	Who were the members of the Tribunal?
4.	What was the cost, in dollars, of the Tribunal to Canada?
5.	What was the result of the work of the Tribunal, including its finding as to Canada's compensation obligation, in dollars?
6.	What was, in dollars, the earlier offer of settlement of claims by the U.S.?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. The tribunal was established by a Canada-U.S. agreement dated March 25, 1965 which came into effect on October 11, 1966.
2.	The tribunal handed down rulings on certain important preliminary questions on January 15 and February 13, 1968. It made no other ruling or report but the chairman did make certain statements at the final session of the tribunal which was held on Friday, September 27, 1968. In these statements the chairman noted that the governments of Canada and the United States had agreed to settle the claims for a lump sum payment to the government of the United States by the government of Canada of $350,000 U.S. on the basis that such payment be made without prejudice to legal or factual positions maintained by the two governments and without precedential effect.
3.	Members:	Chairman:	Dr. Lambertus
Erades, vice-president of the Rotterdam district court, The Netherlands. Canadian national member:	The Honourable W. D.
Roach, retired justice of the court of appeal of Ontario. U.S. national member: Professor Alwyn V. Freeman of John Hopkins University, Baltimore.
4.	A number of accounts are still outstanding. The cost to date to Canada including the amount of the settlement is $442,100.
5.	As indicated in the answer to question 2, while the tribunal handed down rulings on certain important preliminary questions it made no award. However, in a closed session on February 13, 1968, the tribunal suggested to the agents of the two governments that an
December 2, 1968

attempt to be made without prejudice either to the validity of the claims or to the issue of substantive liability that they ascertain whether their governments would be prepared to attempt to negotiate a settlement. Following the making of this suggestion, intergovernmental negotiations were undertaken, and these negotiations culminated in a settlement, the terms of which have been summarized briefly in response to question 2.
6.	No earlier offer of settlement in dollars was made by the U.S. government. However an offer of compromise by the claimants to settle the claims in full for the sum of $875,000 United States dollars was transmitted to the Department of External Affairs
Questions
in a communication dated July 22, 1959 from the United States embassy in Ottawa. Eventually many of the claims were formally espoused by the United States government in proceedings before the tribunal.


STABILIZATION BOARD PAYMENTS TO QUEBEC FARMERS
Mr. Matte: What part of the cost of the Agricultural Stabilization Board programs for the first ten years of operation ending March 31, 1967, was paid to Quebec farmers for the following products (a) potatoes (b) apples (c) sugar beets (d) honey (e) manufacturing milk?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: (a)			(b)		(c)	
Year						Sugar	
Potatoes	%	Apples	%	Beets	%$	$	$	1966-67	-	-	-	-	850,056	8.41965-66	-	-	-	-	483,150	12.01964-65	-	-	1963-64	-	-	_	1962-63	-	-	-	-	168,891	8.51961-62	-	-	-	-	122,085	7.31960-61	-	-	-	-	76,502	2.81959-60	-	-	-	-	73,040	2.71958-59	-	-	-	1957-58	-	-	-	-	-	--	-	-	-	1,773,724	7.6(d)	(e)	Year	Manufactur-	Quebec	Honey	%	ing Milk	%	Total	%$	$	$	1966-67	-	-	31,568,883	41.1	32,418,939	37.31965-66	147	100.0	19,436,238	25.1	19,919,535	24.41964-65	-	-	17,534,349	42.0	17,534,349	42.01963-64	2,233	2.9	19,655,759	42.0	19,657,992	41.81962-63	1,477	.4	5,943,651	44.8	6,114,019	37.71961-62	5,554	6.1	5,736,896	46.4	5,864,535	40.41960-61	-	-	5,898,214	51.6	5,974,716	42.31959-60	-	-	4,264,574	43.4	4,337,614	34.81958-59	-	-	-	1957-58	-	-	-	-	-	-9,411	1.7	110,038,564	38.0	111,821,699	35.4
December 2, 1968
Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE CLAIMS
Mr. Laprise: How many initial requests were made to the Unemployment Insurance Commission during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: 1,389,366 initial claims were made through the commissions's offices during the fiscal year which ended March 31, 1968.


DEFENCE POSTINGS FOR SEA SERVICE
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence send out a general signal on June 26, 1968 to the effect that men from other services would be posted to fill sea-going personnel shortages?
2.	Have any other signals to this effect been transmitted by National Defence Headquarters since that date?
3.	Since June 25, 1968, how many men have been posted to serve in an environment (air, sea, land) other than the one he was in, without volunteering for such assignment?
4.	Have any servicemen indicated that they did not wish to accept such a posting and, if so, how many?
5.	Have any servicemen refused to accept such postings and, if so, how many?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. A general message was sent out stating that, as certain environmental and trade imbalances could be expected due to the planned force reduction by normal attrition, some tradesmen would be offered employment outside of the environment in which they enlisted. The message emphasized that the vested right of all servicemen who enrolled before 1 February, 1968, would be respected. Because of the small numbers involved, it was considered unnecessary to go out with a request for volunteers. Instead, the question was put as part of a normal posting instruction and if the serviceman exercised his vested right the posting was offered to someone else. This in no way affects his career opportunities.
2.	No.
3.	38.
4.	Yes, one.
5.	Yes, 14.


PUBLIC WORKS, BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: What projects undertaken by the Department of Public Works are presently in progress in the constituency of Beauce?


Arthur Laing: A new Post Office at St. Benoit Labre is under construction in Beauce constituency.


ARMOURIES TO BE DISPOSED OF BY CROWN ASSETS
Mr. Marshall: What armouries in Canada are to be closed and handed over to Crown Assets?


David Walter Groos: The following armouries are in the process of being declared surplus to defence requirements: Brooks, Alberta, (0.339 acres and two buildings); Montreal, Quebec, (750 Belair Street); (3590 St. Antoine Street), (2.49 acres and 9 buildings-partial armoury site).


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. I have placed a number of questions on the order paper in line with Your Honour's suggestions, some of which have been there unanswered for two and a half months. I have directed questions to the minister of Manpower and Immigration. They have been unanswered. Question No. 485 was directed to the Minister of Transport, and it has been unanswered for two months. This is a question which could and should have been answered within three or four days. I bring this situation to Your Honour's attention and suggest that the answers to some of these questions should be forthcoming at a very early date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am not here to raise a kick, or even to endeavour to kick the distance of 18 feet which separates me from the right hon. gentleman, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has received that list of those who were awarded Centennial medals between June and December of 1967. I have been trying to obtain that list, including all those other than members of the armed forces, and the Prime Minister indicated that he would table it. I thought he should have done so before now, because surely the list must be ready after this length of time.
December 2, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	3353
Inquiries of the Ministry
DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS	FINANCE


INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA FOR CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now say that an agreement has been reached in respect of the agenda for the federal-provincial conference. If so, can he advise the house as to the items to be discussed?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, I have not received replies from all the provinces to a letter I sent to the premiers more than a fortnight ago. I asked them if they would agree on the agenda which had been discussed by officials for some period of time. Until I have received such agreement from the provincial premiers I do not feel that I should unilaterally release the proposed agenda. If I did so I might be blamed by the official opposition for acting unilaterally, and hon. members may want to use this as another political football.
If it is of any assistance to the opposition I might indicate that the agenda does arise from decisions taken at the February conference. We are not proposing any great departure. I appreciate the importance of making this information available to the opposition and the public at an early date, and I hope the provincial premiers will see fit to answer as soon as possible.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the remarks of Premier Robarts in the Ontario legislature, as well as other provincial premiers, is the government giving consideration to whether the conference will concern itself with the division of revenues as well as responsibilities at the two levels of government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I can say that he has written the provincial premiers suggesting that the two days following the constitutional conference be allocated to discussion of financial matters and meetings of federal-provincial ministers of finance. These days will be in addition to the meeting which took place early last month, and will give provincial officials ample opportunity to raise this matter and for us to discuss it with them.


SUGGESTED REIMPOSITION OF CEILING ON BANK INTEREST RATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fantastic profits being reported by a number of the chartered banks in Canada, will the government consider reimposing the ceiling on interest rates which banks may charge?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: We can always consider this, Mr. Speaker, but I would prefer that this question be directed to the Minister of Finance. He may have a more sophisticated answer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of Finance the possibility of referring this matter to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not mind discussing this possibility with him, Mr. Speaker, but I must say I will not have a very strong inclination to try to convince him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
that leadership?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he would agree to table a copy of the invitation he received from the government of the Niger and a copy of the letter he sent through the leader of the government in the senate concerning the conference of French-speaking countries which is to take place in the Niger soon? Would he table those two letters, for the information of the members of this house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the question could have been put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) but, in my opinion, it would be contrary to usage in the field of external affairs to make public a communication we have received without the authorization of the person who sent it to us.
December 2, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he has redrafted or changed those sections of the new omnibus bill to be brought before the house which have reference to abortions?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have received representations from all over the country in respect of various matters contained in the omnibus bill. As a result of these representations I have recommended some important changes in detail but not in principle. The new draft of the bill is currently before my colleagues.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the Minister of Justice for his answer. Has the minister disclosed to the news media or others the nature of the changes in the new bill, compared to the bill as drafted and presented by the previous Liberal government?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have made no firm disclosures of them, because whatever changes are contemplated by the bill will have to be approved by the government as a whole.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice says he has made no firm disclosures. Has he made any disclosures to the news media or others?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, naturally I have been discussing this bill when the occasion has arisen and I have had reason to comment on the various views affecting all aspects of the bill, as I believe it is my duty to do.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister of Justice given any thought to making some revolutionary changes in reference to amendments to the Criminal Code to strengthen the hand of administrative officers to effectively stop and control the spread of syndicated crime in Canada?


John Napier Turner: That is
another important matter and I agree with

the hon. member as to its importance. I earlier stated to the house that only the matters currently found in former Bill C-195 would be brought back for consideration by the house; but as the hon. member suggests, and I agree with him, organized crime is a matter to which we have to direct our attention.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as house leader. Will the minister recall the estimates of the Canadian Transport Commission before the house so the house can deal with the recommendation of the standing committee regarding the passenger rail abandonment of the C.N.R. in Newfoundland?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to consider that, but I suggest both in respect of these estimates and others that a far more productive way of arranging the business of the house would be for the hon. member to consult his house leader. I have asked the other house leaders what estimates they would like to deal with for the balance of this week. I think this would be a better way to deal with the matter.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the chairman of the standing committee on transport and communications. Will the hon. member undertake to bring in a report to the house at the earliest possible opportunity so the house can deal with the recommendation made by the committee on Thursday last?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could remind the hon. member that it is not necessary to make a report. The house can bring these estimates back when it desires.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS APPLICATION OF SUPREME COURT DECISION TO PROVINCES OTHER THAN BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the statement he read to the house today. I do not
December 2, 1968

know whether I missed the answer to the question I am about to ask. If I did, it is only because I did not hear that portion of the statement.
The situation in provinces other than British Columbia, that is the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, is quite different basically and juridically, and I am wondering why the request for the viewpoint of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the ownership of offshore minerals in these provinces was not submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada before the Prime Minister decided on setting out in detail the attitude to be taken by the government of Canada.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman is asking why it had not been done before, I can only say that it was another government that decided to submit this reference in this particular way. With regard to why it is not being done now before making the statement, I think the best answer is that this type of reference is a lengthy procedure. It might take months of litigation and waiting for the rendering of a decision. It is in order to gain time that the government has proceeded in this fashion.
I agree with the right hon. gentleman that there are some distinctions in law to be drawn between the various situations. But we feel the underlying principles are much the same and we prefer to go ahead now with a negotiated settlement, if it is possible, rather than embark upon possibly years of litigation; because it is extremely urgent that all Canadians should reach some kind of agreement as soon as possible in order that the exploitation of these resources be begun as quickly as possible.


John George Diefenbaker: The question of time is always important, Mr. Speaker, but there is a matter of great principle here. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister has given consideration to asking the Supreme Court of Canada to permit an early submission to them for their opinion. It would not take very long. It did not take very long in regard to the submission respecting British Columbia. I am sure the Supreme Court of Canada, in view of the importance of this matter, would give the Prime Minister the assurance that at the earliest possible date an opinion would be given. Otherwise these provinces which have a different juridical position than British Columbia find themselves in an impossible position.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member recognizes that the legal position may vary from case to case; therefore it would take a great many references. Also, the impression I got from the comments of the house leader of the official opposition was that this should be more by way of a political decision rather than a judicial one. He indicated that there was not enough negotiation, and seemed to object that we were starting from the fact that the opinion had given us entire priority with regard to areas in British Columbia below the low water mark.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. What I said with respect to this matter-I have to repeat it in order to make sure that the question of privilege is clearly understood-was that with regard to the other areas the question may well be dependent upon what view of the law could be taken by the Supreme Court, and then in any event the rights which are determined are not rights which the federal government by itself can dispose of. If the answer to the first question I asked is in the affirmative, it may well be that provinces and people who do not have access to the coast lines have certain rights which the federal government may not be able to barter away. Consequently, if a decision is going to be made, in the final analysis it should be a decision in which all the provinces are able to participate.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister what influenced the law officers of the crown to change their minds or reverse their decision with respect to offshore mineral rights in the last 18 months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such reversal; therefore I am not in a position to say what influenced them to change their minds.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the acquisition rights of the government under the crown corporation as set out in Bill C-135, that bill recognizes the right of Nova Scotia to offshore minerals. This matter is legislated in their own bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calagary North on a supplementary question.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of
December 2, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry privilege. At the time this question was placed before the Supreme Court in connection with the mineral rights of the province of British Columbia, we were informed by the then prime minister that the decision would not necessarily weigh upon the other provinces and that the other provincial-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the hon. member would not recognize that this is becoming close to a debate. Perhaps we might allow the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. member's question. That may clarify the situation; I am hopeful it will. If not, perhaps I will allow the hon. member to continue his question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Donald MacInnis: With all respect, sir,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who has the floor?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the answer that may be provided by the Prime Minister, he has already indicated that he does not understand the situation, and on the question of privilege I thought I would just draw his attention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that on a question of privilege he should indicate how his personal privileges or the privileges of the house have been affected.


Donald MacInnis: Well, I could be wrong, but in my opinion the privileges of the house have been affected.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Don't be so modest.


Donald MacInnis: When we think back to the performance of the Prime Minister on Saturday afternoon, he has a lot to be modest about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if I could seek the co-operation of hon. members. We are now in the question period and it seems to me hon. members should be asking questions. There was a valid question asked in the first instance which evolved into a question of privilege, and now there is a further question of privilege. There are still many members in the house who would like to ask questions about this and other subjects. I will recognize

the right of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to raise a question of privilege, but perhaps it might be better if we were to allow the Prime Minister to reply to the hon. member's question. Then he may have a further supplementary question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the answer to the hon. member's problem, Mr. Speaker, may be that there was a reference to mining rights which belong to the provinces, and which under the arrangement we propose would continue to belong to the provinces. The member knows that the resource administration lines we propose to draw are well within federal territory, well offshore from the low water mark. Any such mines as do exist at present in the maritime provinces would be well inside the lines which we propose to draw, leaving the administration on the landward side of these lines to the provinces and leaving also the revenues from these resources entirely to the provinces.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question which I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. Has there been any negotiation or consultation with the provinces prior to making this statement, to see if they approve or will negotiate on the formula which the Prime Minister outlined today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no special communication of that nature with the provinces. Once again we took the position that, certainly in the case of the province of British Columbia, we were drawing lines well within the territory which was allocated to the federal government, and therefore we were leaning in favour of the provincial side. We felt we were giving more to the provinces than the court obliged us to do in this particular case. We followed the same principles, as I just indicated in answering a previous question, in drawing the resource administration lines in the case of other provinces, keeping always well on the outside of what might be interpreted to be historically provincial seas or waters. It is for this reason we are trying to avoid litigation, by being as generous as possible even with territorial seas which normally might be suspected, under international law, to be federal. We hope, by avoiding litigation, to advance this whole question much more quickly for the benefit of all the people of Canada.
December 2, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of which I have given him notice. I am informed that some students attending retraining schools under manpower assistance programs are not to be paid their regular living allowances during the Christmas holiday season if the school is closed during that period. Would the minister tell the house what his department is planning to do to rectify this situation, which will leave many people without the means to exist for a two week period of time?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I will take this question as notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Can the minister indicate when the long overdue report of the agricultural task force will be tabled in the house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Agriculture is not expecting to be answering questions before Wednesday of this week.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. We have had two questions now which raise serious doubts about this practice the government has been following. A question was asked of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who was absent-oh, my point is going to be destroyed because he is now returning to the house. However, the question was taken as notice. Now a question has been asked of the Department of Agriculture and we are told that the department is not supposed to be answering questions until Wednesday. There is no such rule, and I think urgent questions should be dealt with.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that all the members who are on this unnameable roster
Inquiries of the Ministry and who are supposed to be here today are here today. It was by accident that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration happened to leave the house for something, to practise football or something.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar could be allowed to ask the question again.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am in an embarrassing position, Mr. Speaker, because I cannot recall the exact wording of the question and a messenger has left with the written question. However, I gave notice of the question to the minister several days ago. It has to do with students who are attending manpower training centres. The information I have is that during the Christmas holiday season these students will not be paid their living allowances if the schools are closed for two weeks, which is happening in some cases. I want to know what action is being taken to correct the situation, since obviously the students have to eat and have shelter during that period.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I regret my absence for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, which led to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raising a point of order. In point of fact, however, I was telephoning attempting to service a request from one of his colleagues. I will try not to do that in the future.


Stanley Howard Knowles: did not arrange that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In reply to the question, we are attempting to deal with this problem wherever possible by having the courses run during this period so that students will be in receipt of training allowances. We think this is the best way to overcome this particular problem.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I have a supplementary question. Certainly the student to whom I was talking said the students would be quite satisfied with this solution. In the event the schools close down, however, will the minister say what action will be taken to ensure that the students do not suffer deprivation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think the best possible long term solution to this problem is to encourage the schools to remain open. If we take any other action we are likely to discourage that.
3358	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North): In
view of the fact that the decision as to whether the schools remain open is not made by the students but by the school administration and teachers, and in view of the fact that the students have to eat whether the school is open or not, could not the department make an arrangement to permit students to be paid their living allowances so they will not be penalized if the schools close?



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a question for the Secretary of State. We welcome the hon. gentleman back to the house following his sortie into South America. Will the Secretary of State tell the house when legislation proposing the establishment of a Canadian educational broadcasting agency can be expected to be introduced?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a definite date, as the hon. member will no doubt understand, but we are doing our utmost so that this legislation can be introduced in the house this session and, if possible, early in the coming year.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question. Can the Secretary of State inform the house when the report of the special task force might be received?


Gérard Pelletier: It is expected that the work will be completed early in June, according to our calendar. However, that calendar is far from definite, because the task force has barely gone to work. The final and complete report would therefore be submitted early in June.
But, once again, I repeat that there is nothing definite about that calendar and other difficulties might arise in addition to those already expected. However, the legislation would be ready to be introduced in the house before the end of the work needed to set up the educational television broadcasting agency.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house with which provinces 
DEBATES	December 2, 1988
the task force has been in communication, in particular whether it has been in communication with the province of Quebec and, if not, why not?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, contacts have been established at various levels, and that is why the hon. member's question would require a properly shaded answer.
In most of the provinces, contacts were established at the official level; in other provinces, it was at the level of the Minister of Education.
Therefore, I would rather take the hon. member's question as notice to see, first, whether the provincial authorities with which we have been in contact agree to the proposition that these contacts be disclosed in the house. Only then would I want to give a detailed report.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Secretary of State inform the house whether he has invited the provinces to name permanent members to the task force studying educational television, as was suggested to him on October 24?


Gérard Pelletier: No, we have not taken any steps in that direction, Mr. Speaker. However, I may say that the setting up of that task force includes two stages and that we are now considering the first stage.
It is not impossible that during the second stage we would consider the proposal made in October.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
When the honourable Secretary of State speaks of consultations with the provinces at various levels and says that his reply must be shaded, can he tell the house whether, with regard to Quebec, the last statements of the Quebec premier are going to alter the type of consultations to be held between Ottawa and Quebec with regard to educational television?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, since my return I have unfortunately been unable to read, in its entirety, the speech of the Quebec premier in this regard. I have only read the accounts in the press. However, I have the document here on my desk and I shall be able to give the member a reply only when I have read the speech itself.
December 2, 1968

However, I shall only be able to reply with regard to the attitude of the federal government, because that of the Quebec provincial government will obviously be determined by the Quebec premier himself and not by us.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS CHURCHILL, MAN.-NEGOTIATIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF TOWN SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice.']
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works in regard to the proposals to be made to the cabinet by officials of the minister's department in respect of the development of the townsite of Churchill. Can the minister say whether these proposals have been made available to cabinet and, if not, when the minister thinks they will be?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, this will be done almost at once, and I would expect that thereafter we would make good progress with the province of Manitoba.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What explanation, if any, did the minister receive from the West German ambassador to Canada in connection with the ambassador's statement during the course of a recent press conference in Kitchener to the effect that Canada was an enigmatic sphinx in its policy toward NATO?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the question as notice.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I nave a question I want to direct to the attention of the Minister of National Health and
Inquiries of the Ministry Welfare. May I also compliment him on his obviously improved health since he has given up cigarette smoking. My question is prompted by today's press reports to the effect that cabinet ministers are considering the advisability of abandoning the family allowance program. Would the minister say whether this is so?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker. The situation, as has been announced now several times, is that this program, like all other programs involved in the social welfare field, is under review. There is no suggestion of abandonment or otherwise of any programs at this stage.



VOCATIONAL TRAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering the seriousness of unemployment and the fact that, when putting an end to the winter works program the government had announced the establishment of an intensive retraining plan, could the minister tell us whether the number of persons entitled to take advantage of retraining courses is limited in any way to a certain number in a given region, or can all those qualified be accepted?
Moreover, has a certain age limit been set?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question is a very complicated one and to answer it in detail would require a good deal of time. However, let me say that we have increased very substantially funds for training in the province of Quebec. Just recently the Prime Minister notified the premier of Quebec that an additional sum of money in the millions of dollars was available for additional training in that province. We believe that the work we are doing in the training field will be more effective in coping with the problem of unemployment than the former winter works program.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to ask another question, Mr. Speaker.
3360	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. As I already told the hon. member last Friday, this question is out of order. I was reluctant to interrupt him today, but if he thinks the question should be discussed further, I suggest he could do so later, at the time of adjournment.



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Now that the views of the Postmaster General in connection with our participation in NORAD and NATO have been clarified and placed on Hansard, will the minister seize the earliest opportunity to state his views?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is not perhaps entirely in order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then, Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Secretary of State, in the interests of participatory democracy, if he would use his good offices with the national networks to arrange a debate between the Postmaster General and the Minister of National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: That question tends to be argumentative.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether Coach Vic Chapman is still on his personal staff after the two-yard kick-off on Saturday?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I have given the opposition something to play football with, apart from ideas. It is time they realized-


An hon. Member:: Here comes the lecture.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have sent Mr. Chapman to exile out in British Columbia.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General and arises from the reference in the press today to the vast

DEBATES	December 2, 1968
upsurge in bankruptcy frauds in the province of Quebec, now numbering some 60 per cent of all bankruptcies in Canada. Because of the relationship between bankruptcy frauds and other illicit activities of organized crime, as outlined by Montreal police officials, will the Solicitor General use the powers conferred by the Bankruptcy Act to launch an inquiry into this unsavoury facet of organized crime?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take the right hon. gentleman's suggestion under consideration, but I should point out to him that if he will check the evidence given before the justice committee on this subject very recently in connection with the activities of the fraud squad of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police he will find some rather encouraging reports.


John George Diefenbaker: I have read that. I am asking whether the Solicitor General, who always looks after his department, would care to get in touch with the government of Quebec with a view to doing something to prevent the increase in crime that this country is now experiencing?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I was seeking to point out that a great deal is being done to prevent the increase in crime, and it is being done in very close co-operation with the province of Quebec. In any event, I will take the suggestion of the right hon. member under consideration.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's statement on motions today, can he say whether the government has had discussions with the French government regarding the sovereignty of the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon with respect to the matter of offshore mineral rights?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations have been going on for a great many months with a view to reaching some solution satisfactory to both countries.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are those negotiations about to reach a satisfactory conclusion so far as Canada is concerned?
December 2, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that it they are not satisfactory so far as Canada is concerned they are not about to reach a satisfactory conclusion. I do not mean to evade the question. I just mean to say that the discussions are very difficult and they are not near to conclusion so far as we are able to see.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Souih Shore):: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In implementing newly announced government regulations with respect to offshore mineral rights will the government also be implementing the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act which was passed in 1964?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that the two questions are completely unrelated. I cannot guarantee that the solution of one will accelerate the solution of the other.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, with all deference I submit that the questions are directly related since St. Pierre and Miquelon oppose the implementation of the 12-mile limit. In any event, will the Prime Minister take this question under consideration when reviewing the matter?



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the widespread interest in the composition of the delegation to accompany the Prime Minister to the forthcoming prime ministers conference, may we have a general outline of the various functions these individuals accompanying the Prime Minister will perform?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that that question should be placed on the order paper. As the hon. member knows, if there is urgency to the question it may be debated at the time of adjournment tonight.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State, but before I would like to make a correction.
Now I would like to ask the Secretary of State to tell us what has become of the report which he promised about the policy of the C.B.C. and its application concerning the allotment of time to political and nonpolitical movements or other movements. Is the report now ready to be tabled?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I admit that I do not know which report the hon. member is speaking about. Reference was made to an answer to a question put on the orders of the day. I know nothing about the report mentioned by the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member could perhaps get in touch with the minister to elucidate the matter.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
As for the answer of the Secretary of State-


An hon. Member:: You cannot speak about something when you do not know about it.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, an hon. member has just said that one cannot speak about something when one does not know about it. I think that it is not up to him to judge and that it would be advisable for government members to agree among themselves, as we like to say, in order to give intelligent answers.
The right hon. Prime Minister has already promised to the hon. member for Temis-camingue (Mr. Caouette) to have a study made on that subject. Later on the hon. Secretary of State undertook to have an inquiry conducted into that matter. The hon. member for Temiscamingue placed on the order
December 2. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry paper questions which were answered; however, the broadcast time granted by the C.B.C. during the last convention of the Ralliement Creditiste, compared to that of the Parti Quebecois-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member indicate what is essentially his point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. Later on, as a follow up to the answers given to the question of the hon. member for Temisea-mingue, I asked the hon. Secretary of State to inquire into the policy followed by the corporation with regard to the broadcast time granted to political, apolitical or other movements. It is then that the hon. minister rose-and the Debates of the House of Commons can prove it-to promise me that inquiry. That is what 1 am referring to, Mr. Speaker, and I think that the statement just made by the hon. Secretary of State is totally unacceptable and shows the lack of responsibility of this government.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. When will we obtain additional information about the proposed new legislation on industrial incentives in the maritimes?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it will take a few months.


Thomas Miller Bell: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of that answer, will the minister say that no industries applying for assistance in the transitional period will suffer, because that does not appear to be the case at present?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, nobody is going to suffer in the meantime.


Thomas Miller Bell: Well, we are suffering.



ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Prime Minister. I draw his attention to this matter in order to be helpful to him and to other hon. members. I do not wish to refer to any unmentionable document, but would the Prime Minister note that under present arrangements no cabinet members answering for trade, commerce, agriculture or the Canadian wheat board are in the house on Mondays or Tuesdays? That means that between Friday and Wednesday there is a period of 96 hours in which no hon. member can obtain information about these subjects. Is it possible to arrange matters so that ministers answering for the fields I have mentioned may be in the house on Mondays or Tuesdays?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house leader on the government side would be delighted to sit down with the house leaders of the other parties and arrange a roster which is acceptable to them.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, originally my question was for the President of the Privy Council but I wish to direct it now to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the fact that a number of ministers of the crown, by their own admission, are disturbed because they are not allowed io attend proceedings of the house on their days off, can the Prime Minister say what action he proposed to take in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have serious doubts about that question.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps I should indicate to the house that this is a matter which has come to my attention and there is evidence to substantiate the fact that a number of ministers are disturbed by the fact that they are not allowed to attend the proceedings of the house on their days off. They want to attend.
Seme hon. Members: Shame.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Stanford Schumacher: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, November 27, I asked the Minister of Justice a question about the backlog of divorce petitions building up. I took too long in asking the question to arrive at facts. Since we are not so rushed now I wonder whether the minister can say whether county and district courts will be allowed to work on
December 2, 1968

this backlog in order that these divorce petitions may be dealt with expeditiously?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, reviewing the situation closely. The initiative in this respect, following the constitutional division of powers with the administration of justice lying with the provincial attorneys general, would have to come from that quarter. If it did, we should be only too happy to try to achieve better court procedures.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the parliamentary secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs. In the light of Canada's recent vote in the United Nations condemning mildly Portugal's colonial policies and in light of the recent change of regime in Portugal, will the government of Canada take advantage of this opportunity to indicate to the government of Portugal that friendship between our two countries, which is so much to be desired, could be best based on a mutual respect for the rule of law and fundamental human rights, which might be evidenced by the granting of an amnesty to Portuguese political prisoners?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a suggestion to the parliamentary secretary. I doubt that he is really asking a question.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to answer the question I put to him on Friday as to whether or not the government has received the report of the conciliation board dealing with the disagreement between Air Canada and the air line employees association? I might also ask whether the board has resolved the differences between the parties.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I did receive the report on Friday. The board was not successful in resolving the differences.
Inquiries of the Ministry



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would it be possible for old age security cheques to be sent out before Christmas this year in order that people might receive them in time to have a better Christmas?


John Carr Munro: It is very unlikely, Mr. Speaker. This situation has come up many times, as the hon. member knows, and it has been found that there are many disadvantages to complying with the proposal.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Secretary of State. In light of the request recently made by the council of the city of Saskatoon that consideration be given to providing a C.B.C. television outlet in Saskatoon, will the minister inform the house whether the C.B.C. intends to act on this submission?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member should place his question on the order paper.



EXPROPRIATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. Has the draft bill for the new expropriation act been drawn up by the government and, if so, when will it be introduced in the house?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we have encountered certain difficulties in processing all the draft legislation going through the legislative section of the Department of Justice. I expect that the draft bill should be available for parliament when it reassembles in January.

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $12,495,330.
The Chairman:: House in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce for the year ending March 31, 1969. Order. I should like to revise that statement. Apparently it is the estimates of the Department of Industry only.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Mr. Hales:: Does the minister not intend to make some introductory remarks before we proceed?


Mr. Pepin:: I was waiting for an invitation!


An hon. Member:: You look so relaxed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In a number of situations I have learned that silence is the key to success.


An hon. Member:: You should tell the opposition that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, since the creation of the Department of Industry in 1963 the department has introduced numerous programs to assist Canadian industry in increasing its productivity and expanding its output. These programs have made industry more competitive and have contributed appreciably to the success of the manufactured products sector of Canadian exports. Indeed, during the past five years Canada's exports of manufactured products have increased fourfold and now account for about 34 per cent of total exports.
It is interesting to observe the growth of the manufactured products sector of Canadian exports. In 1958, it amounted to 13.2 per cent; in 1963, to 15.4 per cent, in 1967, to 31.2 per cent and this year to about 34 per cent. As a result, exports of processed manufactured products now make up nearly three-quarters of total Canadian exports. Furthermore, some of the greatest gains in expanded production and increased exports have been in the more sophisticated product lines.
A few moments ago I was reading a paper on the subject of productivity. Canadian manufacturing compares favourably, the paper said, with that of most countries, but productivity in the United States is still more than 30 per cent higher than in Canada. However, Canada has been successful in

reducing this productivity gap. While productivity in United States manufacturing has increased by some 80 per cent over the postwar period, manufacturing productivity in-Canada has more than doubled. The narrowing of the gap was continued during the last decade during which Canada reported a 43 per cent increase compared with 36 per cent in the United States. Apparently the gap is still about 30 per cent for the whole industrial sector. Hon. members will no doubt understand the importance of reducing this gap as much and as fast as possible, since this is a major determinant in international competitiveness and consequently a major factor in the success of Canadian exports.
Canada has improved its production and export performance, as I have indicated, in a number of product areas such as electronic equipment, aircraft and aircraft components, and this improvement is directly attributable to special arrangements and programs in which the Department of Industry has played a leading role.
May I now tell you a few things, Mr. Chairman, about the automotive industry program. Substantial progress has been made toward the attainment of the objectives of the 1965 program. By 1968 the production of passenger vehicles had increased by 29 per cent and commercial vehicles by more than 129 per cent, over the levels for 1964, the year immediately preceding implementation of the program.
The surge in trade has been even more spectacular. In 1964 Canada exported automotive products valued at $136 million. By the model of 1968 the export of such products amounted to a value exceeding $2 billion.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Of course imports have also risen but the trade imbalance in automotive products, which had been growing rapidly in previous years, was reduced for the first time in 1966, and it will be further diminished in 1968. The projection for 1968 indicates that the imbalance may be about $364 million world wide, $350 million of that with the United States. When one compares that figure with the figure of $683 million for 1966 and $547 million for 1965, one easily realizes the tremendous progress which has been made.
Average levels of employment in the automotive industries have also increased during the life of the program, from a monthly average of 68,000 in 1964 to about 80,000 people in 1968.
December 2, 1968

An appreciable amount of rationalization of production has taken place both in the assembly of vehicles and in the manufacture of parts. Although total production of motor cars has increased appreciably, the number of car makes, body styles and models assembled in Canada has been reduced considerably. This was a condition of the success of the over-all operation.
Productivity has also improved in the automotive industries. Traditionally productivity in the Canadian automotive industries has been well below that of the United States. The trend to a greater variety of models and styles intensified this problem for Canadian producers, but under the new program, with a bigger output of fewer models, it has been possible to achieve greater specialization and, consequently, greater productivity. During the period 1961 to 1963 the average annual increase in productivity was 5 per cent with respect to vehicles assembled in Canada. From 1965 to 1967 this annual increase reached 8 per cent, and so it is estimated that the productivity gap between Canada and the United States in the automotive field has now been reduced to about 20 per cent. This is obviously still too high, and efforts will be made by all concerned to reduce it further.
The success of the over-all operation was not entirely painless. In order to take advantage of these production and trade opportunities many parts manufacturers have found it necessary to undertake major re-equipment and expansion programs. Smaller manufacturers in Canada have always formed an important part of the automotive industry. These firms wished to play a role under the automotive program, which was designed in several specific ways to take their interests into account. For them the Department of Industry introduced the automotive adjustment assistance program to ensure that they would be able to obtain adequate financing on reasonable terms in order to modernize and reequip their plants. This program provides for loans to automotive parts manufacturers and suppliers of materials, accessories and tooling used in the automotive industry. The repayment period of a loan made under this program is related to the borrower's capacity to repay and the circumstances of the loan, and may extend over a period of up to 20 years.
Since the initiation of the program 68 loans valued at $55 million have been made to assist Canadian automotive producers to expand their operations and make them more efficient, and 17 other cases are presently under investigation.
Supply-Industry
Also, in order to reduce the costs of Canadian automotive parts makers and thus improve their ability to compete for North American markets, a program has been initiated by the department to remit duties on imported production machinery and equipment which are not available from Canadian producers within the time needed to meet production schedules. In order to keep hon. members informed of the growth of this program, I might indicate that my information to April 29, 1968, shows that 170 applications have been received and remissions of $2.9 million have been granted. My latest figures with respect to the amount of remissions show $3.24 million in remissions on machinery imported into Canada. This is so much expense that the producers did not have to meet.
Many Canadian parts manufacturers are now supplying not only the domestic markets but are shipping substantial quantities of components to export markets.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that you are quite aware of the importance of the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations, and you may like to know that the Department of Industry has been involved in developing programs in order to make it possible for Canadian manufacturers to take advantage of all the possibilities afforded by the Kennedy round.
The first program I would like to mention is the general adjustment assistance program, which was announced in March, 1968, very recently, relatively speaking. In circumstances of freer world trade it was essential that Canada's secondary industry should develop greater competitive strength. This situation directed that the major objectives of industrial adjustment policy should be, (a) to derive as much benefit as possible from widening markets and increasing scope for greater specialization and longer production runs, and (b) to assist firms adversely affected to adapt effectively to more competitive conditions. These are the purposes of the general adjustment assistance program.
The first feature of the program is the offer, by the Department of Industry, of insurance on the major share of the risk of loss on adjustment assistance loans made by private lenders. The second feature is the offer of direct loans to firms that have been seriously injured, or threatened with serious injury, as a result of reductions in the Canadian tariff, and which are unable to borrow the funds they require from the private sector under the insured loan program. The

December 2, 1968
Supp ly-Industry
third feature of the program is the offer of technical and professional advice to firms. The department will share the cost of such consulting services with the firm to the extent considered appropriate in each case, but the department's share will not exceed 50 per cent.
These are the three features of the general adjustment assistance program. Again, one is insurance of loans made by the private sector, the second is direct loans, and the third is technical assistance.
To date 377 inquiries have been received, 90 per cent of which have been for insurance of private loans and 10 per cent for direct loans. A total of 80 cases are under direct study, two have been approved and one has been rejected.
It is estimated that in the next five years insured loans totalling half a billion dollars and direct loans totalling $45 million will be made under this program. Requirements for consulting grants are expected to amount to $5 million in the same period. For 1968-69 we are asking spending authority for direct loans and consulting grants in the amount of $10 million-that is vote L75-and $1 million under vote 3.

I would now like to say a word about another program of the Department of Industry, arising from the Kennedy Round, the machinery program. It is an extension of what I said earlier about the machinery program within the framework of the Can-ada-U.S. automotive agreement.
This program, which is defined by tariff item 42700-1 and came into force on January 1, 1968, has a twofold objective. Its first purpose is to promote greater efficiency by enabling the industry to get production equipment at the lowest possible prices. Secondly, it enables the Canadian machinery industry, that is machinery producers, to make the best possible use of the rate which, in the future, will apply with more certainty to the products they make.
Allow me to explain, Mr. Chairman. The main aspects of that program are twofold. First, it will set up a single tariff for imported machinery. Those duties which until now could reach 22J per cent are now set at 15 per cent for the countries enjoying the most favoured nation status and at 2J per cent for those enjoying the British preferential tariff. All those tariffs which varied
[Mr. Pepin. 1
so much previously have been reduced to a single tariff of 15 per cent.
It will be recalled that previously Canadian machinery producers had to prove that they were in a position to meet 10 per cent of local consumer needs before getting that protection. They no longer have to prove that; now, once again, they are automatically protected, and by a single tariff.
The second aspect of that program is a provision allowing for the remission of customs duties by the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of Industry, when such machinery is not made by Canadian producers and such remission is in the public interest. That is, I think, a happy compromise between the interests of the buyer-importer, that is the man who needs the machinery to produce other things, and the interests of the Canadian machinery producers.
It is impossible, in fact, to produce in Canada all the equipment needed by our industry. The needs are too varied and very often machinery producers in other countries have developed special machines and it would not be very economic for us to try to compete. Therefore, that equipment not produced in Canada enters the country duty free -because of that program and in the best interest of the buyer, the Canadian industrialist and also, I think, the Canadian public.
On the other hand, if a Canadian company produces that type of machinery, its market is reasonably well protected. I feel this is an excellent compromise between the interests of the manufacturer, who needs equipment and must pay as little as possible for it, and those of the Canadian machinery producer. That is the compromise the legislation I have mentioned has put into effect.
The program applies to approximately 60 per cent of the $700 million worth of annual imports in that field. One can see therefore that the program will cost the receiver general, in losses, roughly $45 million a year. I feel everyone will admit that this is an excellent piece of legislation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I should also like to say a few words on the important program on productivity in the defence material or military equipment industry. That program takes in two others: the defence export development program set up in 1964, and the defence industries plant modernization program set up in 1959. You
December 2, 1968

will find those estimates under votes 5 and L75.
The defence industry production program has four objectives:
First, to reduce the purchase price of military material purchased by the Canadian Department of National Defence for the use of the Canadian army.
Second, to develop, in Canada, an industrial capacity in the field of military equipment, with a view to its benefiting from the international agreements between Canada and its allies in the sharing of military equipment production contracts. As you know, there are agreements between Canada and the States, Canada and England and others the purpose of which is to enable the producers in each one of those countries to benefit from the defence contracts in the other countries.
Those then are the two first aims but it seems that the others are at least as important.
Third, to benefit from the advantages of highly advanced modem technology and administrative techniques, usually inherent in military research and production which are often in the very forefront of the technological and business management development. The program aims directly to allow Canadian industrial sectors to benefit from this progress.
Fourth, to increase progressively civil applications that are directly related to military production and sometimes depend upon it. I believe all members know to what extent progress in the industrial civil field is closely related to the one in the militry equipment field. One very seldom sees an ultra-modern product, ahead of its time in the industrial field, that has not been influenced by defence contracts distributed in Canada or in other countries; this is due to the close relations existing nowadays between the military and civil areas of industrial development. We may not like it, we may deplore it, but it is a fact, if not unavoidable, at least undeniable.
Under such a program, Mr. Chairman, government aid is granted to that industry to enable it to obtain, before any preliminary technical work, the necessary equipment for the production of new products designed in Canada for the world markets.

Among the projects that have received assistance are communications and aircraft navigation systems, gas turbine engines for
Supply-Industry
aircraft, flight safety and simulation equipment, information display facilities, and so on. Since its inception 165 projects have been supported under this program. Expenditures today amount to $148 million. Of the projects supported, some 120 costing $99 million have been completed and are achieving sales. The value of sales resulting from these is expected to reach $2.4 billion during the sales life of the products. There obviously have been a few failures, but there have been a number of success stories in these cases of assistance given by the federal government for the development of the defence industry.
I would have liked to say more about industrial research and development, but the time is getting short. In this field the department has three major programs.
The first is the industrial research institutes program. In December, 1966, the department introduced a plan to assist Canadian universities in establishing and administering industrial research institutes. The basic aim is to draw on university staff and facilities to help alleviate the shortage of scientific and technical resources available to industry as a whole and to provide scientific services to smaller firms which cannot afford to maintain and staff their own research facilities. Grants to four Canadian universities totalling about $475,000 had been approved under the program by the end of the year. For this year we are asking $240,000.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The next program is more important at least in financial terms. It is called the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. The initials are IRDIA. That is a name I would not give to my daughter but it describes well, the Industrial Research and Development Incentives Act. This act, dated June 1967, has been providing general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada. Under section 70 of the federal Income Tax Act an allowance can be made for deduction of all expenditures of a current and capital nature made for scientific research. Over and above that, under IRDIA, Canadian Corporations are also entitled to apply to the department for a cash grant or for a credit against federal income tax liabilities amounting to 25 per cent of all their capital expenditures for scientific research and development in Canada, and 25 per cent of the increase in their current expenditures in Canada for scientific research and development over the average

December 2, 1968
Supply-[DOT]Industry
of such expenditures in the preceding five years.
Corporations must undertake to exploit the results of their research and development work in Canada and must be free to market products resulting from their research and development to all countries in the world. As of today, December 2, 728 applications for grants totalling $44,500,000 have been received. A total of 318 applications to the value of $8 million have been approved, and we have $31.3 million in the vote for 1968-69.
The last of these programs for industrial research is PAIT, program for the advancement of industrial technology. Under this program the department underwrites the development of new or improved products or processes which involve a significant advance in technology and which offer good prospects for commercial exploitation. The department pays 50 per cent of the development costs. If the project is successful there is an obligation for repayment, but if it is a failure no such obligation exists.
Forty new development projects estimated to cost $8 million were approved in 1968, bringing the total number of projects supported under the program since its inauguration to 160 valued at $44 million.
One interesting detail is that several companies which have successfully completed projects have begun to repay the department's contribution. Another interesting detail is that 22 of these projects were successfully completed. Their cost was $1,400,000 and the sales potential is $95 million in five years. So, for an investment of $1,400,000 we will have a sales potential for these Canadian goods of $95 million. The benefit ratio is rather extraordinary. I cannot say they are all like that, but a good number of them have been.

I should like to conclude my remarks by taking a minute or two to talk about industrial design. The improvement of industrial design, or industrial aesthetics, if you prefer, is one of the most important ways there are to make Canadian products more competitive.
To this end, the department has set up several programs of assistance to industry and of consumer information. A sum of $678,430 will be allocated to those programs in 1968-69. I shall mention only some of those programs.
There is the "Canada-Design 67". I should perhaps say first of all that the word "design" is accepted, even in French. This program

was undertaken in 1965 in order to promote the manufacturing of Canadian products which could be used for centennial projects. This allowed reference lists on the aesthetic merits of the various products to be drawn up for the use of those who planned the centennial projects.
"Canada-Design 67" catalogues were distributed to many architects, contractors and buyers, as well as to retail salesmen and businessmen, both in Canada and abroad.
In order to stimulate further the sale of these products, a series of Design 67 exhibitions were organized in various centres in Canada and they attracted more than 100,000 visitors. The products which attracted the most attention were also widely publicized in Canadian and foreign newspapers.
During the whole of Expo 67 the Department made a study of products especially conceived for our universal exhibition in order to select those which could best lend themselves to commercial production. This project goes under the name "Design Expo 67." 150 products were selected as worthy of commercial promotion, and catalogues were prepared containing photographs, the name of the manufacturer, prices and other information concerning these products.
The department organized two design competitions, the costs being shared with industrialist associations. The object was to recognize the achievements of Canadian designers by offering prizes to the best works, and publicity to their authors. The Design Canada structural steel competition, designed to reward the authors of remarkable achievements in an original application of structural steel to the construction of buildings and bridges, attracted 62 competitors.
There was another competition for concrete works. I have a. long list, Mr. Chairman, but I will spare the details to the house.
The year 1967 has seen the outcome of an important project: the opening of a new Design Canada Centre at Place Bonaventure, in Montreal. Here again, the purpose is to improve aesthetic qualities of products made in Quebec in particular, and in Canada in general. Furthermore, the Toronto Design Canada Centre is stirring an ever-increasing interest among the public; 84,786 people visited it this year as against 46,614 last year. Nine specialized exhibitions have been set up there.
Before closing, I should like to mention the Design Canada service. As one can see, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to advertise a little
December 2, 1968

these various sectors of my department which have obvious merits. It is a consulting service intended for Canadian industrialists so that they may collect material on matters of design. The Design Canada service includes a reference library, books, periodicals, technical movements, and a repertory of Canadian industrial designers which includes information on the members of the profession and the specialized services in this field.
In the field of design, Mr. Speaker, I have been and I continue to be particularly interested since, in my opinion, if Canadian products do not compete with foreign products as to appearance, in this sector, that is, if they are sturdy and well-made, but inelegant and unattractive, tremendous opportunities for sales, and for exports in particular, will certainly be missed.
These are, Mr. Speaker, some comments on the activities of my department. I could say a lot more but I shall provide now my hon. colleagues with the opportunity to give me some advice.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the minister's introductory remarks in respect of the estimates of the Department of Industry, but I would much rather he had taken the time to tell us whether there is a Department of Industry, whether his department is industry and trade and commerce, or just exactly where we are in this program of amalgamation or unification. Surely we are out of order to discuss the estimates of the department of industry and trade and commerce because such a department does not exist. We in this house have not passed legislation setting up this department.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, Your Honour was very clear in pointing out at my request that we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Industry.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to ask the minister whether the Department of Industry is now the department of industry and trade and commerce?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, we are concerned now only with the Department of Industry.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.l


Alfred Dryden Hales: I am still confused. I understand that the Department of Industry has been dismantled and is in the process of being amalgamated with trade and commerce. We
Supply-Industry
have even gone so far as to call it the department of industry, trade and commerce in the blue book of estimates. I am confused on this issue. The minister says we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Industry. This department is being amalgamated with the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Trade and Commerce has moved from its original building on Wellington Street to the building which housed the Department of Industry. This is the situation as I understand it.
There is great confusion amongst the staff of the two departments. They do not know for whom they work. They do not know how/or where they are being fitted into the new department or program. I also hear there is a problem in fitting in some of the officials who were hired by the Department of Industry at much higher salaries than the prevailing salaries in the Department of Trade and Commerce. When you try to fit such a person into a lower pay schedule it creates a problem which I can quite easily understand.
In 1963 we on this side of the house gave the government of the day our views on setting up a department of industry. We said we thought it was folly and foolish to do so. We thought that the existing Department of Trade and Commerce could do anything the Department of Industry would endeavour to do. We were told that it would not be an expensive operation, that the government would take staff from the Department of Defence Production and the Department of Trade and Commerce and move them to the Department of Industry. However, when you look back on the whole program you see it has been nothing but a great big bill of expense. It has been a tremendous expense to the Canadian taxpayer.
The Department of Industry started in 1963-64 with a staff of 274. The next year that staff jumped to 786, an increase of 512 employees or 200 per cent. That is staff alone. With regard to money, in 1968 the estimates which this house approved totalled $117,586,000 to operate the Department of Industry. Now it is all being shattered, broken up and moved over to trade and commerce and all this money has gone down the drain. All this could have been saved by just adding to the department of trade and commerce the word "industry" and the taxpayers of this country would have been saved a great deal of money. But they have to pay the tune because the government would not listen to the advice of the Conservative opposition. Be that as it

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
may, that is what happened and we must move on from there. I hope that the house will soon be advised how this amalgamation is proceeding and what savings will be made as a result of amalgamating industry and trade and commerce.
I will be very brief in my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The minister made many very interesting observations about the Canada-U.S. Auto pact. I thank him for that. He gave us a great many statistics. I know he does not like statistics any more than I do. Nevertheless he had them prepared for him and gave them to us. They will be useful to look back on and read at our leisure. The minister also gave us all the highlights of the Canada-U.S. car pact, but I am still of the opinion I had when the pact was arrived at, namely, that the one fundamental point is that if you lose your economic birthright you lose your political birthright. By giving all these advantages to American subsidiaries in Canada we are handing them our political birthright. I think this is as true today as it was when the pact was instituted.
Another thing the minister and the government will have to sell to the Canadian public before this pact is a success is that the Canadian purchaser can buy a made in Canada automobile at the same price as his American cousin who lives in, say, Detroit. A car is made in Oakville, Canada, and shipped to Detroit, and an American can buy the same car for $200 or $300 less than a Canadian. When Canadians can purchase cars made in this country at the same price as Americans can, we will have proved to Canadian taxpayers that this program has been partially worth while and that they share the so-called benefit which the minister outlined this afternoon.
In addition, Mr. Chairman, we must not forget that at the time the pact was introduced we gave to the car manufacturers over $50 million in tariffs which we had previously collected. We gave this amount of money to the car manufacturers and allowed them to sell Canadian made cars in the United States for less money than we in Canada can buy them. When the Canadian purchaser of an automobile has the same benefit, the minister will have proven that the pact has been somewhat successful.
With the U.S.-Canada car pact came some very good things. I said at the time that there were two sides to every coin and there would be some good and some bad points to the pact. The minister has told us only about the good points this afternoon. He did not say it

was responsible for bringing into Canada parity of wages not only in this industry but in many other industries in Canada to which it has spread. There will be many more industries affected as time goes on. The minister did not tell us about the growing number of small industries that have been put out of business. He did not tell us that the large industries have been getting larger and the small ones getting smaller to the point where they had been forced out of business.
Members of the house who had in their ridings small manufacturers of car parts will tell you that these businesses have disappeared. The farther you go from the border, the more you will find they have disappeared. They have been replaced by larger industries which are in turn subsidiaries of American companies. This means there is more control by the United States of the Canadian economy. We have lost more of our political strength when we should be maintaining or regaining it. However, this was the government's decision and we just hope for the best. I might have missed some of the statistics the minister gave, but I think he dwelt more on export figures than on imports. We must remember that a great many cars and trucks have been imported into Canada, which fact offsets many of our exports.
However, Mr. Chairman, we are not here to debate the Canada-U.S. car pact but to study the estimates of the once Department of Industry. The minister says this department still exists. I propose to leave time for hon. members to deal with these estimates. Before we leave the matter of the amalgamation of departments and the setting up of new departments may I tell the committee that I know of a person who came to Ottawa to discuss a problem with the Department of Industry because he believed that department was concerned in his problem. He went to the Department of Industry and they told him it was not their problem and he should go to the Department of Trade and Commerce. He went to the Department of Trade and Commerce and was advised that it was really a problem for the Department of Industry. Finally the problem was settled by the Department of Labour. This man spent the greatest part of a day travelling between departments before he found the right one to deal with his problem. This illustrates the state of confusion that exists in these departments. I hope the situation will be ironed out before too long and that when a manufacturer comes to Ottawa with a problem he will be able to go to the Department of Industry,
December 2, 1968

Trade and Commerce and find the answer there.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The former minister, now President of the Treasury Board, spent a great deal of time in the house telling us what a wonderful department the Department of Industry was going to be. Last year he said that most of the time had been spent in getting staff and adopting policies and programs, but the whole idea was to increase productivity in Canada. I think it is fair to say that productivity in Canada has not increased to the same extent as it has in other countries of the world. Even with all this expenditure on hiring of experts in the field, the department still cannot come forward and say that productivity has increased in Canada at the same rate as in other countries. This department, therefore, has not produced the results we were told it would in the field of industry.
We have seen many examples of duplication and overlapping. The Department of Industry has sent trade missions abroad and they have bumped into trade missions from the Department of Trade and Commerce. I grant you that they were there on different missions but there was some overlapping. These trade missions were nice junkets for a lot of people but there was a lot of overlapping and expense. The Department of Industry started interfering with the Department of Agriculture by getting into the blueberry business in Nova Scotia. This was the business of the Department of Agriculture, but they got into it. The Department of Industry got mixed up with other departments such as the Department of Labour and the Department of Trade and Commerce. The whole situation became confused.
I am told that now the Department of Industry will be amalgamated with the Department of Trade and Commerce and these difficulties will be overcome. I hope that the amalgamated staff of the department of industry, trade and commerce will be no larger than it is now so that a lot of this waste and extravagance will be eliminated. I should mention, too, that I feel the programs under PAIT and the general assistance loan in connection with the Kennedy round have been very good ideas. I believe a lot of assistance has been given to industry in connection with their various problems in this field. The department has done a good job in this area but that job could have been done by the Department of Trade and Commerce; we did not need the Department of Industry.
Supply-Industry
The minister did not say anything about the matter of grants which, according to the blue book, this year total almost $2 million for this department. A lot of these grants are for science research. Where are we going with these grants in the field of science? Why is aid being given by this department instead of through the science secretariat or council which directs all government science research? There is a great amount overlapping in the giving of grants to various universities, grants to this and that in the field of science. I feel these grants should be handled by a central board.
The minister did not mention the establishment of a national standards association. I happened to read in the Ottawa Journal for October 11 that the government was moving to set standards for goods. The article stated the federal government was preparing legislation to set up a council for the national coordination of standards in sizes, shapes and the general performance of Canadian goods. I understand that this council has been practically set up so far as staff are concerned and is functioning. One of these days the minister will come to the house and ask us to pass legislation to set up this council; yet it is already in operation. The article states also that officials hope the council will be off the ground within 12 months, but this will depend on getting legislation put before parliament early in 1969. Why put the cart before the horse? Why does the government not come to the house to get legislation passed and thus ascertain whether or not we approve of a national standards council for goods? If the house agrees, that is fine and the government can go ahead and set up this agency. However, the government should not ask us for $80,000 in the estimates to set up this council and then come back and ask us to pass legislation approving it.
We have been through this business so often. We have had instant departments and ministers. I do not mind instant coffee or instant tea but I do not like these instant departments that are set up. We have had other examples of this procedure. In fact, we are discussing estimates which appear in the estimate book under the heading "Department of Industry and Trade and Commerce", but there is no such department at the moment. I say to the minister and members of the government that they should introduce legislation so that we can discuss it, and if we are satisfied we will pass it. Then we will give the government the money to run the department. Now the government asks for the

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
money to run the show and then comes back to ask us it it is all right.
The same thing was done by the department of manpower in connection with the adult training program. The program was in operation throughout the country before we passed the bill establishing it. I know I am rather off the subject when I mention manpower and adult training, but all hon. members know what a great shemozzle that was in this country. There still is a great deal of confusion connected with this training program. With these few observations I will conclude my remarks. No doubt there will be many questions to be asked as we consider these estimates.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce extol the virtues of the Canada-United States auto pact I was reminded of the words of the former minister of industry when he proposed the plan. It seemed to me that, although this minister is a French Canadian and the former minister is an English Canadian, really the more things change in a Liberal government the more they are the same. We have had an explanation of this plan which reminded me of the famous maxim of Mr. Charles Wilson when he was secretary of defence for the United States. Mr. Wilson had been president of the General Motors Corporation. On one occasion he said, "what is good for G.M. is good for the American people". As I listened to the minister I could not help but think that the minister really had the same view, that what is good for the auto companies of Canada must be good for the Canadian people. Certainly that is not entirely true.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I remind the minister and members of the house that the purpose of the auto pact was to provide free trade, not for you, Mr. Chairman, or for me or other buyers of automobiles in Canada but for the giant automobile companies in the United States and their mouse partners in Canada. It enabled them to rationalize their production to the extent that they could exchange automobiles and automobile parts without paying the customary duty. What the minister did not tell us this afternoon was that the sweetener that the Canadian people gave these poor automobile companies like General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, who between them own billions of dollars worth of assets in the United States, Canada and other countries in the world, was $50

million in tax revenue as an inducement to enter this pact.
When the pact was first proposed the then minister told the Canadian people that one of the results of the pact would be a reduction in automobile prices in Canada to the extent that the price in Canada would approximate that paid in the United States for the same automobile. For many years we were told that automobile prices in Canada had to be substantially higher than prices in the United States because the market in Canada was much smaller, the production run for individual models was smaller, and therefore productivity was lower and automobiles cost more. The minister has already said that as a result of the pact the industry has been rationalized to a large extent and the number of models manufactured in Canadian factories has been cut sharply. There is a flow from Canada to the United States which has made productivity in both Canada and the U.S. increase.
When he introduced this pact the former minister of industry, now President of the Treasury Board, in a statement on January 15, 1965, dealing with the effect of the pact on the cost of automobiles had this to say:
Of significance for the Canadian consumer is the fact that over several years, the plan should progressively make possible increased efficiency and reduced costs. Indeed, this is one of the principal objectives of the entire program. In line with the attainment of lower costs of production, it is to be anticipated, as the program develops, that the forces of competition will gradually result in savings for Canadian consumers in the form of a narrowing differential between Canadian and United States prices for motor vehicles and components.
It was not only the opposition members of parliament who took the minister seriously, Mr. Chairman. The Vancouver Sun, a newspaper that members from British Columbia will know better than I to be a supporter of the Liberal party, published an editorial in its edition of April 14, 1965, from which I should like to place on record one or two sentences:
Among other things, Mr. Walter Gordon's forthcoming budget will have to defend the Canadian-American free trade deal in automotive products. It can be easily defended if it means that automobile prices will soon fall. If they don't, the deal is quite indefensible.
Then the Winnipeg Free Press, published in my own city, made this comment in its issue of April 17, 1965.
A much larger question now faces the Canadian government as a result of the free trade deal. It is whether this ostensibly constructive agreement will do any good for the Canadian consumer or whether it will benefit only a few rich automobile manufacturers.
December 2, 1968

These comments were made two and a half years ago, Mr. Chairman. What is the position today? The hon. member for Wellington who has just resumed his seat referred to the fact that even making allowance for the price differential between Canada and the United States and the different government taxes, both federal and provincial, cars produced in Oakville and sold in Buffalo are cheaper than the same models sold in Toronto. Therefore we must ask ourselves how this is possible. Either the Ford Motor Company is selling in Buffalo cars produced at Oakville at a loss

 and I do not think that even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce believes that-or the price the company charges in Canada for its products is exorbitant and its profits are similarly exorbitant.
The automobile companies of Canada, which are almost exclusively U.S. owned, have been very careful not to reveal the profits they make in Canada. Canadian governments have been too stupid to pass legislation that would require the automobile companies, like any other company in Canada, to issue annual statements detailing their turnover, profits, capital investments and so on. Several years ago both the Chrysler Corporation and American Motors did submit figures, not to the Canadian government but to the United States securities and exchange commission at a time when the companies were trying to float a new loan in the United States. These figures indicated that the net profit amounted to 30 per cent on invested capital per year. Although the figures applied to those particular years, that is probably their proportion of profit every year.
The Toronto Globe and Mail, which is not a very radical newspaper but is very widely read and respected in the business community of Canada, had this to say about the profits of automobile manufacturers in a report on January 19, 1965:
According to one estimate, the average annual profit of the auto manufacturers often has run to around 30 per cent of their net worth, that is the total amount of their invested capital, compared with a more normal 10 to 15 per cent return in other industries.
While the balance sheets of most of the major producers are closed to public scrutiny, one federal official estimated that in a good year the profit earned by one of the leading Canadian auto producers might run as high as 80 to 90 per cent of invested capital.
This calculation is made by the writer of this article in the Toronto Globe and Mail and I think it merits the minister's study.
Supp ly-Industry
Having made these comments about the prices of Canadian automobiles failing to come down and about what 1 consider to be the exorbitant profits made by the automobile manufacturing companies, I should like to deal for a moment with some of the good things that the minister had to say about the results of the auto pact. I agree with him that there has been a large increase in the production of automobiles in Canada, and this is good. The trade imbalance has been reduced from $683 million in 1966 to $350 million. Those are the figures I understood the minister to give when he spoke earlier and I jotted them down. The average level of employment has increased from about 60,000 workers in this country to 80,000. An increase of 20,000 is substantial and this too is all to the good. Productivity has already increased, as I have said. The minister estimates that the gap in productivity between the United States and Canada has been reduced to 20 per cent.
The minister went on to say that a program of loans has been worked out for automobile parts manufacturers. As I noted his statement, 68 loans to a value of $55 million have been made to automobile parts manufacturers. That is good. We have also been told that automobile manufacturers have been permitted to benefit, to the tune of several million dollars, by tariff arrangements with respect to machinery that is not made in Canada. That also is good. Nevertheless the difficulties with regard to this plan which were discussed in 1965 are still there. Those difficulties were spoken about eloquently last week during the estimates of the Minister of Labour by the hon. members for Essex East and Essex West, who represent the automobile workers of Windsor and who know more about these problems than I do, coming from Winnipeg.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Without going over ground that has previously been gone over, may I commend to the hon. member for Essex East a reading of Hansard for the month of May, 1965. It will be seen by so doing that a number of hon. members, of whom I was one, predicted then to the minister responsible for industry precisely what would happen. We said that although productivity would go up this would prove of little consolation to workers who might be laid off. Right now about 1,000 Ford workers have been laid off.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Temporarily.

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry


David Orlikow: It is very fine for the minister, the hon. member for Essex East, for me and everyone else here to be philosophical and say this is a temporary lay-off. After all, we are paid every month as long as we remain members of parliament. Ford workers who have been laid off for the next 18 months will not be paid-


Jean-Luc Pepin: They get 95 per cent of their income, do they not?


An hon. Member:: All of them?


David Orlikow: I think the minister will find that only those workers who have worked with the company for some period of time will benefit to that extent. A substantial number of the people who have been laid off, in fact, practically all, are new employees who will obtain little benefit from the company's supplementary benefits. The minister ought to read the speeches of the hon. member for Essex East who told us precisely what would happen. I say that what has happened ought not to have happened. When the plan was drafted the union representing the Canadian automobile workers did not oppose it. In fact, the union endorsed and welcomed the plan and called on the government to take precautionary steps to ensure that the workers would receive the kind of sweet, loving attention which the government gave to the employers. We looked after the employers in this field by giving them what amounted to a $50 million subsidy under new tariff arrangements.
When the employers are caught in a squeeze because of any rationalization brought about by the automobile plan, they are looked after. Yet, as the union said in 1965, the government simply refuses to make a similar kind of provision for the employees. The government knew what would happen because the unions warned it. The minister need only look at the correspondence that two former ministers of labour, Mr. Nicholson and the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration, have had on the subject to see that this is so. The unions proposed a series of measures to protect workers who would be caught in the squeeze.
Credit must be given where credit is owing, and I must say that the minister was interested in this matter. The deputy minister of labour, Dr. Hawthorne, was most interested in the union's proposals. Why did the government not go ahead with those proposals? I will tell you why, Mr. Chairman. Because the companies refused to co-operate-that's why

-and because the government did not have the courage to bring in legislation implementing the union's proposals and the proposals made by Mr. Justice Freedman.
Although I was not here last week when the estimates of the Department of Labour were before the house I read the minister's speech and I commend him for it. After the speeches we had from the former minister of labour, last week's speech certainly sounded wonderful. All the same, two years have elapsed since Mr. Justice Freedman handed down his report. How long must we wait before the suggestions of the report are implemented in legislation? The former minister did not think it was necessary to pass legislation in this field, believing that the companies, out of the goodness of their hearts, would adopt the basic principles of the Freedman report through collective bargaining. Of course, that has not happened. How many legal or illegal stoppages must we undergo before the government brings in legislation to implement the suggestions of the Freedman report?
Now we are told that we must wait for the Woods commission to make its report. When will that be? If the Woods commission makes no special recommendations about the basic principles of the Freedman report, must we wait for the findings of another committee or another commission? We are dealing with human lives and, at the moment, with 1,000 jobs. The Ford Motor Company at Windsor has acted in a way no different from the way thousands of other Canadian corporate employers have acted.
Our labour legislation says that except where there is a special clause in a labour-management agreement that prohibits a company from acting in a certain manner, a company has the right to manage its own affairs. The corollary to all this is that when a company makes a change such as is now contemplated while an agreement is in force the union by law is precluded from striking. While an agreement between the union and the company is in force the union is estopped from doing anything about the sort of change we see here. I can only say that had the government listened to what the unions said in 1965, had it set up the kind of labour-management discussions that was then suggested and had it followed through with the legislation that was proposed, this kind of thing would not have happened. The government must have known what would happen if it did not listen.
December 2, 1968

I concur with the remarks of the hon. member for Essex East who said that it is a disgrace in 1968 for the Ford Motor Company, which has tremendous assets, not to give its employees more than a week's notice that they are to be laid off for a year or 18 months. It is more than a disgrace it is an insult to the kind of society in which we live. I wish to put on the record what the union said to the minister concerned and to the government of Canada in 1965. On January 16, 1965 the international president of the United Automobile Workers, Mr. Walter Reuther, said:
We in the U.A.W. are pleased that an agreement has been worked out by the U.S. and Canadian governments to provide for a common market in automobiles and parts.
We have long favoured trade liberalization and expansion and we have advocated for many years the creation of such a common market.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
We are confident that a rational division of labour in the production of autos and parts as between the United States and Canada will prove to be in the best interests of the economies, the consumers and the workers of both countries.
Rather than being a hard-headed labour leader, it seems to me Mr. Reuther was being pretty idealistic, and in retrospect somewhat naive, I suppose. Certainly the consumers of automobiles in Canada have not derived any benefit from this fact during the last two and a half years. Mr. Reuther went on to say:
The efficiencies resulting from such a division of labour will reduce production costs, particularly in Canada where low volume has prevented fuil and effective use of mass production techniques. The industry	is	morally obligated	to pass	thesecost savings	on	to consumers by	way of	lower
prices and thus expand sales and production.
They have, without doubt, expanded sales and production. Mr. Reuther went on:
Lower prices would mean increased employment in both countries for auto workers as well as for workers	in	other industries	which supplymaterials, parts	and components	used in	auto
factories.
Later he added:
In order to achieve the more rational division of labour made possible by the agreement, there will inevitably be some adjustment in production within and between both countries. This could result in hardships and dislocation for some groups of auto workers and their families unless effective steps are taken to tide them over the transition period.
We call upon both governments to assure that adequate protection will be provided for those who would otherwise be adversely affected by the agreement. It would be wholly improper for the auto corporations and car consumers to enjoy
Supply-Industry
the benefits of the agreement while auto workers and their families bear the burden and sacrifices resulting from it.
We are now able to see what has happened. The consumers have got nothing. The auto workers who are actually in employment are doing fine. But those who are being put out of work, like the 1,000 employees of the Ford Motor Company at Windsor, are experiencing the bad effects of this rationalization.
The auto workers went on to spell out in detail what the government and the industry should do to protect workers from the kind of thing which has been happening during the past month at the Ford plant. Mr. George Burt, at that time the Canadian director of the U.A.W., said in his report to the Canadian U.A.W. council in March of 1965:
Up to this point, to our knowledge, neither the Department of Industry which developed this "free trade" program, nor the Department of Labour which is responsible for the manpower and employment aspects of the program, have made any study whatever of the impact of this program on Canadian workers' jobs and incomes. It is therefore absolutely essential that we should be in a position to inform Mr. Drury and Mr. MacEachen of what is taking place under this program as soon as that information becomes available so that we can demand that action be taken, and if it is not, then those that speak for us in the House of Commons in Ottawa can demand to know of the government why the necessary action has not been taken.
Well, we have been asking this government for two and a half years to take action and, as I have indicated, nothing has been done. When we discussed this matter two and a half years ago the hon. member for Essex West, as he then was, scoffed at these pleas. He said we were making mountains out of molehills and anticipating difficulties which would not arise. I notice that the hon. member made a very different speech last week from the one he made in May, 1965. He has learned that we were right and that the auto workers' union was right in predicting what would happen.
The United Auto Workers' union sent a memorandum to the minister of labour early in 1965 spelling out the six steps which it believed the government should endorse so as to cushion the shock of the kind of dislocation which is now taking place. I should like to put this memorandum on record again in the hope that the government and the present minister will have learned something from experience. Even though the implementation of the proposals at this date would be late in coming, it is better to be late than to be altogether wrong. Here is what was proposed

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
in the memorandum sent to the then minister of labour:
1.	Preferential Hiring: to ensure that workers who lose their jobs as a result of the program will be given every possible assistance to remain in the industry and not lose seniority, pension, vacation and other credits, as well as the level of wages they had achieved in the industry.
2.	An earnings-related adjustment benefit payable during the period of transfer from one job to another or during the period of retraining.
3.	Transfer Allowance:	covering the cost of
transportation of the displaced worker and his family as well as his furnishings to a new location after he is re-employed, or to a training centre away from home.
4.	Age Discrimination: Federal government action to end hiring practices in the industry so that older workers who may be displaced will not be refused employment with auto producers whose work force is expanding as a result of the free trade program.
5.	Advance Notice: Federal government initiative to obtain management co-operation in having advance notice of major changes in the levels of employment in the auto and auto parts industry in order to minimize the effects of dislocation.
6.	Supplementary pension benefits payable to older displaced auto workers who wish to retire at their own option rather than to remain in the industry if they regard themselves as unable to take advantage of retraining.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether I could be given just a minute or two in which to finish my speech?


Albert Béchard: Does the committee give the hon. member permission to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: The specific proposals put forward by Mr. Burt at that time on behalf of the workers in the auto industry look like a charter of human rights. Had the government taken action at that time, the present hardship and dislocation might have been avoided. I submit that the government could have done one of two things. First, it could have used the power it had at that time with the companies. After all, the government could have refused to go ahead with the auto pact, an arrangement which would obviously bring definite advantages to the companies. Alternatively, the government might have passed legislation to protect the rights of the workers. Instead, the government chose to ignore the pleas made on behalf of those employed in the industry, so today we are facing a serious problem at Ford in Windsor. Tomorrow it may arise in Oshawa, as it did several

years ago. Next month or next year it may arise in Oakville, and so on down the line.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
If the government really believes in the just society, about which the Prime Minister has spoken so often and so eloquently, it ought to translate such glib phrases and slogans into concrete action, into legislation, into direction to the automobile companies whereby the benefits of the agreement worked out by the Department of Industry will give the workers the same kind of protection as the government's programs now give to the automobile manufacturers, a group of companies which needs less assistance from the government of Canada than any other group of manufacturers in the country. This agreement has had a very profound effect on the Canadian economy as a whole and some pretty drastic effects on individual automobile workers.
The agreement has been in effect for almost three years. Unless the government is prepared to do as I suggest I can only conclude, and I am sure the 380 workers already laid off at the Ford company and the 700 more who will be laid off during the next few months can only conclude, that the just society was just an election gimmick on the part of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Anderson:: Mr. Chairman, we have heard various gloomy words from the other side of the chamber. I would like to emphasize some of the more positive aspects of the Kennedy round tariff reductions which will have a decisive and favourable effect on the Canadian economy. The successful conclusion of these negotiations has provided Canada with new access to world markets for a much wider range of Canadian products than was the case in the past, including many manufactured goods. These new opportunities for increasing the sale of our products abroad have made it possible for Canadian industry to realize some of the economies of volume production and greater specialization which other countries enjoyed in the past. I think these factors will be very important to our country too.
The improved access to export markets is a most important factor in shaping our economy to meet the competitive demands of the future. I think we all know that this is inevitable in a country such as ours which devotes about 20 per cent of its production to exports.
The Kennedy round was the most extensive trade and tariff negotiation ever undertaken
December 2, 1968

Supply-Industry
under the auspices of the GATT. The negotiations covered all classes of products and dealt not only with tariffs but also with non-tariff barriers. To give some idea of the scope of the negotiations, there were more than 50 countries participating in them, including all the major trading countries and some 30 of the so-called developing countries.
The major participating countries are making tariff cuts on 70 per cent of their dutiable industrial imports, of which some two-thirds will be reductions of 50 per cent or more. Under the most favoured nation principle of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade these concessions are automatically and unconditionally being extended to all GATT members.
The most important long term benefits for the Canadian economy are the across the board reductions being made by the principal industrial countries in the manufactured goods sector. The 50 per cent reductions being made for a wide range of goods in this area will result in final rates of 10 per cent or less for a very wide range of manufactured products.
Canada is a relatively small supplier of manufactured goods on the world markets. Therefore we see that already there has been a marked growth in Canadian exports of fully manufactured products in recent years. As a matter of fact exports of such products have risen from 14 per cent to 34 per cent of the total Canadian export trade. To look at this in another way, exports of fully manufactured goods have grown at a rate nearly five times faster than that of total exports.
While the Kennedy round tariff reductions will substantially assist in expanding trade in products now being exported, they will also encourage Canadian producers to look into the possibilities of exporting goods which hitherto may have sold only in domestic markets. This twofold expandion of trade is important for several reasons. While our traditional resource-based industries will remain an important factor in our export trade, the increase in trade in these products would not provide for the amount of expansion required in our over-all trade to sustain our economy at viable levels. Therefore we must concentrate on the manufactured goods sector, which is the fastest growing sector in world trade. Expansion in this sector and in the service industries will have to provide the employment opportunities for our rapidly growing labour force.

I would now like, Mr. Chairman, to make a few brief remarks about the Kennedy round as a whole. Those negotiations are the sixth of the great tariff negotiations which took place under GATT since its interim application in 1947. They were also the most important trade negotiations held until then-if one considers the number of participating countries, the value of the trade operations that will be affected by those agreements and the consequences of the tariff reductions.
The negotiations covered all types of industrial and agricultural products and dealt not only with customs tariffs but also with some non-tariff problems. It was agreed that, as much as possible, and subject to general reciprocity, the tariff negotiations would tend to realize uniform or general linear reductions of 50 per cent.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, the advantages arising from the tremendous scope of the Kennedy Round have a decisive and lasting effect on Canadian exporters as a whole. As the export trade accounts for-as I just said in English-20 per cent of the total Canadian production, these negociations will have a great impact on the whole economy, provided the Canadian export industry is in a position to avail itself of the opportunities offered in the coming years.
It is in the manufactured goods sector that the tariff reductions are most striking and most important. It is the sector that offers the greatest possibilities for the expansion of the export trade. The adjustment assistance program will be available for a specialization and a restructuration of the Canadian industry which will be essential if manufactured goods are benefit by an easier access to export markets.
Mr. Chairman, may I refer for a few moments to that program. Maybe we have heard too much about what is wrong with the Kennedy Round, and not enough about what we have done here, in Canada, to promote the export of products covered by the Kennedy Round.
Mr. Chairman, the adjustment program comprises three parts.
First, the underwriting by the government of an important part of the risk of loss which the industrial assistance loans granted by private lenders involves; secondly, in exceptional cases, direct loans granted by the government to companies disadvantaged or in danger to be seriously disadvantaged because of the reductions of the Canadian tariff and

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
which cannot get underwritten adjustment loans; and thirdly, technical assistance to prepare adjustment programs.

I think that this program, if accepted by Canadian manufacturing industries, both unions and management, if it is accepted by the banks that are participating, and also by the government, should do much to encourage Canadian exports in this important field. It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that we will in future be hearing far more about this program, the adjustment assistance program, and perhaps this will be the method whereby we will not view the Kennedy round, as some members of the opposition seem to view it, as something detrimental but rather as a great area of opportunity for the ambitious Canadian exporter.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. Recent figures issued by the department of industry, trade and commerce show that in 1967 approximately 69,300 persons left the Atlantic provinces while only 63,800 entered those provinces. They illustrate the continual exodus from the maritime provinces to other parts of Canada. We all know, as has been stated many times in this house, that this situation could be cured by a stronger industrial base. I am concerned that in the changeover period from the industrial assistance programs that we now have to the new legislation the applications made by industry will not be processed. I realize that the minister's responsibility is fading out to a certain extent, but I see in the estimates that some of the A.D.I.A. officials are shown as being under the minister.
I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house that we are in a transitional period and, as the new minister of rural and urban development has admitted-I have one of his releases here which I shall not go into-it will be a fairly long time before we have the new legislation and before it takes full effect. I have heard that there are many industries that would be interested in industrial incentives or general assistance of some kind. The Atlantic Development Board, which is the responsibility of another minister, of course, is another agency involved.
I understand there are two or three avenues by which new industry could come to the Atlantic provinces. Whether or not these avenues are satisfactory is a matter I do not

wish to go into at this time. However, because of the change-over period which has been referred to by the hon. member for Wellington and the mix-up in the departments I have heard many complaints from industries which wish to obtain assistance whether it is under the old or new plan. There is provision in certain cases for some applications to be received, but I have not heard that these are being satisfactorily processed. I hope that the new minister of rural development will not lose sight of the desperate plight in which industry still finds itself in the Atlantic provinces and that he will see that every application is received and very favourably processed in this change-over period.
We all know the story of how Halifax, Saint John, Dartmouth and Fredericton were excluded under the industrial incentive plan. I realize that an additional measure was introduced to include them, but I do not believe it even had an opportunity to take effect before new legislation was brought in by the minister of rural and urban development. I believe I speak for everybody when I say we hope this works out, that these cities will be given the best treatment and that other cities will be brought in under some new plan that is as good as the old. I bring to the attention of the house that industries in the maritimes, whether small or large, new or not new, are puzzled. They do not know whether their applications should go forward. If they do go forward they certainly are not being processed favourably. I hope the minister will take a moment or two to at least give some guidance to these industries in this regard.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question or two of the minister with regard to item 10, grants approved by the Treasury Board to promote improvements in the manufacture of rapeseed products. What are the size and nature of these grants?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are still on vote 1. I think the hon. member is referring to vote 3.


Mr. Broadbenl:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the minister's speech with a great deal of interest. As is appropriate for members of the opposition I shall not waste time in commenting on those matters in respect of which we are in substantial agreement. I look with some interest at the history of the department of industry, trade and commerce. This department has gone through an
December 2, 1968

interesting metamorphosis in terms of organization. First, in 1963 the domestic commerce division was transferred to trade and commerce, and this provided the core for the new department. At that time the government of the day assured us that great objectives could be achieved by the effective co-ordination that would take place in respect of all our industrial affairs by reason of this department with its new core.
Then we had the integration of the department with the Department of Defence Production. Again the benefits of this new reorganization were brought before the house. We were told about the great economies of scale that would be obtained by the close integration of the two departments. However, the brand new marriage did not last very long. We then had the great division of 1966. We heard about the different sections of the department going around competing with each other. Now, once again, they are being integrated into the department of industry, trade and commerce.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The division took place in 1963.


John Edward Broadbent: Now we are waiting for a proper new format with new expectancies in terms of the co-ordination of industry.
I should like to speak on a couple of other matters. One of the disadvantages of following a number of other speakers is that one has the benefit of hearing at least half one's speech made by someone else. Therefore I can assure hon. members that my comments will be quite brief.
I wish to add a few observations to those already made on the subject of the auto pact. The first observation is a very general one but although it is general I do not think it is any less relevant to the auto pact, the automative industry or industry as a whole. I refer to the role of the trade union movement in the actual distribution of power within corporations. In the auto pact negotiations we see a good example of how the people most directly affected can be effectively removed from the decision-making centres in an industry. The auto pact originally was, and in terms of negotiations remains, substantially a product of the federal government negotiators and the representatives of management and industry. I am quite convinced that we would not have experienced what has happened in the past week at Ford Motor in Windsor had the trade union movement been directly involved in the original negotiations which led to the establishment of the auto pact
Supply-Industry
and in the other assessments which have developed in the past few months. The trade union movement, in respect of all sectors of industry rather than just the automotive industry, must have its power substantially increased in all areas in which it is directly affected. This is justice of the most elementary kind. We saw the effects of the absence of this power last week in the unilateral decision made by the directors of Ford.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The second aspect of the automative pact I should like to comment on relates to the issue of price parity. It has been suggested by a number of defenders of the pact that this was one of the goals which in part has been achieved. There can be no doubt about that because we have moved from an average price differential of 8 per cent between United States and Canadian prices in 1964 to 3 per cent, I understand, in the past year. Obviously there has been some real gain in this regard. However, I cannot understand why the Canadian government has refused to make this matter the subject of a contract or law. Why has the Canadian government not insisted that within a certain fixed period of time, perhaps by 1970, automative companies have similar average prices in the two countries? These would not necessarily have to be average retail prices because there are bound to be regional variations vis-a-vis manufacturers' dealers. Surely this could be a matter of contract. I suggest it should be a matter of contract.
We are faced with an ironic situation in that automobiles produced in Canada are sold in the United States at prices lower than those which prevail several hundred yards from the factory which produces them. This situation should not exist on the basis of any economic justification. When the minister again takes part in this discussion on his estimates I hope he will attempt to justify the absence of such a mandatory regulation.
Let me speak briefly about the pricing policies of the automobile industry, divorcing my remarks from the lack of regulation. We have observed constant increases in the prices of automobiles each year which have taken place as a result of some assumed divine right by the owners of this industry to increase prices without economic necessity. There is profit necessity but no other economic necessity. One of the leading automotive industry experts has pointed out-I refer

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
to Ralph Nader-that there is absolutely no relationship between costs and prices in this industry. This is an oligopolistic industry which is probably more powerful in Canada than in any other country. I suggest it is more powerful than many agencies of the federal government. It has increased prices to a greater extent than other industries in similar oligopolistic situations. Without any stretch of the imagination this industry is in such a position in our economy that it can virtually tax the public if members of the public wish to purchase its products. I suggest that such corporations should come under federal government regulations. One way of accomplishing this would be to establish a prices review board or a similar body with the type of responsibilities I have suggested by the N.D.P.
Let me turn now to what the government is doing in the Department of Industry in terms of research and development. Civil oriented programs of the government for the advancement of industrial technology provide substantially fewer benefits than those programs of industries involved in research and development for military purposes. Under the program for the advancement of industrial technology and the new defence development sharing programs the government pays approximately 50 per cent of the cost. Under the former arrangements a firm had to repay the loan, if the enterprise was successful, plus a competitive interest rate. In the case of defence research and development programs no repayment is required.
Under the new arrangements a defence industry embarking on a non-military program is eligible for this kind of defence grant. In other words, we are not only providing more incentives and rewards for industry moving in a military direction but we are now saying to such industry that if it will do research and development in the civilian rather than the military sector of the economy we will provide even more money. Does this not undermine entirely P.A.I.T. the program for advancement in industrial technology? If the benefits are much greater in respect of military-oriented industry, research and development, how will we ever encourage serious research and development in the non-military segments of our industry? I should like the minister to deal with this question at some point.
A recent article by N. H. Lithwick in the Journal of Canadian Studies points out that most of the money used for research and development provided under recent government programs is going into military areas.
[Mr. Broadbent.l
Over 50 per cent of the money used for research and development, provided from government funds, is being used for military purposes. Is this something of which Canadians should be proud? Should we, for example, be proud of the fact that in a recent speech to members of the Air Industries Association of Canada the minister said, "Your interests are mine"?
As the minister well knows, the group to which he was speaking is most heavily involved in the defence kind of research and development. I do not want to distort the significance of the minister's comment and am prepared to think that in a sense he was unconscious of the implications of what he said. But as one Canadian it seems to me at least that we are very much in danger of promoting a kind of industrial-military elite in the country, without any conscious motive of being interested in self-perpetuation as a war oriented economy but for very human reasons. Industries involved in this kind of work have millions of dollars at their disposal, their employees earn very high salaries upon which they come to depend, and they have research projects in which they become interested. We could find ourselves in exactly the same kind of situation as the United States, with an economy overwhelmingly dominated by war production and military research projects.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The late President Kennedy made comments about this kind of situation. In fact, one of the main projects of secretary of defence McNamara, had he remained in that position, would have been to do what he could to get the United States away from the overwhelming influence that is being exercised in that country by this overlapping interest of military research and industrial people. I suggest this is the kind of research that we in Canada seem to be promoting with government funds. Over 50 per cent of these funds are going toward such research. I suggest we will in the end be in exactly the same position as the United States.
I would like the minister to try to deal with this question. Perhaps he will suggest to me that my emphasis is misguided. I hope it is. I suggest that instead of indulging in this kind of expansion of military research we should get out of the whole business-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Edward Broadbent: -and buy weapons, if we need to, on the open, competitive market. I
December 2, 1968
COMMONS DEBATES	3381
am not saying we should get out of defence entirely, because that would be a ludicrous argument. But I suggest we should be spending our money for research and development in the private sector, that we should be looking at the sectors of Canadian geography and industry that could be viable in terms of international competition. We should be using government funds to encourage research and development in this area and should not be promoting a new kind of industrial-military, research-oriented elite in this country.


Albert Béchard: Shall vote 1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister whether he can give us a breakdown or report on the operations of the machinery advisory board under section 15 of the Department of Industry Act. Also, can the minister give us a breakdown of the expenditures of the board? In other words, what is the cost of the board in so far as its operations are concerned?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister wishes to reply to the questions asked up to this time or are we to proceed with vote 1?


Mr. Foresl:: Mr. Chairman, while we are considering the estimates of the Department of Industry and Trade and Commerce, I take the opportunity to congratulate the minister for his appointment to this important position. All those who know him for his intelligence, his devotion to duty, and to work, are happy he has been chosen for this tremendous job and we certainly expect his support for the economic development of the less favoured areas in particular which need government support and help to actualize their potential.
I should like to draw his attention for only a few minutes, on the present situation of the textile industry and specially on the necessity of long term policies and programs in order that these industries may make plans for a certain number of years rather than to be acquainted with government policy on a yearly basis; the latter not only unsettles them, but prevents any planning of their production and of the increase of their industrial capacity for a certain number of years.
I believe I do not need to draw the attention of the minister on the situation in the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion textile industry, which is well known to him. He knows how important the textile industry is, particularly to a great number of Quebec municipalities. As a matter of fact, these communities are particularly apt to suffer from importation of textiles or clothes from countries where lower production costs allow manufacturers to export their products in Canada. This is an industry which generally hires quite a number of employees. And if we study the statistics, we shall see that the number of workers shows a tendency to decrease every year. In 1967, according to the statistics for March, the number of employees was 83,000 whilst in 1966, they numbered a little over 87,000. The volume of importations has greatly increased especially during the last few years-


Albert Béchard: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to sit again later this day.

Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-National Parks-Glacier-inquiry as to logging operations; the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-Vocational training-restriction of retraining to a certain number of persons; the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent)-Housing- Oshawa-availability of defence department property.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions. I am advised that notice of motion No. 14 was called for the first time on Monday, November 25, 1968, and if not proceeded with today when called it would normally be dropped from the order paper.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact it was allowed to stand on November 25 by unanimous consent because the hon. member was then at the United Nations, I wonder whether it could
December 2, 1968

Youth Extension Program not be agreed that it stand once more but only once more?


Yves Forest: We would have no objection to allowing it to stand once more in view of the fact the hon. member had reason to be away, provided it is proceeded with next Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



YOUTH EXTENSION PROGRAM


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of underwriting a youth extension program of the parliament of Canada to:
(a)	Promote and nurture an interest among the youth of Canada in the principles of our constitution;
(b)	Promote belief in the power of reason as applied through public discussion as preferable to silence coerced by law;
(c)	Provide annual seminars for young Canadians from shore to shore under the supervision of M.P.'s and officers of the House of Commons and Senate to gain insight into, and understanding of, the workings of government in deliberation and action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, many motions of this type have appeared before and been debated in this house. They were particularly plentiful prior to centennial year and were discussed in connection with the establishment of the Company of Young Canadians when there was hope that body would contribute in some constructive way to the quality of life in Canada instead of turning into what appears to be a group of self-seeking agitators with international aspirations. Because of the publicity given to the desirability of participatory democracy and the just society during the recent general election, I would hope hon. members would not talk out this motion but rather allow it to result in a formal expression of opinion by the house.
I am happy that this motion has risen to the top of the list for debate today, in view of the fact we will soon be debating the procedures of this house. In my view, as a result of discussions with other hon. members and of reading the views of certain journalists, there appears to be a great misunderstanding concerning the proper role of parliament. According to these views, mistaken in my opinion, parliament should be busy governing the country by actually making day to day decisions on this and that problem. According to this view, the debate on the Address in 
Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as well as the speech itself for that matter, are useless and a waste of time. As I have said, these views appear to me to demonstrate a lack of understanding of our parliamentary system.
I believe that the people of Canada are entitled to an annual report from the government as to its assessment of the state of our nation and a general outline of the government's intentions in that regard. I believe also that the representatives of the people should be able to criticize that report and those intentions and to make general suggestions which could lead to better solutions to the problems of our nation. In my opinion, it is ridiculous to suggest that, on the one hand, our democracy should be more participatory while on the other hand proposing that the democratically elected representatives should be restricted in the expression of their views. Hon. members, journalists and the general public should know that the house is a deliberative body which exercises no executive powers. It should not be looked upon as a machine that will grind out decisions which, in fact, are executive in nature. It is high time that the executive and its apologists stopped using this as an excuse for lack of action and leadership in administering the affairs of this nation.
This motion also refers to the constitution itself and that brings up the question of the monarchy. I have noticed since arriving here that there is not a general acceptance of this institution. This is a fact which concerns me more than any other in connection with the future of this nation. If I might speak personally for a moment, I would say that I am a relatively new Canadian since both of my parents were born in the United States. I would say also that when I first became interested in the government of this country and began comparing our institutions with those in the United States I was not very impressed with ours. However, as my study progressed I reversed that decision. Having said that, all I wish to say is that an understanding of our system will result in the revelation of its superiority and that a danger exists in destroying or removing those symbols or symbolic items which strengthen the foundation of our system. I feel that if the monarchy were removed and a congressional or republican form of government established there would be growing pressures for union with the United States, the argument being, why use a facsimile when the real thing is available?
December 2, 1368

It took over 500 years to bring us from the plains of Runnymede and Magna Carta to our present position where the rights of the individual are recognized in a free society. Today our youth is being subjected to direction and persuasion from movements based on violence, permissive sex and drugs in a concerted attempt to undermine and overthrow what it took 500 years to build, namely, our free society with respect for the rights of the individual but recognizing also individual responsibilities.
Parliament cannot remain indifferent to the many tides and currents of intent, not all of them good, to which our young people are exposed today. Let us face the fact that many of the institutions which we take for granted, free speech, parliament itself, the rights of the individuals, service to our country, are today being attacked and derided not only by expatriate drop-outs from the United States society but by Canadians who would replace our way of life with suppression and tyranny. Let us bring some of our young people to Ottawa and make known to them what parliament is all about. Let them discuss and learn from members of this house how freedom works on parliament hill. This house cannot remain aloof from what is going on. Let us give parliament back to the people.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely and earnestly congratulate the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) upon bringing before this house a notice of motion which is excellent in both wording and intent. I believe that the concept of an annual thought-gathering conference of the young people of Canada would stimulate enthusiastic discussion and consideration. It is, therefore, with strong conviction that I lend my support to the suggestion that the government of Canada should underwrite such a project in order to promote and nurture interest among the youth of Canada in the principles of our constitution and to promote belief in the power of reason through public discussion, as the motion suggests.
As an educator I am personally aware and convinced of the urgent need to introduce a vigorous program in Canada to educate our young people in the functions and responsibilities of our parliamentary system of government. I well recall my efforts in trying to teach Canadian students about societies and cultures of the past in other parts of the world. Seeking a point of reference to clarify an understanding of political practices, I used
29180-214a
Youth Extension Program our own parliamentary system for the purpose of drawing a comparison. To my dismay,, this proved to be a very ineffective teaching technique simply because there was an appalling ignorance of our federal parliamentary system of government among the students I met.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this situation is not entirely the fault of our students, for they can only take advantage of the opportunities which are presented to them. Further, we should not seek to blame hardworking and dedicated teachers who have long courses of study to present in a limited amount of time. Most schools, I believe, offer a course or courses on civics at some stage along the educational route, and I have seen some excellent books and booklets which try to shed light on the organization and operation of government. Nevertheless, many good teachers will testify that civics, more often than not, is among the most sterile and boring of all subjects.
Part of the reason for this unfortunate fact is that all too frequently classroom lessons on government require and expect a student to memorize, digest and duplicate the information to which he is exposed. He is stuffed or programmed like a computer, and there is minimal opportunity for participation or involvement.
The notice of motion now under consideration calls for annual seminars for young Canadians to gain insight into and understanding of the workings of government in deliberation and in action. I would go a little further and call for annual regional and national youth parliaments in conjunction with these seminars where our young people could not only discuss but actually participate in the processes of parliamentary democracy.
These have been tried before with outstanding success and we need more of them now. They can only be brought about with the encouragement and assistance of the federal government, with the help of officers of this house and of members of parliament and senators. Such a program would go far in breaking down the walls of ignorance. The interest, enthusiasm and resultant comprehension of our young people would amaze us all.
The report of the provincial committee on aims and objectives of education in the schools of Ontario entitled "Living and Learning"-

December 2, 1968
Youth Extension Program the so-called Hall-Denis report-speaking about curriculum says:
The curriculum must provide a greater array of learning experiences than heretofore. Classes must be more mobile, within and beyond the local environment, and the rigid position of education must yield to a flexibility capable of meeting new needs. These and other innovations will be aimed at developing in the child a sense of personal achievement and responsibility commensurate with his age and ability-
While education is not directly a federal responsibility, we can certainly do something in the national interest to promote interest and understanding of our political system.
The United Nations Association has been very effective in developing an educational program of model United Nations which are conducted annually in several areas of Canada. Having participated in these projects, I vividly recall the intense interest and enthusiasm which marked the proceedings. Young Canadians acting as representatives of various nations, actively involved in debate and discussion, became aware of complex world problems and the terrible elusiveness of quick, easy solutions. We have a responsibility also to assist our youth to comprehend more meaningfully our serious national problems and the existing machinery which must be used as is or redesigned to find the answers to our problems.
Recently we have witnessed disturbing outbreaks of youth violence in many parts of the world. A report recently referred to in the committee on miscellaneous estimates and prepared by a consultant for the Company of Young Canadians doubted the sufficiency of the parliamentary system for today's needs, and even suggested that our efficient bureaucratic society might produce the need for violence to achieve change. This report, of course, was only a position paper, and it was not by any means fully endorsed by the C.Y.C. Nevertheless, the fact that some people think in such radical terms, the fact that so many in our society do not know how to protest, how to initiate change, points to a learning deficiency which exists not only in Canada but in many parts of our contemporary world. The lessons of so-called participatory democracy must be learned and our government can help to assist this concept by introducing a youth program on government, using the suggestions outlined in this motion and other ideas as well.
[Mr. Penner.l
The Hall-Denis report on education in a chapter entitled "The Search for Truth in a Democratic Society", says:
Democracy is a flexible, responsive form of government, which arises not as a result of imposed or structured political practices, but as a dynamic, liberating force nurtured by the people themselves. It implies the freedom to think, to dissent, and to bring about lawful change in the interest of all. It can flourish only when its citizens are free to search continually for new ideas, models, and theories to replace outmoded knowledge in an effort to serve an increasing number of people. A true democracy is a free and responsible society-
The heart of the problem of providing a general education in a democratic society is that of ensuring the continuance of the liberal and humane tradition. This is far more basic to our society than the worship of intellectual pursuits and scientific endeavour for their own sake. If freedom is to be nourished and maintained, the educational process must include at each level of growth and development some continuing experience in making value judgments.
I strongly urge the government to consider some form of a youth program on government. It would be helpful to have members of parliament involved in this program, not so much under our supervision, as the notice of motion suggests, but rather using them as resource persons. And what an opportunity for them as well, Mr. Speaker. Not only would our youth become more familiar and better acquainted with the operations of the government but our members of parliament would also become more familiar and better acquainted with the views and aspirations of this nation's youth.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak this afternoon but my interest was awakened when I read this notice of motion. I think it comes at the right time, since we may begin to consider constitutional reform after the Christmas recess and ideas put forward now are like seeds of future discussions.
The notice of motion says:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of underwriting a youth extension program of the parliament of Canada.
The first reason for this program, and I continue to quote, is to:
Promote and nurture an interest among the youth of Canada in the principles of our constitution.
I think hon. members who have often come into contact with the youth of today will first and foremost have to try to give our young people confidence in our present constitution, a confidence they lack, as I realized
December 2, 1968


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support without any reservation whatsoever the motion put forward by the hon. member. In recent years many in Canada have been increasingly interested in and concerned about our young people. It has been felt that the young people of Canada should have a closer contact with and participation in affairs of the nation at the national level. It is interesting to note that in response to that growing interest the average age of hon. members of this house has decreased over the years, that supports the contention that the young people of Canada are becoming more concerned about and more directly involved in governmental processes.
The hon. member who preceded me in this debate was somewhat critical of the observations made by the mover of the motion. I think that those criticisms would be dissipated if the house approved of the proposition that has been put forward this afternoon.
I will not deal with all aspects of the motion but only with part (c) which says:
Provide annual seminars for young Canadians from shore to shore under the supervision of M.P.s and officers of the House of Commons and Senate to gain insight into, and understanding of, the workings of government in deliberation and action.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I am sure some hon. members who are present in the house this evening will recall it had been hoped that a major activity of the centennial year would be a youth parliament.
Some who are with us this evening took an active part in trying to promote this idea and get it off the ground. It was endorsed by the then prime minister, by the leader of the opposition and by the leaders of the smaller groups, and considerable groundwork was laid in planning the project. A joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate met on several occasions and strongly recommended that the idea of a youth parliament should be carried out in 1967. It would seem to me that part (c) of the motion before us would tie in directly with the youth parliament proposal. I particularly like the words which say it should be under the supervision of members of parliament and officers of the House of Commons.
Those who followed the work done in connection with the youth parliament will recall it was an essential recommendation that the centennial youth parliament should be directly connected with the activities of this house.
(Mr. Gauthier.]
December 2, 1968
Indeed the final report of the joint committee recommended that the youth parliament be a precise duplication of the senior parliament of Canada. The involvement of M.P.s would have arisen from the fact that they would have supervised the electoral process in their constituencies.
This process would have resulted in the election of a young person of high school age, a boy or girl who would receive the honour of going to Ottawa and, during a particular period of time, actually understudying the functions of the official federal representative in parliament. I think you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why there was so much enthusiasm for this proposal. It would have meant that every high school in every constituency in Canada would have become deeply involved in direct participation in the parliamentary process and this, I think, would have been an educational experience par excellence; it would have meant the carrying out of the purpose of clause (c) here to the ultimate.
I do not wish to prolong this discussion unduly, but I would suggest that the idea of a youth parliament is not a lost cause. Questions have been asked on this subject on several occasions already this session. On the most recent occasion a question was directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who indicated that the youth parliament idea would not be proceeded with during the current parliament, largely on account of the need for austerity. However, I suggest that if this house were to support unanimously the excellent proposal which is now before it, it would strengthen the Prime Minister in reaching a final decision on this question.
I certainly hope that the excellent preparatory work which has gone into this youth parliament proposition-it began as early as 1964 and extended through centennial year- will not be lost, and that the proposal will at last be implemented. The records are available, I believe, in the official records of parliament, because the joint parliamentary committee was officially established to look into the proposal. In seeking support for the resolution before us I urge that this proposal be linked with the background to which I have referred, and that we should move forward as quickly as possible toward a program which will involve the youth of Canada more directly in the political process.
In recent months, the desire of the youth of Canada to become more directly involved in affairs of state and in the political process at
December 2, 1968	COMMONS
all levels has been made dramatically clear by the activities of the protest movement on the campus. I recently came across a quotation which appears to be highly relevant in this regard, and I should like to present it to the house:
Everything about us stresses instant gratification of want. We can travel anywhere in a matter of hours or days. We can communicate instantly, be entertained instantly. Is it any wonder that young people living in this climate should want instant spiritual fulfilment, instant physical gratification, instant change in the political and social system?
Those of us who have been in parliament over a period of time are aware that instant solutions to the political and social problems facing this nation are not possible. The process of parliamentary discussion, attempting to arrive at consensus, takes place only slowly through the parliamentary system as we have seen it established over the years. It is unfortunate that because of the present sense of urgency the functions of parliament have been downgraded in recent years. This is a point which was made by the mover of the motion in his opening statement. I am sure that if we can arrange a youth seminar or a youth parliament, whatever one wishes to call it, on an annual basis under the supervision of M.P.'s and officers of this house, it will result in a much more intelligent and responsible approach to affairs of state by the rising generations. It is for this reason, and many others I could state, that I hope the house will give unanimous approval to the motion.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saini-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to speak in this house since my election and I must say I cannot but be moved by applause, not yet deserved, coming from the hon. members from all sides of the house.
I should like first of all to congratulate sincerely the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) for having brought in this project that 1 would call a youth parliament. The hon. member for Palliser is a young member, like me, and I believe this project concerning youth suits him well and that he owed it to himself to bring it in.
I heard about such projects of youth parliament a long time ago and I was quite interested by it. I now have the opportunity to support this motion. The main reason why I support it is the deplorable lack of interest in Canada for federal politics.
DEBATES	3387
Youth Extension Program
From one election to another, in the various ridings, candidates spend huge amounts not only to get elected but also to interest people in politics, to stir them up, to induce them to discuss and to vote.
In my riding, I noticed that despite the efforts made by six candidates during a month and a half, not even 50 per cent of the people cared to vote. Such a lack of interest stems undoubtedly from the fact that people are not informed, and a youth parliament will be a means to interest this sector of the population that will be the electorate of to-morrow, i.e. our youth. That is why I want to support this project of a youth parliament.
This program will have unquestionable advantages, the major one being political education. Today's youth, as other speakers said earlier, are ill-informed in school on the subject of politics and parliamentary institutions. Today's youth are disputatious and they insist on their rights; they insist, from day to day, from month to month, on getting more and more from governments. They do not know much, however, about the responsibilities of a minister; they do not know much about budgets. While they demand, they often forget that to give, a government must take from the taxpayers' pockets. There is a lack of political education when people are always begging for something, without realizing that money has to come from somewhere.
In my opinion, a youth parliament, a model parliament of that type, would enable young Canadians to be initiated in all the complicated aspects of the Canadian political life and to familiarize themselves with the good as well as with the bad sides of things. On returning home they would be in a position to communicate their enthusiasm to other young people in their surroundings and as I was saying before, stimulating a political interest in today's youth is creating a sense of responsibility in tomorrow's electors.
There are other advantages also. In fact, a youth parliament would constitute a forum for discussion. The young of today have much to say. They want to be heard and they are heard. In the universities, student committees demand joint management, joint government. Everywhere, youth wants to be heard. However, on political matters, they have no outlets except through young people political associations across the country. Yet those associations are based on political partisanship.
Now, that youth parliament would offer the young man or the young woman who wishes
3388	COMMONS
Youth Extension Program to discuss politics in a non partisan fashion, a forum, a place from which to put their opinions before the land.
Likewise, let us not forget that this youth parliament could constitute a source of new ideas. The present government has already innovated since it has come to power and it will blaze even newer trails.
There is talk of parliamentary reform, of many things to come. Still, let us not forget that it is up to the people to bring new ideas to the fore, and if that is so, on whom can we bank more than on the young people, on those who are never content with the status quo and who wish to challenge everything and everybody.
To my mind, a model parliament, a youth parliament, could be a source of new ideas which could help Canadian administrators to modernize both present structures and plans.
In addition, a model parliament, a youth parliament could perhaps become a means of action. Our young people-let us face it-do not have any very specific mode of action when it comes to achieving their ambitions from a political point of view. And so, we see them demonstrating, marching, walking about with placards, at times even indulging in violence. That violence we witness comes from somewhere; it stems from a deep feeling of frustration in the young people who have no means of action. They see no other means than that, so they resort to the most obvious: violence and demonstrations which threaten law and order.
A youth parliament could channel those energies and offer, at long last, to our young people, bubbling over with energy, an outlet through which they might give vent to their ideas and achieve their objectives.
Finally, looking at the shape of things to come, we see that we will soon have to revise the Canadian constitution. We will have to bring the people of Canada to accept upheavals. We will have to change an aging constitution, over a hundred years old, which hardly anyone understands completely.
Has the time now not come to support a project such as the youth parliament so that the people can develop an interest in public affairs? They will soon have to decide what constitution we will need for our second centenary, for constitutions do not change often. Now, if the people are to choose the men who will lead the government and make decisions, if the people have perhaps to vote by referendum on some aspects of the constitution-this, we do not know yet-today is the
[Mr. Guilbault.l
DEBATES	December 2, 1968
time to stir their interest at grass roots, level by stirring the interest of the young people and setting up a youth parliament.
I should like to refer to a term used during the election campaign: We should have a policy of participation. Well, the policy of participation can no doubt exist in many ways, but this youth parliament suggested by the hon. member seems to me a good starting point and, before we involve all the people in the participatory process we should start with political education and this youth parliament seems to me a good way of going about it.

The concept of a youth parliament, Mr. Speaker, is one which has tremendous potential for beneficial results. Each year hundreds of young Canadians would be able to return to their homes in the various parts of our nation having had first hand experience of the workings of federal government. They would be able to communicate to their communities their own newly awakened enthusiasm and knowledge concerning our tradition of federal parliamentary government. This is why I would like this house to underwrite the motion.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, as I am one of the young members of the house, you can be assured that the motion of the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) is of great interest to me.
In view of the development in the last few years, the Canadian youth, as that of the United States or of other countries, will be called upon to play a very important part. Young people react in a way which is not necessarily the best to what is wanted of them and even if there are no demands made upon them, their reactions seem sometimes abnormal to many people.
I have had the good fortune, since I am a little younger than most of the members, to be on those university campuses a few years ago; I saw various organizations become protest bodies and I heard all about the imaginary fences which, according to the young people, separate other generations.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) for bringing this very important subject to the attention of the house. I believe the proposals contained in his motion are very realistic. There
December 2, 1968

is no doubt that the young people of Canada must have an interest in our constitution and that they must put forward their ideas in respect of any review of the constitution, or any reforms. The hon. member spoke of parliamentary procedures which might be simplified. I believe it is very important that we have the ideas of the young people in this regard.
I support the principle of the hon. member's motion in respect of the provision of annual seminars for young Canadians from shore to shore under the supervision of M.P.'s and officers of the House of Commons and Senate, so that those young people may gain insight into, and understanding of, the workings of government in deliberation and action. I should also like to thank the hon. member for presenting his motion.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Canadian youth of today, I cannot forget the Prime Minister's attitude towards youth. I believe he is the first chief of state able to communicate and really to hold a dialogue with people of all ages and especially with the young. He has shown recently, as throughout his whole political career, and even prior to that, that he always concerned himself with young people, in short, that he always took an interest in conversing with them.
I was referring earlier to an imaginary door or barrier existing between young people, the various levels of administration and other generations.
If we look at Canadian university campuses to-day, we can see many reactions and often people wonder if what is going on in some cases is justified.
Well, I think it is very simple to explain. Young people have something to contribute, something to give, something to say and let us admit it, our institutions, whether government or private business, do not take them into account. Our structures do not permit us to listen to young people, to allow them to participate and, above all, to accept or, at least, to consider their ideas.
Young people are asking for something, and those who should answer them do not know how to go about it. As far as I am concerned, this reaction of students or young people before these problems is easy to understand.
This government compromised itself recently when it tried to remove regional disparities in the country, not only from the
Youth Extension Program economic point of view, but mainly by emphasizing the fact that the problem of national unity would never be resolved before these disparities are removed.
Obviously, in these areas, the people will have to be motivated, they will have to awaken and to work.
I should just like to point out the necessity to encourage young people in these areas and the necessity to recognize a region where perhaps the young people will be called upon to find solutions as rapidly as possible.
It is certainly on young people that our hopes must rest, our chances of succeeding in those areas. The motion before us this evening is quite realistic, because it provides for the establishment of structures and direct participation of young people organizations.
I think that it is a way to hear the contribution of young people especially through seminars, because it is quite important that all Canadians should truly understand the nature of government work at all levels, especially that of the federal government which has become such a big and complicated business.
I think that, from that point of view, it prepares the young people to know the government better and to understand our procedure. Consequently, they will be ready to discuss government policies and, in addition, when they will be in the business world, in law practice, in the educational world or in any other profession, they will understand better the different departments of the government and its various procedures.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that the hour reserved for the consideration of private members' business has expired.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, we would have no objection if notice of motion No. 16 were allowed to stand at the request of the government and kept its place on the order paper, as mentioned.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It
being seven o'clock I now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry AFTER RECESS
The house resumed at 8 p.m.

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



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental Administration, $12,495,330.
Yves Forest: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes before six o'clock, when the house went on to the consideration of private members' business, I had started to talk briefly about the conditions that exist today in the textile and clothing industries. I was dealing with the problems which now face that industry whose survival and progress are essential for a large number of municipalities, especially in Quebec and Ontario.
Of course, the volume of imports from countries where the production costs are lower remain the most serious problem for the textile industry and for a large number of other industries in Canada.
The figures for the period between 1954 and 1957 indicate that the Canadian industry saw its share of the market drop from 68 to 60 per cent. The important penetration of imports in the Canadian market is obvious since it is the highest per capita among industrialized countries, and our market is too easily accessible to export countries with a low production cost.
In fact, in 1966, every citizen bought $19.32 worth of textile in Canada, $10.89 in England and only $6.07 in the United States. This indicates that Canada uses three times more imported textiles and clothing than the american, and twice as much as the average Englishman.
Canadian manufacturers are not to blame, because our textile industry is among the most modern in the world from the standpoint of technology. Furthermore, it has invested about $500 million, since 1960, to modernize its plants and increase its productivity. Besides I think the administrators of those industries are aware of the difficulties facing Canada, as an exporting country, in the course of negotiations with certain countries, especially those with which we have a favourable trade balance as our exports consist mainly in primary products, whereas we are importing mostly manufactured articles.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
Therefore, it is important that the government insist in insuring above all the protection of those products being manufactured in larger quantities. Obviously, Canada must produce enough, at reasonable costs if this industry is to achieve a higher degree of rationalization as advocated by several experts in this field. If we are not far-sighted enough, our manufacturers will find it increasingly difficult, not only to maintain their present level of production but also to plan adequately for a profitable production and to invest the capital that will be required in the years to come to maintain an adequate level of employment.
The primary textile industry is today the second largest employer in the manufacturing sector in Quebec. Recent statistics, in the cotton industry in particular, are giving great concern and rightly so to the industrialists and the workers, to all those who are dependent upon it.
It is, therefore, essential to clear up the situation and to look further into the future, within the framework of a realistic and well established policy, because Canadian producers are now unable to anticipate the impact of imported manufactured products at low costs coming from underdeveloped countries. They are unable to take the necessary steps against this competition, because they can not guess at it or foresee it, since they have no indication or information. Their production schedule may be normally set up a long time in advance; they often squander more or less uselessly, a lot of time and money, but when the time comes, they are unable to follow up their programs.
It is therefore absolutely necessary to implement a long term policy, in fairness to this industry. I am confident that the present minister, who understands the problem, will put these production plans into effect as soon as possible and implement a general policy which will allow Canadian manufacturers to understand their situation in the Canadian economy in relation to imports from countries where the cost of living is lower, and which will show them what their aim should be in deciding to invest. This will also help the government to establish a general policy with regard to low-priced imports, instead of the present short term or one-year policies.
The changing structures of the world trade in textile products also make it increasingly necessary to implement a new policy which, instead of leading to a continual decrease in production, level of employment, investments and the deterioration of social conditions in
December 2, 1968

the centres where these industries are located, will give us a more economically viable and a stronger textile industry which will look to the future and which will provide a sufficient and increasing number of productive jobs, following the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada.
I think that this request for a realistic and well defined policy by the textile industry is justified and should be supported by the government. I am confident that the present Minister of Industry and Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) will comply with this request as soon as possible, in order to allow the textile industry to develop economically and to participate in the development of our country.
Mr. Chairman, I have several other comments to make on this subject. I shall have the opportunity to come back to it another time, and I will only insist tonight on the implementation of a planned long term policy in order to allow this industry to plan its programs ahead of time and to develop. I am confident that the present minister will comply with this request.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a number of comments on the ideas brought forward in the short debate we have had. First, the hon. member for Wellington talked about the department, past, present and future. I think we agree that industrial production and export promotion should go hand in hand and consequently should be under one department. I do not think we have time to go into the question of why the division took place between "Commerce" and "Industry" in 1963. I sometimes say that the whole thing was planned in order to give more importance to "Industry", so that a marriage could be performed between two activities of equal size and equal maturity, but I do not know whether that is an explanation. Why "Industry Trade and Commerce" was given as a heading in the estimates book is still a mystery to me. I regret it, for the two departments are still separate. They may have found ways and means to work together until the legislation comes about, but as of now the two departments are separate entities.
The hon. member referred to internal, fusion troubles in the department. A task force was created, as he knows, to study the problems and present recommendations.
Supply-Industry
Boards were formed to determine who were the most qualified people, and in cases of uncertainty people were given the opportunity to state their case. I believe-and I hope I am right; I have checked-this was done with a minimum of pain. But it is possible that some people felt injured. However, I think the hon. member would agree with me that it is not easy to carry out such a merger without a few sacrifices being made and encountering a few difficulties. I believe the difficulties have been reduced to a minimum and that individuals involved were treated decently.
The hon. member had a lot to say about the automobile agreement. He said, mainly, that the automobile pact was mostly advantageous to U.S. subsidiaries in Canada. He did not put forward how he would have done it. Would he have preferred the government to take over? If so, I would remind him of some of the difficulties associated with such an operation. Nevertheless he and the hon. member for Winnipeg North were very generous in recognizing the progress that has been made in regard to production, exports, productivity, employment, and so on. My philosophy is that politics, as Burke says, is a choice of inconveniences. In this case I believe that the advantages were very, very much more on the side of the automobile agreement, and I believe the Canadian interest has been well protected in this pact.
The hon. member for Wellington also said that a great number of small companies were put out of business. I inquired immediately of the department and was told this had occurred in only two cases, and that in fact most small companies have expanded. I am told by a number of people on all sides of the automobile business that any parts company that has a capacity is now completely absorbed and is handling as much business as it cares to or can handle. I have checked on these matters. If the hon. member knows of some cases where this is not true, I would be delighted-as I did on one occasion for a small plant in my riding-to bring it to the attention of those concerned, so that if at all possible a remedy can be found. However, I am informed that this is not the case. The bulk of the government loans has been made to small companies in order to help them expand. This then is the general pattern.
The hon. member for Wellington also said that imports have increased. I think I mentioned this too, but to be absolutely scientific I would say that exports have increased 2,592 per cent and imports have increased 1,381 per

December 2. 1968
Supply-Industry
cent. However, I paid more importance to the phenomenon of trade imbalance, to the comparison of our trade balance in automobiles. I think this is where the comparison should be made. Hon. members will recall that I said we had an imbalance, against us of $351 million in 1968. In 1965 it was $547 million, and in previous years it was even higher.
The hon. member also said that productivity in Canada is increasing more slowly than in the United States. I am delighted to tell him that, fortunately, he is wrong, at least as far as the automobile industry is concerned. In Canada annual productivity increased 8 per cent last year. In the United States it was 5 per cent. As I said in my speech, the productivity gap has been brought down in this industry from 30 per cent to 20 per cent. I hope this trend will continue.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, just to put the record straight: That is for one industry only, the automotive industry, and if you lump all industries together, that is not a fact.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have figures on that, too, Mr. Chairman. I gave figures in my speech and I have further figures showing that the productivity increase in Canada is faster than it is in the United States at this time, and has been for the last ten years or so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In view of the size of the gap which existed before, that kind of news does not cheer one completely, but it is nice to know that the gap is being minimized, even if it is not being minimized rapidly enough.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North also said a number of things on the subject of automobiles. He paid his compliments to the agreement. However, he also talked about the number of workers being laid off, in particular at the Ford plant in Windsor.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
As I said, many of these lay-offs are temporary, resulting from the construction of a new plant. One could very well make the point that, had it not been for the decision to build a new plant, these workers would have been laid off permanently. This situation would have been worse than the one we now deplore. I must emphasize the fact that these workers will be coming back to better jobs, more secure jobs, and there will be 200 more of these jobs than at present. I must repeat also that the workers with seniority will receive up to 95 per cent of their present

income. Unfortunately, those who have been employed for less than 30 weeks will not receive this advantage. I have to emphasize, and I checked this at the time, that there is alternative employment in the Windsor area, again partly the result of the automobile agreement.
Hon. members know that Ford is building a new engine plant in Windsor which will produce about 900,000 engines per year, and will employ 1,200 people. Chrysler is also building a new engine plant which will provide work for an additional 1,500 people. Many of us would like to see developments of this sort take place in our ridings. However, I sympathize with the temporary situation in which some individuals find themselves.
The hon. member for Wellington was interested in the blueberry project to which reference was made in the estimates. This project was undertaken at the request of the governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The department is having a look at the possibility of processing these berries. This is a processing, an industrial, not an agricultural problem. It is an industrial problem which is related to individual productivity, to exports, by freezing the berries. The project was undertaken with the full co-operation of the federal Department of Agriculture, so there is no duplication. The hon. member is rightly concerned about avoiding duplication.
On the subject of grants, the same member feels that there is not enough concentration of these grants, which he might call scientific grants. He seems to think that all these subsidies should be handled through the science secretariat. While that is debatable, I presume that if we had a minister of science he would want to have most of these things in his hand. There would be a few of us, however, not opposing this procedure because we are a disciplined group, but making the point that our departments may have some expertise to contribute that might not be found in the present science secretariat or in a future science department. What I mean is that these grants are given for industrial development; they are not for exclusively scientific achievements. The purpose of these grants is industrial development and they must be looked upon also from the point of view of tariffs, export possibilities, technological progress and so on. At times many members complain that our programs are not sufficiently developmental-oriented, are not sufficiently mission-oriented, and I believe it to be the
December 2, 1968

responsibility of the "operating" department to see that they are.
I venture to say, therefore, that it is not wrong for the department to make such grants.
The same member was greatly concerned about the standards council. He was afraid that we were proceeding without legislation. We are not doing that. He will understand quite easily that if we do intend to bring legislation to provide for a standards council, some preliminary work has to be done. I want to reassure him the money is not being spent now, as if the council existed.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was concerned about grants given by my department for research in connection with rape-seed. The situation is the following: The rape-seed crushers and processors in western Canada are attempting to improve the quality of rapeseed oil and meal, so they can compete more effectively with imported oil and meal. In the interests of the rapeseed processors, the department has made a grant to a project which is attempting to reduce the toxicity level in rapeseed oil and meal. This work is being carried out by research groups in the western provinces, and we subsidized it at the level of $144,000 and supervised it too.
The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby made what I thought was an excellent contribution and I want to thank him for it. I will not involve myself in the philosophical debate of the first two subjects he raised. We might do that at the University of Ottawa or at Carle-ton one of these nights.
His first point had to do with the distribution of power in contemporary society. This is an interesting subject, but the debate would likely be lengthy. His second point had to do with price fixing. I am more interested tonight in the third one, and that is the relationship between grants for scientific research and development programs on the civilian as opposed to the military side of the industrial spectrum. The hon. member seems to feel that our defence programs will lead to the formation of an industrial military elite in Canada, very much against the interests of democracy. There is no doubt that we are generous in this sector. However, I should like to present some argument in favour of that conduct.
My first point is just to remark that vote 5 is now down from $37 million to $32 million. There is a saving of $5 million over last year.
My second remark has to do also with the fact that funds available from the Department
Supply-Industry
of National Defence for the same objective have gone down substantially from $60 million in 1959, at the time of the Arrow incident, to about $15 million at present.
My third point is to underline the fact that the funds are more effectively used now than they were in the past and also to underline that the emphasis is slowly, perhaps not quickly enough to suit the hon. member, moving to the civilian side. In other words, more and more importance is attached to the civilian part of these allocations of funds.
I am quite sure that on reflection, if not at first sight, the hon. member will recognize that advances in technology have very often come from military requirements. Money spent for defence materials has served the civilian side of industry as well. As an example, I would cite the transistor. The development of the transistor was highly subsidized by the United States government and everybody knows it is now one of the main elements in contemporary industrial production.
The PT-6, to which the hon. member also referred-


John Edward Broadbent: May I ask a question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: May I finish first? The PT-6 engine built by United Aircraft near Montreal was developed with funds from vote 5 and vote 20, but half of the sales of these engines are now going to commercial companies. If I recall well, these Canadian motors are now found in 37 countries of the world. This is another example of military expenditure that is now serving the civilian side. The hon. member also knows that the C.N.R. turbo trains running between Montreal and Toronto are powered by the same engine, as are the Twin Otters.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Why do we spend money on defence projects? There are many reasons and I have indicated some. Another reason is that the risk in the defence field is greater than the risk in the civilian field. Also, such expenditures are also made by foreign countries. Hon. members may doubt that we should copy the Democrat government of the United States or the Labour government of the United Kingdom or the Social Democrat government of West Germany. All I can say is that when every other country is doing it, it would be terribly dangerous to be different. Some political parties have tried to but have not succeeded very well. Certainly a country would probably fall flat on its face if it used

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
the hon. member's reasoning in industrial development policies.
May I emphasize that generally I am in agreement with the motivations of the hon. member. I too would very much like the accent to be on the civilian side with respect to expenditures on research and development.
I do not contest the fact, however, that expenditure on the military side does have a civilian connotation and will sooner or later come to serve the civilian side of the industry.
If my hon. friend studies the details of the matter I am sure he would realize that a Canadian industrialist who availed himself of our programs might get as much for a civilian project as for a defence project. Again we are trying to establish a proper balance.
The hon. member referred to a part of my speech to the representatives of the air industry of Canada, where he alleged I said "Your interest is mine". I have been unable to find that quotation in the text, though I may have ad libbed it, as I sometimes do. On pages 14 and 27 of my speech I referred to civilian and defence projects. For example, at page 27 appears this statement:
However, much can be done to achieve a better balance between defence and civilian activity in the "air industry" at large.
The industry's sales are now balanced at roughly 50/50 military/civil. We must consciously strive to sustain and, where feasible, increase our civil aerospace production.
So may I thank the hon. member for raising this point because it does give me the occasion to repeat what I said at that time.
The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster asked me to pay some attention to movements that are taking place in the area development agency. I understand the difficulty he is experiencing. It has been decided to designate certain areas in his region as in need of development-Saint John, Halifax, Dartmouth and Moncton, I think they are. However, this designation cannot be made until the legislation is introduced in this house. The hon. member said that this has led to rather sad delays. However I do not think I can intrude upon the sphere of influence of the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, though I will try and adopt the hon. member's gentle manner and sympathetic attitude in drawing this particular problem to the attention of the said minister.
The hon. member for Edmonton West expressed some concern over the machinery tariff remission program and asked me to give him a breakdown of the cost of operation IMr. Pepin.]
of this program. The salaries will amount to $382,000. However, I must immediately point out that the cost to the government should be nil. As far as expenditures by the department are concerned, the government is going to retain the 15 per cent duty on the first $500 of value of each importation. It is estimated that since there are now between 500 and 1,000 requests for remission per month, revenue will be more than $1 million a year, which will easily recoup cost of administration. I might also add that the board will reduce the cost of manufacturing for Canadian industry by $45 million, and in doing so will make Canadian industry more competitive on domestic and international markets.

I wish to thank my good friend, the member for Missisquoi (Mr. Yves Forest) for his good words and for the excellent advices he has been giving me with his usual generosity. The textile industry is also a concern of mine and this for two reasons at least, one being that I am representing a district where textile industry is, just as in his own district, a very important part of local economy. And this is one of the subjects on which I will try in the years to come, to exert my personal influence.
This particular Canadian industry, as the hon. member said, must be rationalized; we must at any cost, in the next few months, set a long-term plan. The parliamentary secretary insisted on this, as did the owners of manufacturing plants and the union leaders who, a few months ago, presented us with a report. I shall devote all my efforts to this task.
However, I wish to say to the hon. member that there is at the present time a review made at the interdepartmental level of our policy towards countries with low salaries, so as to determine if we are doing everything necessary in that field. Of course I do not have to point out to him again that the Canadian consumer has also some interests to be reckoned with and that Canada, a country exporting such a large range of products, can hardly apply a protectionist policy in that field and demand that other countries act otherwise elsewhere. It seems apparent that various interests are at stake, and this is why my honourable friend insisted on a long-term solution. Some officials of my department are now carrying out studies on the textile industry, on its competitive position in the world, on sectors which are profitable, less profitable, or a dead loss. It goes without saying that all this will help define a policy
December 2, 1968

which I hope to introduce in the house one day.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's observations, though some of the points he made may be debatable. However, I do not propose to take time now to answer them.
I understand we are about to proceed to vote No. 1, but before doing so I should like to get clear in my mind the situation regarding the separate departments of industry and trade and commerce. I would ask the minister whether or not the minister of industry has been appointed, because if he has there is no salary appropriation for him in the estimates. The first estimates that were tabled-not the revised ones-for the year ending March 31, 1969, show an appropriation for the minister's salary. The revised estimates, however, do not provide for the minister's salary. Apparently we have a department without a minister to head it. Would the minister care to comment on that.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is very simple. You have a Minister of Trade and Commerce who is at the same time the Minister of Industry. As he cannot be paid twice by the Queen he receives only one salary, and from the Department of Trade and Commerce. You see, there are two departments and I am the minister for both departments. From that point of view I suffer from schizophrenia, but I receive only one salary for the schizophrenia from which I suffer.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Perhaps the minister could find out from his officials to what date the former minister of industry received his salary.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He received it until he was transferred to his present position as President of the Treasury Board.


John Edward Broadbent: Although I found the
minister's remark interesting he did not go into the question of the distribution of power within the ministry. At some future time I should be happy to hear him speak about the distribution of power within our economic system.
I notice the minister did not refute the points I raised; instead he said he could not find the quotation. I will repeat it. At page 31 of his speech to the Air Industries Association of Canada of October 9, 1968, he said, "Your interests are mine." Perhaps the minister may
Supply-Industry
want to look into that, since my copy of the text may be inaccurate.
I do not mean to quibble about points the minister raised; he said that society received undoubted benefits from some forms of military research and development. No intelligent person denies that; but my reply is, "So what?". I dare say the furnace industry in Germany benefitted from Hitler's experiments in the 1940's, but that is no justification for burning people. Similarly, I do not see where certain benefits from the research undertaken in fields of military technology justify the spending of millions of dollars for that research. From my reading and from my gleaning of facts I have learned that over 50 per cent of government moneys going into research and development promotion go into research undertaken for military purposes. The minister did not deny this purported fact.
My third point was that currently it is more profitable for industry in Canada to undertake research in military fields. Under existing laws the greatest benefits accrue to the kind of research that is carried out in military areas; those benefits are greater than the benefits accruing to research in non military areas. Since the minister did not deny that categorically I can only conclude that my arguments are substantially correct.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I refuse to become confused by the minister's explanation of his responsibilities. At the moment all I know is that he has some over-all responsibilities in the field of industry, and that worries me. In one of his replies in this house he said that it has been made clear that no grants will be available to Saint John, Halifax and Fredericton until the new legislation is brought down. That is understandable, perhaps.
I note that the Area Development Incentives Act ceases to be effective on March 31, 1971. I also note that the Area Development Board to some extent is to be phased out. In any event, there is some doubt about its future. The minister cannot know about all this; certainly, that board has been a vehicle providing assistance to industry. The three entities, measures or bodies-call them what you will-that have been of assistance to industry in general are being transformed or phased out. It may be one or two years before something else that is concrete does the same job-we all know how long it takes to put legislation through this house. In the meantime I feel that the minister has the responsibility to say categorically that no industry in

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
the maritimes will receive less assistance in the near future than it received in the past. He should let industries know that amounts of money available for assistance will not be decreased. As Minister of Industry he has a responsibility to make sure that parts of the country needing assistance in industrial development do not suffer, and that moneys available to those parts of the country will not be lower.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to criticize the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who is probably the happiest minister in the cabinet, as well as being the most co-operative. I merely want answers to a couple of questions.
First I want to know whether he is a con-tinentalist or a nationalist. This is an important question. From my reading of a summary of a statement the Prime Minister made last week, in which he took an inventory of the just society, he seemed to say so far as the automotive industry is concerned, "We have lost it." Does the minister feel the same way? Is he putting up the white flag, surrendering, and saying he is an integrationalist and continentalist?
Think of Sweden, Mr. Chairman, with a population of around 8 million. It has an automotive business. Think of Italy, France, Germany, England and Japan; they all have developed automotive businesses. Yet here in Canada we are surrendering this field to the United States. When I look up in the gallery and see all those high priced officials it seems to me we could ask some of our experts in the research development area to develop this automobile business.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I hope the minister does not hold the same views as does the Prime Minister, and has ceased to be an integrationist. When I look across the chamber I try to find nationalists, but it is extremely difficult. So many are becoming continentalists. The only one I can think of who might be a nationalist is the hon. member for Scarborough East. He is an economist, and I understand he helped Walter Gordon, who is Canada's No. 1. nationalist. I should like to hear him say: "I am a nationalist." I should like to hear him set forth some of the ideas which he and Walter Gordon developed, and try to help Canada. The Postmaster General may be of the same ilk.
I should like to find as many nationalists on that side of the house as I can, because there

is a terrible trend developing in Canada involving the complete collapse of any nationalist feelings. Again, I look over at the hon. member for York North who has been a very successful businessman in Canada and who has been making a great contribution to parliament up to this date. I should like to ask him whether he agrees with the trend in Canada today with regard to continentalism.


Mr. Danson:: The hon. member was not around to hear my speech the other day.


John Gilbert: I apoligize to the hon. member if I did not hear him. I hope he developed the theme of nationalism.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I will send the hon. gentleman a copy.


John Gilbert: I would certainly appreciate a copy from the hon. member. When I think of the rift which developed during the leadership race, how the former minister of trade and commerce became a continentalist, and how the present Secretary of State for External Affairs took the continentalist view-it seems that the nationalist view was put down-it occurs to me there was not at any time any forceful exposition of an expressly Canadian viewpoint. I notice that the hon. member for Scarborough East is getting agitated. I think he should; I think he should get up and express to us his views on nationalism.
There is another point I should like to bring to the attention of the likeable minister, and that is the question of the profits which manufacturers of automobiles are making. I recall that last session a special committee of the House of Commons was set up to study prices to consumers. An attempt was made to investigate car prices, but it did not succeed. If the figures given by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North are correct-and they show that in some years there was a profit of 80 or 90 per cent on capital invested in the business, and that the overall profit on the capital operation is roughly 30 per cent-it is obvious that Canadians are being charged too much for their cars.
I should like to hear the minister say in a straightforward way that he will undertake to have this question referred to the standing committee which is responsible for corporate affairs, or to some other committee, so that we might study car prices in Canada. If Canadians are getting bilked, I believe the minister would be the last person to wish to see such a situation continue.
December 2, 1968

Looking across the chamber, I happened to notice the hon. member for York West. The other day he made a statement that the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs was a charade. I should like the hon. member to tell us just why he thinks this particular committee, which has been studying antidumping legislation, is a charade, and what alternative assistance could be provided to the minister in this important area.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Could the minister tell us when the chairman of the machinery and equipment advisory board was appointed, whether this is a full-time position, and who set the salary at $28,750. Could he also tell us the name of the chairman? While I am on my feet, perhaps the minister could give us a brief outline of what is meant by foreign services. I see here the phrase "administrative and foreign services". What is involved in "foreign services"?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The foreign service section is composed of departmental officers in Europe and in Washington who are involved in the sale of Canadian defence material. The chairman of the advisory beard is Mr. C. A. Annis. His salary was set by Treasury Board, and it is a full time job.
I do not wish to take time in which to answer the rather philosophic questions raised by the members of the New Democratic party. The debate about continentalism and nationalism is a very old one-as old as confederation, as old as Canada, as old as the world. I do not think we could resolve it tonight. Once I said, smilingly as usual, but seriously as usual, that I could be a continen-talist if that were in the national interest. That is a better answer than hon. members might think it is. One does not solve these questions by a yes or no, or by an attitude which divides everything into black or white. The issue is much more complex than that. I am sure hon. members opposite realize they have touched on a debate which might last a very long time. The hon. member was trying, as he said, to "agitate" me; but he has failed, on this occasion.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Can the minister advise the committee as to his future plans concerning these foreign services? It seems to me it would be most unnecessary to have a foreign service in the department of Industry when we now have a Department of Trade and Commerce the estimates of which provide for the services of officials all over the world.
Supply-Industry
Why have people duplicating their efforts, doing the same job?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The answer is simple. They will be closely associated with the trade commissioner services.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Would not the minister be considering reducing the staff and letting the Department of Trade and Commerce do this work?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I must tell the hon. member that these men operate in a highly specialized field. Trade commissioners are usually generalists. These officials are specialists, as opposed to the first group. But we can bring up this question when we introduce the legislation to create the new department. At that time I will report about the expectations we have of saving a few positions here and a few positions there, a few hundred thousand dollars here and a few hundred thousand dollars there. This will come in due course.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: Under administration, vote 1, we have an amalgamation of industry and trade and commerce, yet the estimate shows an increase of $127,850 for telephones and telegrams. Since we are supposed to be amalgamating departments it seems to me that this is out of line and that there must be something wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I presume that the telephone bill was not previously for communications with the Department of Trade and Commerce. It was for phone calls outside of government. I do not see why this should change to any extent. I presume that the growth in the estimate is the natural growth in the importance of the department.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It must be a tremendous growth in any department of government to have an increase of $127,850 in the simple charge for telephones and telegrams.


Mr. Skoberg:: Under professional and special services can the minister say how many outside consultants were used, and at the same time, inform us whether these services were tendered for, or sought on request by the department?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am informed that we seek bids for services, and after a proper analysis of the bids the best man wins.

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry


John Leroy Skoberg: Could the answer be made along the lines of how many bids there were, and how much was spent on outside services?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As the debate goes on I will try and answer that question.


Mr. McCuicheon:: While the minister is looking that up could he tell us what the extra half million dollars was for under this item?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, if we could proceed I will give the explanation at the end of the debate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, I still have some questions on the rapeseed item. Shall we take them on vote 3 or vote 1?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1 think we can proceed on vote 1.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I note that the grant to promote improvements in the manufacture of rapeseed is reduced from $180,000 to $144,000. Why has it been reduced, and what was the nature of the reduction?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The obvious is apparently the truth. Some of the work has been done, so there is less need for more work, and consequently there is less need for more money.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: But our markets have not been improved that much.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am informed that the study will be completed this year, and that there is less need for money because the study is coming to a conclusion.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: These were studies to promote improvement in the manufacture of rapeseed products. Does the department do any work on the improvement of strains or varieties, or is that left entirely to the Department of Agriculture?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is a market study to promote improvement, and the study is coming to a conclusion. I presume if there is any promotion to be made the Department of Agriculture or the industry itself more probably will be responsible for it.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I would also like information on the GATT negotiations. Was the rate of tariff on the entry of soybeans into the United States altered as a result of the GATT negotiations, and was the rate of tariff on rapeseed entering Japan altered as a result of those negotiations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think the hon. member will want to be generous and accept my promise to write him and give him the proper information. This is something I do not have at the tip of my finger or in my book for that matter.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: All right, it would be fine if the minister would be kind enough to do that. I would also like to know the amount of money or effort which the Department of Trade and Commerce is spending on the promotion of the sale of rapeseed into Japanese and western European markets?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I say "bis" to that.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. I would point out that we are dealing specifically with the estimates of the Department of Industry, and to the Chair it appears that this might be a question to be raised on the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Chairman, the rapeseed item is here. Certain amounts of money have been spent. I am interested in why these amounts of money have dropped $40,000 in the current year, at a time when export markets are of vital importance to us. I am quite willing to accept the minister's statement that he does not have the information at the moment but, Mr. Chairman, I am not willing to accept an implication that these questions should not be asked at this time. I think the tariff changes are of importance and that is why I asked the questions. If the minister is willing to give the answers to me in due time, this will be satisfactory.
I see no items here for the Canadian Wheat Board. I know that the Wheat Board to a large extent, almost entirely, is self-financing. I assume that is why there are no items here for that board, which comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce. I may say I am somewhat disappointed that the Department of Trade and Commerce is not spending some money promoting the sale of rapeseed in overseas markets. I had been under the impression that the Department of Trade and Commerce was making some effort to promote the sales of rapeseed in overseas markets, particularly Japan. I am surprised, when these estimates are before us, that there is no evidence in them that the Department of Trade and Commerce is spending time and money on the promotion and marketing of rapeseed. I would be very pleased if the minister could assure me that they are spending some time and money on the promotion of rapeseed.
December 2, 1S68


Jean-Luc Pepin: Everything the hon. member is saying is true. There is no credit here for the Wheat Board because it is a self-sustaining institution. Money is being spent for rapeseed promotion. Probably the hon. member was not present when this matter was raised. There has been a mistake. These are indicated as the estimates of trade and commerce in the blue book, but it includes only industry. The estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are going to a committee. Only the estimates of the Department of Industry are taken here to day.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Am I to understand from this, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Minister, that there may be some moneys spent on the promotion of rapeseed but those estimates will go to a particular standing committee?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, sir.


John Leroy Skoberg: Under the item "Expenses of conferences, seminars and sundries," I notice there is a reduction of close to $50,000. I should like to know why and in what area the conferences have been reduced, because I believe these have been most beneficial throughout the country.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, Mr. Chairman, I really cannot give an answer to that. May I suggest, as in the previous case, that I write to the hon. gentleman, because I simply did not expect to be questioned on such details. The only answer I could find would be out of my imagination, and I do not think, Mr. Chairman, you would want me to give that type of an answer.


John Leroy Skoberg: I might agree with that, so long as the minister realizes that these conferences are most important throughout Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do.


John Leroy Skoberg: If the minister realizes that, I will accept the explanation.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to continue with some of the questions I put to the minister, to see whether he would at least reply more directly to some of them. Does not the minister feel that the situation which exists in Canada now is much more conducive to the development of military research or defend research than it is to non-military research? I have in mind specifically the kind of grant that is provided which enables industries
Supply-Industry
engaged in defence production to be completely reimbursed in terms of original grants, whereas if research is done in the civilian sector the industry must pay for it if the project should turn out to be profitable. Does not this in fact provide greater encouragement for available capital to go into the defence sector, rather than in the civilian sector of the economy.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I think I have said everything I could say on that subject. I have indicated quite clearly that some of the pangs suffered by my hon. friend are also in part mine, although I realize better than he does the seeding effect of defence production. I have already indicated also that I am looking forward to even more money being given to development and growth in the civilian sector. So I believe I have indicated that I understand his preoccupations. I share them in part.
I also said that this orientation had been undertaken by the department before I came in. It is not often that a minister does not claim to be the originator of such moves! This orientation had already been taken, in the sense that less money was being assigned proportionately speaking to the defence part of the industry, and more money to the civilian side. I have indicated that if my hon. friend would like to do the mathematics, a combination of IRDIA and PAIT, the two programs I talked about this afternoon, would give him quite a lot of governmental support and as much as he would get on a defence project. So, I do not think there is too much disagreement between us. I feel that the debate on this subject, however interesting it is to me as well as to my hon. friend, might now be suspended if not concluded.


John Edward Broadbent: On that point, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we do differ in our mathematical calculation, but more specifically on the question of the degree of pain that the minister claims he shares with me. Incidentally I did not use that term myself originally. I suggest, with respect, he is much more in a position than I am to deal with the problem of his pain.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I properly understood the answer to a question I asked regarding the professional and special services. Was the minister to give us that information later?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can only read from the document which has been give to me. "The object

December 2, 1968
Supp ly-Industry
of the vote for professional and special services covers fees and commissions for professional and special services. The following constitute the major items of the increase. The first is the study of a Canadian communications satellite." I should have thought of that one, because it is a $550,000 item which accounts for the increase.
Item 1 agreed to.
3. Grants as detailed in the Estimates, $1,993,000.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister would attempt to get me out of the sea of confusion here. There is an item headed grants to the Canadian Standards Association, and the amount is $50,000. Then there is a grant to assist in establishing a national standards association. On top of that I understand the department intends to set up a standards council of Canada. Would the minister try to tell the house what this is all about. It looks to me as though one is established, one is to be increased, and so on.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well, the $50,000 item apparently is a standard grant of money given annually to the association. The $80,000 item is the expenditure incurred in developing the legislation that would create the national standards council.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thought the minister had told the house earlier this evening that no money had been spent on setting up the standards council of Canada. Now we are told that $80,000 has been spent to set it up. The point I raised this afternoon is that a standards council of Canada is being set up, and $80,000 is being asked to set it up. The show is on the road, and now you will come back to the house some day to ask that legislation be established to set up a national standards council of Canada. I do not think this is the way to do business. The minister should come into the house and say that he wants to set up a standards council of Canada, explain what the idea is, and then the house could approve or disapprove. At that time he could ask that the money be provided to proceed with it, and the house would give its approval. This is no way to run a business, and I think the government should stop this practice which has been followed in so many cases. The manpower department set up a whole training program, and then came to the house to ask for its approval.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hope I did not say it as my hon. friend indicated I did. We will look at it

tomorrow in Hansard. I think I said the money was not being spent as if the national council existed. I thought that was what I said. In any event the $80,000 is money assigned for the preparation of the legislation. My hon. friend has some interesting views on this, but it seems to me that when you come with a bill to the House of Commons you do not come only with a resolution; you come also with a bill that will be taken through first, second and third readings. So it seems to me that some preliminary work must be done even in order to bring the suggestions to the attention of members of the house. At any rate I will see to it that as little money as possible is spent.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I think that not only the minister but also the government probably is in a very unorthodox position. What would happen, for instance, if the house turned down the legislation for the setting up the standards council of Canada? I for one have very grave and sincere views concerning the setting up the standards council of Canada, when there is an associaton now which is doing a good job and which will probably continue to do it a lot better and more cheaply than the government could do it. I do not believe it is necessary to set up another bureaucracy in order to do such a thing. However, the government intends to go ahead and set up a standards council whether we want it or not. I do not think we should be asked to vote $80,000 to set up this council, and I am of two views as to whether I should allow these estimates to pass tonight. As far as I am concerned, I will have to make a decision in this regard.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what this vote involves, so far as the standards council is concerned. I hope the minister will give some consideration to the establishment of standards in the field of international trade. The necessity arises for someone to make a decision whether Canada, the United States and the western hemisphere should superimpose standards on the rest of the world. I am sure the minister is aware that most international trade is carried out on the basis of the metric system, yet we in Canada are still operating on the basis of pounds, ounces, and drams. Most other countries in the world operate on the basis of a straight metric system.
December 2, 1988

Following the establishment of this standards council, will one of its jobs be the creation of a system to maintain equity on the international trading scene? Will a system be established to give an indication that Canada will be in a position to develop standards compatible with those in existence in the rest of the world? It has been my contention for some time, and obviously by the number of similar bills on the order paper the contention of a number of other members, that the Canadian system should be changed in all forms to a decimal system. While some countries do not use the decimal system as far as currency is concerned, most of these countries use this system in terms of weight. This creates some difficulty in international trade. Because of the monetary structure throughout the world, we now find ourselves in a position of advantage in relation to countries using the metric system. This causes a great deal of confusion. I have in mind the standards of the western hemisphere in respect of automobiles made here and automobiles imported from France, England and many continental areas including, Italy, Germany, and other countries.
If we intend to establish a standards council the minister should outline the government's function in this regard. I am sure there is going to be some disruption, no matter when we decide to change over, but it is probably easier to adopt a total and complete decimal system when several countries are experiencing serious monetary difficulties, than at any other time. If we are to set up a standards council which will interest itself in trade, and the development of our industries, some consideration should be given to the standardization of a system of measures. Canada should then convert to a specific system, rather than waiting until a system is developed which will be more to our advantage.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. member for Timiskaming and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres have the same preoccupation. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has written to me on a number of occasions regarding this specific matter. When this matter comes back before the house I will explain the relationship between the proposed council and the metric system. One of the functions of that council, I am sure, at least I hope, will be to study and propose methods of implementing this system in Canada. My hon. friend is aware that we are a neighbour to the United States, and even if
Supp ly-Industry
a large percentage of world trade was carried out in the metric system, the United States is an important customer of ours, and that country has not changed its system as yet.
I am sorry that I may have misinformed the hon. member for Wellington. The amount of $50,000 is an annual grant to the National Standards Association. Perhaps I should have checked first, but I am now informed that the $80,000 grant to the national standards council is for that council when it comes into being. I am sorry to have given the wrong information.


John Gilbert: I should like to direct the minister's attention to the grants to the manufacturers in Canada who apply for government insured loans under the agricultural adjustments assistance program in relation to the Kennedy round agreements. I note the amount is $650,000. I do not expect the minister to have details tonight, but I should like to know some of the facts in relation to the larger grants to particular companies. I have in mind government grants to these companies during the transitional period resulting from these Kennedy round agreements. They apparently continue to have a chamber of commerce application to the disadvantage of the employees who work for the companies. I should like to know the results of a study made in respect of these grants to manufacturers during the transitional period. Perhaps the minister can give us some indication of the amount of money these companies receive as a result of these agreements.
I was under the impression that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance when introducing these estimates said that these grants had not been taken up by the manufacturers. I must have been wrong. I would appreciate it if the minister, if not tonight, would inform me as to some of these major grants. Perhaps he could do so by writing me a letter.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, under item No. 3, grants to industrial research organizations, the minister referred to agricultural machinery. If that is not so I apologize, and suggest I misunderstood because of my inability to understand French.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my opening remarks I was referring to automotive machinery.


John Leroy Skoberg: I understood the minister also referred to other machinery, particularly agricultural machinery.

December 2. 1968
Supply-Industry


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am informed that agricultural machinery for the farmer is tariff free, so it is not covered in any event.


John Leroy Skoberg: I believe some suggestion was made in so far as research is concerned, and I should like to suggest to the minister that there is dastardly neglect in respect of the agricultural economy. I would ask the minister whether he has given any consideration to industrial research associations interested in testing farm machinery. Many years ago the agricultural machinery administration for Saskatchewan made some study of this matter. At that time it came under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture. I presume now that this could come within the general scope of research associations within the jurisdiction of the minister's department.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I must say that I was not able to follow the translation clearly, but this afternoon I understood the minister to suggest that agricultural machinery would be considered under this item. I would like once again to ask him whether the government is taking into consideration at this time the testing of agricultural machinery.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall vote 3 carry?


Mr. Monteilh:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up the questions of the hon. member for Wellington a few moments ago. I noticed that the grant to the Canadian Standards Association of $50,000 is a new item this year; nothing was spent on this item last year. I would ask the minister this question: Is it correct that there is now a Canadian Standards Association?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Jay Waldo Monteith: This is a grant of $50,000 to them this year only, or might it be continued in future years?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that this is an annual event. Second, I understand also-


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman. Will it be an annual grant from now on?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has been annual until now.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Where did it appear before?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that the situation will be reviewed after the council has report-

ed. I presume we will accept the recommendation of the council as to the grant made to the national standards association.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I am sorry to show my ignorance, Mr. Chairman, but the grant of $50,000 appears as a new item this year at this particular spot in the blue book. There is no corresponding item for last year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Apparently the reason is that it was paid by Trade and Commerce in the past.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It must appear somewhere in the 1967-68 estimates. Perhaps the minister would inquire as to what page in the blue book it did appear.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, I have a note here-


Jay Waldo Monteith: The minister did not answer my question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am looking for the answer, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. As I understand it, the minister is finding the answer. Meanwhile we will continue with the hon. member for Moose Jaw.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, possibly the minister should pay attention to me, because we may not understand each other too well if he does not. I have here a note that the minister referred to the procuring of equipment and production machinery, referring I believe to farm machinery. I wonder whether he would give me an answer as to whether in his statement this afternoon he referred specifically to farm machinery. The minister can take this question as notice and give me an answer later.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not.


John Leroy Skoberg: I did not hear the answer, Mr. Chairman.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I did not refer today to agricultural machinery, but I did a few days ago. The committee may recall that this matter arose in the question period, I think last Thursday or Friday. I indicated at the time, with respect to drying facilities, the attitude the Minister of Finance and myself were taking on the matter. Is this what is now preoccupying the hon. member?


John Leroy Skoberg: Hansard will probably show it tomorrow. But if the minister did not refer
December 2, 1968

to research in respect of farm machinery, I am quite prepared to accept his answer.


Mr. McCutcheon:: Mr. Chairman, the last item at the bottom of page 236 refers to a grant to assist in establishing a national standards association. The expenditure in this item drops from $150,000 to $80,000. Perhaps the minister could explain the economy. The wording looks a little peculiar, if we spent $150,000 a year ago and we now have a grant to assist in establishing it. How long will it be before it becomes established? Is this a continuing proposition? Is it established every year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand that it is now believed it can be operated for $80,000 a year. As far as I am concerned, everything is ready for the introduction of this legislation in the house, as soon as we find time to do so. I refer to legislation to create a national standards association. To answer the hon. member for Perth, the reason-this is a bit tricky-is that $48,000 was paid last year to the C.S.A. by way of a supplementary estimate. I do not know why a supplementary estimate was not included here.


Jay Waldo Monteith: I do not know either. These are supposed to be revised estimates.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the minister, he is asking us to provide $80,000 toward setting up a national standards association for Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is right.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Last year the department got $150,000 toward setting up the same association. So there is $230,000 that has already been spent in establishing a national standards association. The minister now tells us that the legislation is ready and he will introduce it into the house for us to pass. I believe this is the point we have reached.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I shall move that vote 3 be stood, and that we do not grant the $80,000 to set up a national standards association for Canada until the minister presents legislation to the house in order that we know what a national standards council involves, what its ramifications are, what it stands for and whether it will cover those matters in which we are interested. When we have the legislation we will know the answers to these questions. I do not think the house
Supply-Industry
should vote $80,000 until we know what the minister has in mind. I do not know the procedure and whether I would have to write out my motion and give it to you now, Mr. Chairman, but I move:
That vote 3 of the revised estimates of the department of industry be not now passed until the minister presents legislation to this house, and it is passed, setting up a national standards association of Canada.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in keeping my reputation as a flexible man, a smiling man. So I accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Wellington and suggest that we agree with the motion he made.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I thank the minister, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is there agreement that this item stand?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman. I am very much in favour of this item. I note that the department has already dropped the amount from $150,000 last year to $80,000 this year. I also support the idea of the hon. member for Wellington that we should have more detail in this regard. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, I am sure, and myself would very much oppose dropping this item if it meant there would not be a continuation of the study respecting the metric system and the standards, weights and measurements used in Canada. On the other hand I agree with the hon. member for Wellington that we should have more details in this regard. I am sure that if the minister thinks about it for a minute or two he will be able to give us the reason for the department asking for this amount. For the minister to agree that we drop it, which I gather is what he is suggesting-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, my mother was very right. She said to me one day, "If you try to please everybody, you will not please anybody."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let me try to make it clear. The $150,000 for last year was not spent because legislation was not introduced in time. Plans did not materialize as rapidly as was hoped. The reason for the $80,000 is the expectation that this would be for one part of next year. I presume it was expected that legislation would be passed about March or April,

December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
and then there would be enough provided to maintain the council for the rest of the year. This is why I do not propose to say any more, in an effort to be conciliatory.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


William Arnold Peters: I am sympathetic to both positions, but I do not want to get into the position of supporting neither one. Even if we have some money left over from last year, it does not seem to me it can be directed for a specific purpose. I believe that the establishment of a standards council is worth while, but I agree also that the minister should be more specific about what it is going to do. I have a very definite direction in which I want to see this council progress. I am sure that the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres agrees that we want to see this council directed toward international trade. This will involve some compromise at least with the metric system, and the standards we have been using for our trade. We may have enough money to carry on this year, but I think the argument made by the hon. member for Wellington will be repeated next year. He probably wants some declaration as to the purpose of that item. I believe this is really all that is being requested.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not want to get into a big quarrel about this because it seemed to me to be a tempest in a teapot. The hon. member for Wellington asked me to cut it out, so I said all right and I would bring it back when the bill is introduced. Nobody is suffering, any way you look at it. I would have preferred to let the item remain, but by hon. friend on the other side, who is a keen defender of public finance, feels that it should be out. I do not want to quarrel with it so I am suggesting, in the spirit of Advent and in the interests of advancement, that we agree.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Perhaps I can get the $36,000 back for rapeseed.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), mentioned my name several times and once again I will agree with him. I would not be very happy if that item no longer appeared under that credit, especially if we were not assured that it would not hurt in any way that standards office which would provide for the changing of our measure system, as far as the eventual adoption of the decimal system is concerned.

Like the hon. member for Timiskaming, I am one of those who are convinced that we are even a little late here in adopting the decimal system. England set up a commission which studied the problem and decided that the decimal or metric system, if you wish, would be applied over a certain number of years; it is a change which takes 7 or 8 years. France has been using it for a long time as well as almost all the countries of Europe. Australia adopted it recently. The United States also have set up a commission which is studying the problem and we are told that it is preparing a report and will recommend that the system be adopted.
This means that we, in Canada, will have to follow, but to be able to do so, some organization will have to establish a modus vivendi, a program enabling as to adopt the decimal system within a given number of years, and according to methods prepared in advance. Such an organization, and I refer to what the minister said earlier, should have a minimum budget enabling it to undertake studies and report later.
I said that we are behindhand and the minister stated that he would prefer that this be included in that item. If he prefers it, it is precisely because he has foreseen the adoption of a piece of legislation which will have to be considered by a competent commission.
I had the opportunity to receive from the minister some quite enlightening information in that connection and I think that the house should not cut that item, because it is quite important for the modernization of our weight system and also the combination of our measure system with that of European countries adopted by most commonwealth countries, including Australia and soon to be adopted by the United States.
Now, I think that the amount provided should be left to the minister, because it is a rather small amount and there is no likelihood of any scandal or squandering. We would be foresighted if we gave to that commission the means to report to the government in the shortest possible time and suggest the measures to be taken in order to apply the decimal system. I support the suggestion of my friend the honourable member for Timiskaming and I think that the house should also approve it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I was in hopes that we would pass these estimates tonight, and I do not want to delay them. However, a principle is
December 2, 1968

Supply-Industry
involved here. It is not a question of deciding whether we are going to have the metric system, whether we are going to have standard sizes for ladies dresses or whether we are going to have standards for electrical motors. The principle involved here is this, that the minister should present some form of legislation, so we know what is involved in a standards council of Canada. Then, I think the house would be only too happy to pass the vote for $80,000, or whatever it takes. However, I do not think we should pass the vote for $80,000 when we do not know what it is for, or what form the legislation is going to take. This was my point in asking that vote 3 should not be agreed to at the moment, but that we could proceed with the other items. The minister may wish to enlarge on what I have said.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is it the wish of the committee, then, that vote 3 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have accepted the suggestion made by my hon. friend, so I do not think there should be any difficulty in dropping it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: By "dropping it", you mean there is no item of $80,000 in there, I take it? Is that agreed?


James Hugh Faulkner: There are certain procedural difficulties that have arisen at this point, and I should like to consult with the officers at the table. There is some uncertainly in the mind of the Chair as to exactly what agreement has been arrived at between the minister and the hon. member for Wellington. Perhaps the minister would like to explain, so we would be in a better position to make a decision.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will take the contrary position. As I understand it, the hon. member and the committee would be willing to pass vote 3 with the exception of the $80,000 assigned to the national standards association, so perhaps we could do it that way without getting into procedural difficulties.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If it might assist the Chair, I shall withdraw my motion in view of the suggestion made by the minister.
Amendment (Mr. Hales) withdrawn.


James Hugh Faulkner: This, then, involves a
procedural difficulty in that another minister has to move that the item be reduced by the sum of $80,000. If possible the Chair would like a motion to that effect
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down. You are not a minister.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. Perhaps we may clear up this temporary procedural impasse before we move on.


Mr. Davis:: I so move, Mr. Chairman.


James Hugh Faulkner: Is the committee ready to debate the motion?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, before you put the question I should like further clarification of the minister's explanation regarding the $150,000 vote in 1967-68.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald MacInnis: As I was entering the chamber I understood the minister to say that this $150,000 would be carried over. I also heard a reference to the fact that it would be added to the $80,000.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I said that the $150,000 was not spent and was returned to the receiver general. This is an entirely new item, and we have now agreed to pass vote 3 with the exception of this amount of $80,000 for the national standards association.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to know whether this $150,000 has been spent. It is my understanding that any vote not used last year cannot in any way, shape or form be spent again by the government unless it is reintroduced in this house in the proper way. If $150,000 was not spent last year, then it should not be spent in some other way without being reintroduced.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is why we introduced a new vote for $80,000.
Amendment (Mr. Davis) agreed to.


James Hugh Faulkner: Shall vote 3 as reduced pass?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:)
5. To develop and sustain the technological capability of Canadian defence industry for the purpose of defence export sales or civil export sales arising from that capability
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1968
Supply-Industry
(a)	by supporting selected development programs,
(b)	by paying one-half of the cost of the acquisition of new equipment required for plant modernization, and
(c)	by supporting the establishment of production capacity and qualified sources for production of component parts and materials,
on terms and conditions approved by the Treasury Board and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $150,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $32,000,000.
10. To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects on terms and conditions approved by Treasury Board and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $40,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $10,000,000.
15. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, $32,500,000.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Chairman, the amount shown under this item is $9.5 million less than the previous years' amount. I am wondering why this particular expenditure has been curtailed, since this money was instrumental in providing much needed employment in our shipyards while adding to our commercial and our fishing fleets. Without a shipbuilding subsidy, our shipbuilders cannot hope to compete with builders from the United Kingdom, The Netherlands or Japan. This is due in part to our high labour costs and the high cost of materials, and due also in no small measure to the present high rate of taxation.
At the present time there are no ships under construction in my constituency. However, this does not indicate that none are required, not only in my constituency or in Nova Scotia, but throughout the Atlantic provinces. As our fishing vessels become obsolete they must be replaced. At the present time there is need for new scallop drag-gers and ships are required for the queen crab industry. However, unless the government recognizes its responsibility to our shipbuilding industry and to our fishermen by establishing a shipbuilding policy, the ships presently required by Canadians will be built in foreign lands. This will only aggravate our present serious unemployment problem.
When a ship is built in Europe it does nothing for the shipbuilding industry in Canada. It does not contain any wood or steel supplied by Canadians. It does not contain any heating equipment, any electronic gear or have on its hull paint manufactured by [The Chairman.]
Canadians. I know of no industry comparable to the shipbuilding industry that makes a greater impact on our over-all economy. For the construction of a ship is comparable to the building of a small village: it needs heat and light and power, and a whole multitude of materials, right down to the wooden rolling pin for the chef in the galley.
The minister and the government think nothing of increasing the amount for professional and special services to $1.6 million, or spending $127,000 more on telephones, as the minister informed us this evening. But when it has under consideration a matter of such great importance as assistance for our commercial and fishing vessels, the amounts are cut down as an economy move.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the minister is aware of the impact that the present lack of policy on the part of the government has on the shipbuilding industry. With no ships to build, our shipwrights are forced to seek other occupations and they can soon lose their skills. I would also point out that the present amount of subsidy is insufficient to cover the cost differential between Canadian and foreign builders.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to exert some pressure on his colleagues to provide a shipbuilding policy for Canada at an early date. Could the minister give me any indication of what his department is planning, so as to provide this much needed assistance to this very important industry, one which is of great concern to so many Canadians?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, this vote has been cut from $42 million to $32 million, not because it is an indication of a lack of interest but simply because under the present circumstances the demand for shipbuilding at the moment led us to believe that $32 million would be sufficient. My colleague the Minister of Fisheries recently had conversations with representatives of the government of Nova Scotia, and they agreed that there would be a slow-down in construction this year in view of upward trends in the shipbuilding industry in previous years. The reduction from $42 million to $32 million does not imply lack of interest on the part of the government, but simply an analysis of the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
December 2, 1968
[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:)
LOANS, INVESTMENTS AND ADVANCES Industry and Trade and Commerce-
Industry-
L75. Advances, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, to assist Canadian defence industry with plant modernization in amounts not to exceed one-half of the cost of the acquisition of new equipment, such advances to be recovered on sale of the equipment to defence Industry, $8,000,000.
L 80. Loans, under the Adjustment Assistance Program related to the Kennedy Round agreements, in the current and subsequent fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, to assist manufacturers in Canada who have been determined by a board established pursuant to section 15 of the Department of Industry Act:
(a)	to be seriously injured or threatened with serious injury by reason of increased imports attributable to Kennedy Round tariff reductions made by Canada resulting in exceptional problems of adjustment: and
(b)	to be unable to obtain sufficient financing on reasonable terms from other sources for purposes of making the necessary adjustment, $10,000,000.
James Hugh Faulkner: This concludes our consideration of the estimates of the department of industry. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed to the adjournement motion perhaps I can confirm that the business for tomorrow will be second reading of the bill to amend the Customs Tariff.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, on November 26 I directed the following question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
Has the government, through the national parks board, announced that logging operations will be allowed in Glacier National Park, and particularly in that section bordering the trans-Canada highway through Rogers pass. If so, when will logging operations begin?
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
At the time Mr. Speaker suggested that the above question ought to be raised at the time of adjournment, and I have taken advantage of the privilege of raising it at this time. I feel that this matter is important and urgent enough to warrant a statement being made by the department concerned. Of course, if the answer to my question is negative, there would be no need for concern over logging in Glacier National Park. Since raising my question last week, however, over logging in Glacier National Park, we had a C.B.C. television program on loggin in Algonquin Park, Ontario, which comes under provincial jurisdiction, I believe.
It would appear that the parks boards of both Ontario and the federal government allow logging in their park reserves. It also appears that there is an increasing relaxation of restrictions which were laid down years ago. As the C.B.C. depicted in its television program last night, logging of hardwoods in Algonquin Park has been allowed. The hardwood supplies material for the surrounding mills. Much of this material goes to the furniture manufacturing industry.
Perhaps we should ask why there is a shortage of hardwood stands in eastern Canada. The answer is obvious. Over the years governments, federal and provincial, have never had sound conservation policies in forestry. In these instances the lack of proper forest conservation has caused almost complete exhaustion of commercial stands of hardwoods which are required to keep the sawmills and furniture manufacturing industries alive. The policy has been "Cut out and get out," a weak policy by weak governments that gives the green light to commercial operators to move into our parks where some of the best timber reserves are still left.
May I point out that our national parks have been set aside to preserve for Canadians for all time part of the great natural heritage with which Canada has been so richly endowed. These parklands must be protected at all costs against greedy operators and weak politicians, whether they be in provincial or federal fields, who worship the almighty dollar above everything else.
Glacier National Park sits astride that portion of the trans-Canada highway which goes through Rogers pass. This is the most scenic drive found anywhere in Canada, a veritable tourists' paradise. Under no circumstances must we ever allow commercial logging to mar the beauty of this particularly scenic area.
3408	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I speak out against commercial logging operations in any of our national parks. In a few short years in Canada we have virtually eliminated a number of our renewable natural resources, through stupidity with regard to conservation. Surely some remnants of our original Canadian heritage should be allowed to remain unspoiled for future generations?
On occasions it might be necessary to remove some timber from national park areas because fire or disease has destroyed certain stands. It might be necessary to do so for our own protection. In these instances removal should be carried out under the strictest park supervision possible; the logging methods involved should relate to a conservation policy, and in no circumstances should commercial logging enterprises be allowed in our parks. Reforestation should immediately follow the removal of material damaged by Are or disease.
With these thoughts in mind I ask the minister to give the house an explanation why any logging should be allowed in Glacier National Park. I ask him to tell us the acreage and approximate volume involved. Will the timber be put up for public auction? What is the estimated revenue to be returned to the parks branch? Have any contracts been let to date? What safeguards have been provided to ensure maximum protection for the park area?
We should be given this information. However, I serve notice that all my life I have fought for sound conservation policies in relation to all our natural resources. Parks are of special interest to me, and I have no intention of remaining silent if there is any move to liquidate these resources which have been set aside as national park areas for all time for Canadians to enjoy. Under no circumstances must we ever relax our guard as far as these parks are concerned. We have a solemn duty to preserve these areas for future generations, to pass them on as unimpaired as possible, and I urge the minister to give us as much information as he can this evening, trusting he can announce that a decision has been taken against logging operations in this particular national park.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like to make just one point, first of all. The hon. member spoke at length about Algonquin Park. I must tell him immediately we have nothing to do with this-it is a provincial park, not a federal park. There is no

DEBATES	December 2, 1968
cutting operation in any of the national parks of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I welcome the hon. member's lecture on conservation, but there is no one who is more interested than I am in preserving the natural beauty of our land in the national parks. The department has a policy under which permits may not be given to anyone to cut timber in our national parks, or try to exploit any of the natural resources there. This is because we believe the parks should be preserved in their present state for people to enjoy, both now and in days to come.
As far as Glacier park is concerned, I am well aware of the problem to which the hon. member has referred. I must inform him that I have looked into this matter, because only a few weeks ago the hon. member for Okana-gan-Kootenay (Mr. Stewart) wrote me a letter saying he was very much concerned about these problems because there are four national parks in his riding. I found that these companies have long standing rights to conduct certain operations there. I took steps to permit the federal government, through my department, to buy these rights back because I would not like these companies to cut any wood in the Glacier National Park.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I am convinced that this is the right policy for us to follow. We are conducting negotiations right now and we are hopeful we will reach an agreement with them. If we do not arrive at an agreement with them, we will use other powers that exist under our jurisdiction.



VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL TRAINING- REPORTED REGIONAL LIMITATIONS ON NUMBERS ACCEPTED

Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the question I raised has a great importance for those who wish to take advantage of the retraining, and they are numerous in my riding.
An early winter has put a stop to some building operations before the expected date and, as a result, the number of the unemployed has increased. Moreover, the fact that the government has abandoned the winter works program is not likely to remedy the situation.
Another reason why more people want to take advantage of retraining is the fact that
December 2, 1968
some dairy producers will be excluded from that production next year, and under the rules of the Canadian Dairy Commission in the next few years, they will have to turn to other sectors, now, in order to be ready, they will necessarily have to take retraining.
Others wish to spend their time doing something more interesting than remaining idle. This applies especially to the young, for when one is young, one is full of energy; and when one is idle, one is exposed to doing things which are not advisable. So an interest must be taken in the young in order to give them the opportunity of doing something good instead of doing something evil. They wish to take courses to improve their education or to increase their knowledge in some field or other.
I receive letters from people who complain about not being able to take courses because they have not been accepted by the manpower centres in their area; and this, even when at times it would be possible for the schools to accommodate them.
Must the officials of the manpower centres apply some standard before accepting a candidate who wants to take a retraining course? Is there a maximum age? Some people who took courses in 1967-68 are refused in 1968-69. Why are they rejected?
Here is an example. Someone wrote to tell me that last year he registered at his local manpower centre for a retraining course as a heavy machinery operator. He was told that he needed a 9th grade education to register for that course. Since he had gone only to the 7th grade, he chose to take his 8th grade of schooling to go on to the 9th grade, and he finished with marks of 89 per cent.
Last fall, he went to the same office to register for his ninth grade, but he was turned down because, he was told, he was over 35 years old and only those under 35 were accepted for the ninth grade this year. But as he wanted to complete his ninth grade this year at all costs, he went to the regional school board, of his area, and he was accepted. He is now taking subjects for his ninth grade since November 18, but without financial assistance.
Others are rejected because there is not enough room in the schools. Is that the true reason? Farmers would like to follow refresher courses in agriculture but they are turned down.
It is urgent, Mr. Speaker, that the people interested in the training courses should know as soon as possible where they stand, so
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
that they do not run the risk of losing their school year.
We speak rightly of the establishment of a just society. I suggest it should not remain at the project stage. We should not lose a minute in order to make it a reality. Many persons are denied, for a thousand and one reasons, the benefits of training courses. Is that the way to prepare them to bring their contribution to the achievement of a just society which will finally enable everyone to enjoy a decent living?
Society is troubled with the very serious problem of social welfare allowances paid to valid persons that could contribute, through their work, to the exploitation of our country's resources for their benefit as well as that of the whole community, thus giving back confidence in work efficiency.
I therefore ask the responsible minister to have amended the regulations on retraining courses, if it is so indicated, so that a larger number of people can take advantage of them before the year is too far advanced.
Finally, if the problem is financial, it is time for the government to take the bull by the horns and make financially possible what can be achieved humanly and physically.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to reply to the honourable member.
First of all I wish to thank him for the interest he shows in our manpower development programs. That much interest in those programs surely indicate that they are good. It is obvious that any new institution takes a few months, and often a few years, before attaining its maturity.
However, I note with interest that the people in his riding are interested in the progressive policy our government has put forward, which will certainly lead us towards a just society more rapidly than any Creditiste government could.



HOUSING-OSHAWA-AVAILABILITY OF DEFENCE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a general duty of a member of parliament, I believe, to try on the one hand, to speak out on problems that generally are important to the nation as a whole, and on the other, to speak out on issues which have a more direct bearing with regard to his own constituency. Tonight I should like to

3410	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion speak very briefly about a problem which fits into both categories. I have in mind the question of housing.
It was recently announced by the Department of National Defence that the Oshawa wireless station would be available for disposal on March 31, 1969. This station is located on 275 acres of land. As soon as this announcement was made a number of interested citizens in my constituency immediately raised the question concerning the suitability of this land for housing. This is the reason I say the issue is both of local and national concern. Housing is a national problem.
Specifically three organizations in my constituency, the United Automobile Workers of America, Local 222; the Royal Canadian Legion, Oshawa Branch 431 and the Canadian Corps Association, unit 42 of Oshawa, all approached me on the question of inquiring about the suitability of this land for housing for veterans. I made such an inquiry and have been advised that a feasibility study is being carried on in respect of this land, to see whether it would be appropriate for the construction of homes for veterans.
My point, which I attempted to raise in the house the other day, is whether the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is responsible for housing, would commit himself to the view, if the feasibility study that is being carried out on this land turns out to be positive in nature, that this land which is in the midst of a large metropolitan region would be used for the construction of homes. Would the minister in fact assure the house that some arrangement will be made for this public land to be used for housing, and more particularly that it will be used for this purpose without being turned over to private speculators?
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, because my question was ruled out of order at the time I posed it, I have discussed the matter in this form this evening. So far, most of my requests on
DEBATES	December 2, 1968
behalf of my constituents on this matter have been in the interests of veterans. Whether or not it would be equitable to use the entire 275 acres for veterans is a question I have not completely settled in my own mind. Certainly a good portion of this land should be used for this purpose, provided it is suitable. The main question seems to be whether the minister responsible for housing will ensure that, if this public land is suitable for this purpose the government will make it available.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the member for having drawn this problem, which concerns his riding to the attention of the house.
As he said himself, this is a problem on which we are not yet ready to make a decision, since it necessitates preliminary studies regarding the possibility of establishing housing lots in that part of the land which belongs to the Department of National Defence. However, I can assure him that the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is in charge of the housing problems in Canada, will certainly take into account the representations which have been made in the house and, if necessary, will negotiate with his former department, in order to make the best possible use of those lands in the interest of all Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A a motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to be adopted. Accordingly this house stands adjourned until 2.30 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY AND TRADE AND COMMERCE

[Stage Direction]
1, 3, 5, 10, 15, L75, L80.


[Stage Direction]
29180-145}

[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 1, 1968