1968-11-04

Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Welland) moved: that the first report of the standing committee on justice and legal affairs, presented to the house on Thursday, October 31, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report on certain initiatives taken within the last few days by the Canadian government in the international field.

Some two weeks ago discussions commenced in my office and in the Department of External Affairs about the desirability of sending to Lagos a personal representative of the Prime Minister of Canada for the purpose of furthering Canadian assistance efforts to that country. As a result of the decision reached in those discussions I instructed Mr. Ivan Head, my legislative assistant, to travel to Nigeria to speak on my behalf to Major General Yakubu Gowon, the head of the Nigerian federal military government.
Mr. Head left Canada on Saturday, October 26. He met with General Gowon in Lagos on Tuesday of last week. They talked at some length with respect to the unfortunate hostilities now raging in Nigeria. On my behalf Mr. Head expressed to General Gowon the deep sympathy of all Canadians for the people's suffering as a result of the civil war. These sentiments were understood and welcomed by General Gowon. Discussed as well was the means by which the desire of Canadians to assist in the alleviation of that suffering could be made more effective.
As an immediate result of the Lagos talks, I am happy to be able to report the following. First, General Gowon has agreed to assist in every way possible and to guarantee the safety of daylight Red Cross flights into Uli airstrip from either or both of Lagos and Fernando Po. This means that the daily volume of relief supplies which could be carried into the rebel area could be multiplied several fold. This statement by General Gowon is, I suggest, both significant and laudatory. It illustrates clearly the sincerity of the federal military government in its declarations of good faith toward the Ibo peoples.
General Gowon has placed a single condition on this guarantee, one which I regard and which I am sure all Canadians will regard as eminently reasonable. It is that Colonel Ojuk-wu will undertake not to employ the Uli airstrip during daylight hours for arms flights. In this regard it should be borne in mind that such an undertaking would in no respect reduce the present level of arms shipments to the rebels. Uli airstrip is not now being used for any purpose during daylight hours. Under the agreement now reached it would be used, but only for civilian relief purposes.
I therefore now address a public and urgent appeal to Colonel Ojukwu to seize this opportunity to open up his airport to daylight relief flights and so permit the Red Cross to increase substantially food shipments to those civilians in the rebel held areas needing help.
A second point emerging from the Lagos talks was the useful information exchanged with respect to the most effective form of assistance which Canada might offer to Nigeria respecting distribution of relief supplies in federal territory. These discussions are continuing at an official level and I hope to be able to make a further announcement in this respect at an early date.
Third, the talks proved useful as an occasion for discussing Canada's participation in the international observer team. General Gowon repeated his assurances that the team will continue to enjoy freedom of movement and access.
I should like to report as well, Mr. Speaker, that on Saturday afternoon I met in New York with His Excellency U Thant, the Secretary General of the United Nations. We
2346	COMMONS
Statement Respecting Nigeria employed that opportunity to exchange views on a number of issues of interest to Canada and to the United Nations. This was the second occasion since assuming the office of Prime Minister that I have engaged in lengthy and useful talks with the Secretary General, the first being in Edmonton in May. We have agreed to continue this practice from time to time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
I draw these recent activities to the attention of the house, Mr. Speaker, as an indication of the continuing initiatives of the government to ensure that Canadian foreign policies are both effective and appropriate.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the announcement of the Prime Minister will be received with pleasure, I am sure, by all those who have felt that the government was somewhat slow in initiating an imaginative policy in so far as the humanitarian and political aspects of the Nigeria-Biafra war are concerned. As one who has been following some of the concepts of the Prime Minister's office about communications and the need to improve them, I am interested to see how this example of public attitude to foreign affairs has somewhat surprised the Prime Minister and his government in that they have found they cannot turn the public on and off like a tap. This they tried to do in the case of Nigeria and Biafra.
Certainly I welcome the initiative that the government has at least taken in sending one of its emissary, a senior person in the Prime Minister's office, to Lagos. I hope the gentleman concerned took the opportunity to make his appeal while he was in West Africa, not only to General Gowon but also to Colonel Ojukwu. Perhaps this would have avoided the necessity of the appeal of the Prime Minister. I think this very satisfactory, since the observer team, which has been under some rather restrictive prohibitions, about which it commented in its report; and has been guaranteed freedom of movement and access by the government of Nigeria. It will be a useful change if the observer team is enlarged and is also able to visit Biafra.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of this house who represents the Canadian people is happy to see that the deep concern of the Canadian public in relation to the situation in Biafra is reflected in the statement the Prime Minister has made. It was quite a long statement covering a number of complex matters.

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
I would simply welcome the proposal that daylight flights are to be made, perhaps thereby enabling the delivery of needed food and medical supplies to be doubled.
However, Mr. Speaker, I note once again that the Prime Minister referred to Lagos and Fernando Po. May I remind the Prime Minister that there is another highly successful operation going on, one that has been going on for several months, from Sao Tome.
I appreciate there is difficulty here unless the operation is also carried out under the International Red Cross. If instead of ignoring that operation the government of Canada were to do its best to see that the Red Cross and the churches entered into an arrangement satisfactory to the Nigerian government for the inspection of flights from Sao Tome, then I suggest supplies would not only be doubled but quadrupled, or perhaps even better.
I am glad the question of the observer team was taken up but I did not notice in the Prime Minister's statement any sort of undertaking by the Nigerian government that they would change the terms of reference. I remind the Prime Minister that it was made absolutely clear in the report of the observers that the future efficacy of the operation depended upon there being some change in the terms of reference.
I also suggest that their future efficacy depends on their having an opportunity to go into the Biafran occupied areas in order to hear complaints that may be made. This would make the observer team infinitely more useful than it is now.
I must say that I still regret in this statement, much though we welcome it, the complete absence of any reference to the overriding necessity of bringing about a cease fire and stopping the importation of arms by either side in the conflict. It seems to me this is something which in the interests of humanity and under the rules of international law cannot be disregarded by the international community. We shall continue to express our regrets until Canada takes the lead we think she could take in this respect.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, allow me on behalf of the Rallie-ment Creditiste, to congratulate most sincerely the right hon. Prime Minister for his initiative in helping the people of Biafra, who seem to be threatened by inevitable suicide because the federal troops have tried to keep the province from obtaining its liberty.
November 4, 1968

We, on this side of the house, are always too pleased to support legislation or any government initiative to help a people in need. But, if poor legislation or an unacceptable project is introduced, we will be equally pleased to expose our views.
I congratulate you, Mr. Prime Minister, on that government initiative which will be appreciated by all the countries of the world. However, I am sorry that 34 days were needed to take the initiative-which I myself requested 34 days ago-especially if we take into account the fact that 6,000 people were dying every day and that the government could have avoided a great number of killings by acting sooner.
Mr. Prime Minister, your work is only starting, since this morning we read in the newspapers that 200 Nigerians had been killed. Furthermore, a press release from the Biafran army indicates that the battle was fierce, that an impressive number of soldiers were killed and that the Biafrans also seized hundreds of English-made rifles and a substantial quantity of ammunition.
If a country such as Great Britain, supported by Canada, on the one hand, can pretend to render service to these people while, on the other hand, it ships arms, I say that this is mass-killing, and therefore, Mr. Prime Minister, you are fully responsible for rescuing a province which wanted to protect its oil wells.


Mr. Speaker:: Now that the honourable member has ended his remarks, I would remind him that they should normally be directed to the Chair.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Have the federal government and/or Air Canada studied, or are they studying, or will they study the possibility of changing Air Canada into a private company or into a company with mixed ownership and, if so (a) what is the result of these studies (b) will these studies be submitted to Parliament?
2.	Has the federal government given instructions concerning this problem to Air Canada and, if so, what was the nature of these instructions?
3.	Will the directors of Air Canada appear before the Crown Corporation committees to explain their policy on this matter?
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1.	The government is studying all possible options of corporate structure for Air Canada. This is a general study, however, and because of the broad policy issues involved will require considerable time to complete. No immediate policy change is contemplated and it is therefore premature to consider what action, if any, should result from the studies.
2.	The federal government has not given any instructions to Air Canada concerning the question raised in Item 1.
3.	As there is no new policy on this subject, it is not contemplated that the directors of Air Canada would appear before the crown corporations committee to discuss this matter.


APPOINTMENTS OF FORMER LIBERAL MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many Liberal Members of the last Parliament and Liberal Candidates in the last election have been appointed to positions in Government, Civil Service, or to Government Boards since 25th June?
2.	What are the names of such persons, and to what positions were they respectively appointed?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1 and 2.
Neither candidates for election to the House of Commons nor members of the house are required to declare a party affiliation. Consequently, there is no record under the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada from which an answer to this question can be drawn.


APPOINTMENTS OF FORMER MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many former Members of Parliament, either retired or defeated in the general election of June 25, 1968, have been appointed to positions with the Government of Canada, what are the names of the individuals in question, to what positions were they appointed and in each instance what was the annual salary involved with each appointment?
2.	How many individuals who were unsuccessful candidates in the general election of June 25, 1968, have been appointed to positions with the Government of Canada, what are the names of the individuals in question, to what positions were they appointed and in each instance what was the annual salary involved with each appointment?


Yves Forest: 1. The
following information has been supplied to me: (a) Mr. James A. Byrne, member, im-

November 4, 1968
Questions
migration appeal board, $19,000. (b) Mr. Andrew Chatwood; executive assistant to the Minister of Defence Production; $15,000. (c) Mr. Joseph A. Macaluso; director, transportation policy, research division, Canadian Transport Commission; $24,000. (d) Mr. John Mullally; executive assistant to the Minister of Fisheries; $15,000. (e) Mr. J. P. O'Keefe; special assistant to the Minister of Labour; $8,000. (f) Mrs. Margaret Rideout; judge, citizenship court; $16,000.	(g) The Hon.
Michael Starr; judge, citizenship court; $17,000. (h) Dr. John Stewart; legislative adviser to the President of the Privy Council; $24,000. (i) Mr. Paul Tardif; judge, citizenship court; $16,000. (j) The Hon. R. J. Teillet; commissioner, Canadian Pension Commission; $18,500. (k) Mr. J. R. J. Tremblay; executive assistant to the Minister of National Revenue; $12,000.
2. See the reply provided today to question No. 155.


APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS AND CANDIDATES
Mr. Reid: What are the names of all individuals who had been Members of Parliament or who were federal candidates in the elections of 1957, 1958, 1962 or 1963 and who were appointed to the Senate, the Bench, any federal government Board, Commission, Agency, Enquiry, Study or Advisory Group or to any Civil Service position or who were employed in any capacity by the Government of Canada, giving (a) the position to which each was appointed (b) the date of any such appointment and the duration of the appointment (c) the amount paid to each such individual in each year, for all purposes, including salary, expenses and allowances?


Yves Forest: Since persons appointed to the Senate, the bench, federal boards, commissions, agencies, etc. are not required to declare whether or not they have ever been candidates in federal elections, there is no record under the administrative responsibility of the government of Canada from which an answer to this question can be drawn.


ORIGIN OF C.B.C. PROGRAMS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Which programs to be shown on the national television network of the C.B.C. this fall and winter originate from: Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Halifax, Vancouver, St. John's and other centres?
2.	Is consideration being given to the origination of more of such national programs from centres

other than Toronto or Montreal and, if so, with what expected result?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows:
1.	The attached list reflects the prominence of Toronto as the English T.Y. network headquarters and main network origination point. However, it must be taken into account that many program items not apparent from a listing of program titles are contributed by other centres. Also, many regionally produced programs are exchanged among regions for local scheduling on C.B.C. stations in non-network time periods.
2.	Yes. The corporation is seeking ways to increase regional contributions to the network to effect an improvement in the flow and exchange of cultural and regional information and entertainment between the different parts of Canada.


CBC ENGLISH TV NETWORK PROGRAM ORIGINATIONS-FALL AND WINTER 1968-69
[Stage Direction]
TORONTO: Country Calendar; The Great War; Sports-a-plenty; Man Alive; The Tommy Hunter Show; *The Way It Is; "News; Canadian School Telecasts/Educational & Youth Programming; Friendly Giant; Mr. Dress-Up; Take Thirty; The Gardener; Forest Rangers; Where It's At; Show of the Week; Front Page Challenge; Quentin Durgens M.P.; Swingaround; ^Newsmagazine; The Public Eye; Festival; A Place of Your Own; Telescope; The Nature of Things; Toby; Audubon Wildlife Theatre; NHL Hockey; CFL Football; Barris and Company; Viewpoint; U.S. network & film series (e.g. Ed Sullivan, Bonanza etc., via Toronto); Kaleidasport; *Championship Sports; This Land of Ours.
MONTREAL (English): Where It's At; Chez Helene; Visite au Quebec (schools telecast); NHL Hockey; CFL Football; Viewpoint; D'Iberville; Pick of the Week; Championship Tennis.
WINNIPEG:	Gardener; Where It's At;
Hymn Sing; CFL Football; Championship Water Polo; Viewpoint; Pick of the Week; Take Thirty; Country Calendar.
OTTAWA: CFL Football; Twenty Million Questions; The Nation's Business; News Specials; Viewpoint.
HALIFAX: Gardener; Don Messer's Jubilee; Where It's At; Viewpoint; Pick of the Week; Take Thirty; Country Calendar.
VANCOUVER: This Land of Ours; Where It's At; CFL Football; Viewpoint; Festival (Sister Balonika); Pick of the Week; Take
November 4, 1968
[Stage Direction]
Thirty; The Gardener; Country Calendar; Variety.
EDMONTON: Viewpoint; Pick of the Week; Take Thirty.
VARIOUS AND OTHER: Championship Sports; Friday-Night Movies; The Corsairs (France); World 68 (U.K.); Trans-World Top Team (CBC/BBC); World of Music.
* Indicates programs not listed elsewhere which are most likely to include occasional items from other locations.
Questions

Mr. Gauthier: 1.	How many post offices were built or renovated since 1962 in the constituency of Roberval?
2.	What was the cost of the work undertaken in each case?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2. Listed below:
LOCATION AND WORK	1964 $
Albanel	
Post office building	15,450
Exterior painting Argentenay
Post office building Exterior painting Didyme
Post office building Dolbeau
Oil conversion Exterior painting Interior painting Exterior painting Flag pole Girardville
Post office building Mistassini
Exterior painting Landscaping Riviere au Dore
Post office building	19,900
Exterior painting Roberval
Interior painting and window repairs Interior modifications New floor Interior painting New balcony Repairs to sidewalk New counter St. Felicien
Exterior and interior painting Repairs to chimney Oil conversion St. Prime
Post office building	19,900
Exterior painting Roof repairs Ticouape
Post office building	14,800
Exterior painting

14,800
250
1966

3,750
2,215
5,840

15,800
1,550
4,295
250
1,450
1,885

2,695
25,917
3,690
375
2350

November 4, 1968
Questions


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES, ROBERVAL CONSTITUENCY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 231
Mr. Gauthier:: 1.	How many employees does the Post Office Department have in the constituency of Roberval?
2.	What is the annual budget, i.e., salaries, rent and other expenses?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: 1.	Full time employees, 51; Part time employees, 19.
2.	$420,175.85.


C.N.R. STEVEDORE PAYROLL, NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys): What was the annual payroll of Canadian National Railways at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, for stevedores and other employees at the Terminal Wharf in each of the years from 1960 to the present?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Information for the years 1960 to 1964 is not readily available as the payroll register has been destroyed and to extract the figures from other sources would involve considerable time and expense. In addition, prior to 1967 employees at the terminal wharves of North Sydney and Mul-grave were paid on the same payroll. The following figures for the years indicated include employees at both North Sydney and Mulgrave: 1965, $3,955,113; 1966, $4,393,239; 1967, $4,878,353.


IMPORTS OF CORN
Mr. Danforih: 1.	What major companies or firms in Canada have imported corn into Canada in 1966, 1967 and 1968 to date?
2.	What was the total amount imported?
3.	Which elevators or storage facilities in Ontario and Quebec were used to store imported corn in 1966, 1967 and 1968 to date?
4.	What was the total amount of imported corn stored in each of these facilities for the years 1966, 1967 and 1968 to date?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Agriculture as follows:
1.	The Dominion Bureau of Statistics does not maintain a list of names and addresses of companies or firms importing goods into Canada.
2. The total amount of corn imported into Canada in the following years was:
	Quantity
Year	Bushels
1966	20,230,211
1967	29,118,658
1968*	11,288,674
^January to July latest statistics available.
3.	Collingwood Terminals Ltd., Colling-wood; Great Lakes Elevator Co. Ltd., Owen Sound; Goderich Elevator & Transit Co. Ltd., Goderich; Hiram Walker Sons Grain Corp., Walkerville; Maple Leaf Mills Ltd., Toronto; Canada Steamship Lines Ltd., Kingston; National Harbours Board, Prescott; National Harbours Board, Montreal; Federee Elevators Ltd., Montreal; Three Rivers Elevators Ltd., Trois-Rivieres; National Harbours Board, Quebec; Cargill Grain Co. Ltd., Baie Comeau; Bunge of Canada Ltd., Quebec; National Harbours Board, Port Colborne; Upper Lake Shipping Ltd., Goderich; Louis Dreyfus Canada Ltd., Port Cartier.
4.	The Board of Grain Commissioners advise that the amounts and types of the different grains stored in privately operated elevators are reported to them on a confidential basis. On a regional basis, quantities of imported corn stored in public elevators for the domestic market and in bond for export, are as follows:

November 4, 1968

Georgian bay and upper lake ports Lower lake and upper St. Lawrence ports Lower St. Lawrence ports
Georgian bay and upper lake ports Lower lake and upper St. Lawrence ports Lower St. Lawrence ports
Georgian bay and upper lake ports Lower lake and upper St. Lawrence ports Lower St. Lawrence ports


CYPRIOT SHIP &quot;TAMACHUSTA&quot;
Mr. Dumont: Did the Department of Transport allow the Cypriot ship, registered at T amachusta and chartered by "Clarke Steamship", to sail between Montreal and Newfoundland and, if so, under what authority?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Under section 671 of the Canada Shipping Act a ship registered in Cyprus, being a British ship, may be used in the coasting trade of Canada except for voyages wholly within the great lakes and St. Lawrence river as far seaward as Anticosti island without any special permit being given.


MAIL SERVICE REDUCTION-LAY-OFFS AND PAYROLL REDUCTIONS
Mr. McCutcheon: 1.	As a result of the withdrawal of Saturday mail service on February 1, 1969, how many lay-offs are envisaged?
2.	What reduction in payroll is expected?
3.	Will new contracts be negotiated with rural carriers or will the contracts be reduced by one-sixth?


Eric William Kierans: 1. It is expected that relatively few lay-offs, if any, will be necessary. Positions becoming vacant through normal attrition and new positions being authorized by increased work load are not being filled at present, so that they can be used for those employees becoming redundant. These positions will permit rearrangement of staffs as of February 1, 1969.
Questions Crop Year 1966-67
Shipments
Receipts	Domestic '000 bushels	Exports1,935	2,369	-5,587	5,083	48834,997	8,702 Crop Year 1967-68	25,7394,807	4,386	4,410	4,630	32,564	19,187 Crop Year 1968-69 (to Sept. 18)	14,6441,382	1,510	1,173	843	12,896	3,637	8,366
Furthermore, where necessary, maximum use will be made of the manpower centres for retraining and reassignment.
2.	The net reduction in cost to the department will be about $13 million per annum.
3.	Under a five day delivery week on rural routes, all contracts for services affected would have to be renegotiated. However, rural routes are not being placed on a five day week.


COST OF C.N.R. BUSES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: How much money was spent on providing buses to the C.N.R. in the changeover from rail passenger services to bus transportation in Newfoundland?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: Cost of providing the bus equipment is estimated at approximately $950,000.


POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES ON SIX DAY WEEK
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Do any mail carriers employed by the Post Office Department now work a six-day week?
2.	If so, how many, and how would their salaries be affected by a five-day work week?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Yes, rural mail contractors.
2. As of 31 March 1968 there were 4,928 rural routes operating six days per week. In

November 4, 1968
Questions
the event of a five day delivery week being introduced on rural routes, all contracts for these services would have to be renegotiated. However, rural routes are not being placed on a five day week.


AIR CANADA RESERVATIONS FOR CARIBBEAN AREA
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Do resort hotels, travel agencies and related organizations in the Caribbean area and the Bahamas make reservations on Air Canada months in advance and, if so, are these reservations made in individual names or in the names of a hotel or agency?
2.	How many months in advance are these bookings made and for what months are most of them made?
3.	Is any deposit paid by hotels or agencies making these bookings?
4.	What is the approximate percentage of passenger space on Air Canada flights to the Caribbean and the Bahamas booked by the above-mentioned methods?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Not generally. However, periodic individual reservations could be made by name, without any unusual booking trend being noted by Air Canada, but the number of such reservations would be minimal.
2, 3 and 4. Not applicable in view of reply to 1.


AIRPORT SUBSIDIES
Mr. Laprise: During the fiscal years 1966-67 and 1967-68, how much was granted in subsidies for the improvement and construction of local airports and what are the estimates for the current year for each of the provinces?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The following amounts have been granted in subsidies for the improvement and construction of local airports. 1966-67: $230,369; 1967-68: $930,102.
2. The total approvals in principle based on applications received which have been favourably rated, for the current fiscal year for local airport subsidies by provinces, are as follows: Newfoundland, Nil; Prince Edward Island, Nil; Nova Scotia, Nil; New Brunswick, Nil; Quebec, $333,000; Ontario, $270,176; Manitoba, Nil; Saskatchewan, $40,000; Alberta, $82,477; British Columbia, $29,000.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many of the provinces, if any, have used up their entire federal capital construction grants for hospital construction?
2.	How many hospitals in Canada are (a) under construction (b) have been constructed, or (c) will be constructed which will not receive the benefits of the federal capital construction grants?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. The province of Alberta has claimed its full allotment under the hospital construction grant program for the fiscal year 1968-69.
2. (a) As of October 21, 1968, 144 hospitals in Canada were receiving assistance for construction, other than renovation of existing facilities, under the terms of the hospital construction grant program, (b) As of October 21, 1968, 949 hospitals in Canada had completed construction projects, other than renovation of existing facilities, and received final federal payment under the terms of the hospital construction grant program, (c) Not known.


INMATE ACTIVITIES BUILDING, SPRINGHILL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was the initial work completed on the construction of the Inmate Activities Building at the Young Offenders Penal Institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia?
2.	On what date were faults discovered in the construction of this building and on what date was an investigation carried out, who were the members of the investigating team and on what date was a decision rendered as to liability for the faults in question?
3.	On what date did Simpson Construction Limited initiate repairs to the faults in question, have these faults been repaired and, if so, when will this building be turned over to the Canadian Penitentiary Service for use and, if not, on what date will this work be completed?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. The work has not yet been fully completed. Some electrical, mechanical and painting work is still to be finished.
2. Faults in beam seats were discovered January 18, 1968. An investigation was carried out January 24, 1968 by Mr. C. E. Sea-mone of C. D. Davison & Company (consultant for the department) and Mr. A. H.
November 4, 1968

Abbott of J. Philip Vaughan and Associates Limited, structural engineer retained by the consultant. On June 12, 1968 the consultant was advised that the department considers responsibility for this work remains with their company.
3.	Repairs were initiated on August 8, 1968 and are expected to be completed by the end of October. The remaining work in the building should be finished by the end of this year and an interim certificate issued within two weeks of that date.


C.M.H.C. LOANS
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	How many loans were requested from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, by province during 1967?
2.	How many loans were subsequently granted in each province?
3.	What is the total amount, for each province, of the loans thus granted?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Questions
Applications for direct C.M.H.C. Loans for new housing under the National Housing Act, 1967
Section 40 Other1 Dwelling Dwelling Hostel
Province	Units	Units	BedsNewfoundland Prince Edward	1,984	160	93Island	42	24	24Nova Scotia	433	769New Brunswick	334	288Quebec	11,108	168	755Ontario	10,274	5,700	4,847Manitoba	1,373	101	570Saskatchewan	1,825	12	147Alberta	4,290	24	732British Columbia	5,984	344	561Yukon Territory Northwest	46	-	Territories	133	Canada	37,826	6,533	8,7861	Data on applications for loans under Sections 16, 16A, 35D and 36B of the National Housing Act are available only from January 1967.2	and 3.
Direct C.M.H.C. Loans Approved for New Housing Under the National Housing
Act,
Province	Number of Loans
Newfoundland	790
Prince Edward Island	40
Nova Scotia	308
New Brunswick	252
Quebec	8,149
Ontario	9,653
Manitoba	1,113
S askatche wan	1,427
Alberta	3,592
British Columbia	3,737
Yukon Territory	30
Northwest Territories	37
Canada	29,128
1 Includes activity under Sections 16, 16A, 35D and 36B of the National Housing Act.


POST OFFICES TO BE CLOSED IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Comeau: Are any post offices scheduled to be closed in Nova Scotia and, if so, when and where? 29180-149
Section 40 Other1 Dwelling Dwelling Hostel Amount
Units	Units	Beds	($000)1,643	160	93	25,78641	24	153	1,479371	44	716	9,602303	-	361	5,6889,943	256	1,886	148,6919,943	8,397	5,643	301,7251,327	179	571	24,1391,665	36	420	25,0834,131	1	1,224	65,8745,050	516	1,422	84,79244	-	-	642133	-	-	1,93934,594	9,613	12.489	695.440


Eric William Kierans: Yes. Coddles Harbour, October 21, 1968-Stormont, October 31, 1968; Voglers Cove, October 31, 1968; Windsor Forks, October 31* 1968; Peas Brook, 1969; Upper Whitehead, 1969; New Campbellton, 1969; Ross Ferry, 1969; Kingross, 1969; Cap La Ronde, 1969; Rocky Bay, 1969; Poirierville, 1969; Pondville,

November 4, 1968
Questions
1969; Bell Neck, 1969; Springhaven, 1969; Belleville South, 1969; Malignant Cove, 1969; Mattie, 1969; Grosvenor, 1969; Goldenville, 1969; Wine Harbour, 1969; Tidnish, 1969; West Cooks Cove, 1969; Upper Economy, 1969; Quinan, 1969; Belleville, 1969.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, COATICOOK AND LAC MEGANTIC, QUE.
Mr. Latulippe: Will the decision made by the government to build post offices at Coaticook and Lac Megantic be implemented and, if so, will the government agree to have the construction carried out during the winter to help relieve unemployment in that district?


Arthur Laing: It is expected that tenders will be called next summer for a new post office building at Coaticook and the work will continue throughout the winter months.
Tenders for a smaller building at Lac Megantic are also expected to be called during the summer and should be completed in the early part of the winter.


COST OF TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total initial cost of (a) the completed Trans Canada Highway (b) that portion of the Trans Canada Highway within each province?
2.	What was the total initial cost of the Trans Canada Highway to (a) the federal government, by province (b) each of the provincial governments?
3.	What was the total cost of upkeep of the Trans Canada Highway for each of the past three years and, by province, how was this annual upkeep shared between federal and provincial authorities?


Arthur Laing: 1. The construction period under the trans-Canada highway agreements does not terminate until December 1970. Thus the total cost is not known, (a) The value of work approved for construction on the trans-Canada highway in all provinces is $1,196,000,000; (b) By provinces, the total value of work approved for construction:	Newfoundland,
$157,100,000; Prince Edward Island, $15,500,000; Nova Scotia, $90,900,000; New Brunswick, $121,900,000; Quebec, $237,500,000; Ontario, $246,000,000; Manitoba, $36,800,000; Saskatchewan, $34,700,000; Alberta, $39,500,000; British Columbia, $216,100,000.
IMr. Kierans.l
2. Total contributions by the federal government to each province, to date, are: Newfoundland, $104,800,000; Prince Edward Island, $10,500,000; Nova Scotia, $60,900,000; New Brunswick, $86,400,000; Quebec, $151,100,000; Ontario, $130,700,000; Manitoba, $20,200,000; Saskatchewan, $17,000,000; Alberta, $22,700,000; British Columbia, $120,100,000; Total $724,400,000.
2.	(b) As there are a number of items such as acquisition of right-of-way, highway signs, etc., which are not shareable under the Trans-Canada Highway Agreements, the costs to the provinces are not known.
3.	The maintenance of the trans-Canada highway is a provincial responsibility, the costs of which are not shared by the federal government.


INMATES IN FEDERAL PENAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions at the present time?
2.	How many inmates are there in each of the institutions under maximum security, medium security, minimum security?
3.	How many paroles were granted to the inmates of federal correctional institutions for each of the past three years and of these, how many were maximum parolees, medium parolees, minimum parolees?
4.	How many inmates are there in federal correctional institutions serving sentences after being sentenced to preventive detention, and in which institutions are these people detained?
5.	In each of the past three years, how many inmates serving sentences under preventive detention were paroled?
6.	In the past three years, for all those inmates in Canadian institutions paroled, what was the average time served?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: 1. On October 8, 1968, there were 6,817 inmates on register in federal correctional institutions.
2. Maximum Security
Dorchester penitentiary 329 St. Vincent de Paul
penitentiary	755
Kingston penitentiary	670
Manitoba penitentiary	350
Saskatchewan penitentiary 567 British Columbia penitentiary 463
Sub-total 3,134
November 4, 1968

Medium Security Springhill institution	123
Leclere institution	426
Federal training centre	283
Cowansville institution	173
Collins Bay penitentiary	451
Joyceville institution	444
Warkworth institution	144
Drumheller institution	142
Matsqui institution: males	190
females	36
Sub-total 2,412
Minimum Security Dorchester penitentiary
farm annex	56
Springhill minimum security institution	70
Blue Mountain correctional institution	38
St. Vincent de Paul
penitentiary farm	annex	80Gatineau correctional	camp	35
Collins Bay penitentiary
farm annex	82
Joyceville institution
farm annex	70
Beaver Creek
correctional camp	48
Landry Crossing
correctional camp	36
Manitoba penitentiary
farm annex	76
Saskatchewan penitentiary
farm annex	82
William Head	institution	123Agassiz correctional	camp	73
Sub-total 869 Specialized Institutions Special correctional unit
(Quebec)	36
Prison for women	70
Mountain prison:
Doukhobors:	7
Aged inmates:	134
Community release centre
(Quebec)	9
St. Vincent de Paul
industrial annex	112
(medium and minimum security)
Newfoundland,
Her Majesty's prison	34*
Sub-total 402
''Penitentiary service inmates incarcerated in Newfoundland provincial penitentiary in 29180-1491
Questions
accordance with the Penitentiary Act, Section 14 (5).
Total population on register (Oct. 8, 1968) 6,817.
Security	1965	1966	1967	TotalMaximum	559	562	657	1,778Medium	475	488	610	1,573Minimum**	93	64	61	218Total	1,127	1,114	1,328	3,569
**Paroles from most minimum security institutions, such as farm annexes, industrial annexes or correctional camps, are shown as being paroled from the parent institution. Only those released on Minimum parole from minimum security institutions have been shown above, which accounts for the small number.
4.	Institutions	Numbers
	Dorchester penitentiary St. Vincent de Paul	5
	penitentiary	14
	Kingston penitentiary	25
	Manitoba penitentiary	8
	Saskatchewan penitentiary 15	
	Drumheller institution	1
	British Columbia penitentiary 61	
	Total	129
5.	Year	Numbers
	1965	3
	1966	5
	1967	22
	Total	30
6.	1965, 14 months; 1966,	12 months;
1967,	12 months.	
FEDERAL EDUCATION TAX ABATEMENT, B.C.		

Question No. 474-Mr. Goode:		
What amount was the federal tax		abatement for
education to British Columbia for the year 1967?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The estimated value of the 1967 federal tax abatement associated with post-secondary education was $26,203,000.


INMATE ACTIVITIES BUILDING REPAIRS, SPRINGHILL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: Has C. D. Davidson and Company, Architects and Consultants for the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill, Nova Scotia, paid Simpson

November 4, 1968
Questions
Construction Limited for the work carried out in repairing the faults to the Inmate Activities Building at the Springhill Penal Institution?


Arthur Laing: No. Direct payment between the consultant and contractor is not anticipated. The Department of Public Works is holding funds pending resolution of the amount.


NATIONAL DEFENCE EMPLOYEES PAY INCREASES, DARTMOUTH-HALIFAX
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	How many employees of the Department of National Defence in the Dartmouth-Halifax area have not had pay raises since October 1965 and of these how many are (a) labourers (b) trades helpers?
2.	How many since July 1966 have not had a pay raise and of these what number are (a) labourers (b) trades helpers?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. 106-(a)
and (b) none.
2. 711-(a) 110; (b) 50.


C.N.R. REVENUES AND COSTS
Mr. Moores: 1.	During the year 1966, what were the C.N.R. figures for Newfoundland of (a) rail passenger revenues (b) gross rail revenues (c) gross operating expenses for rail services (d) operating expenses for rail passenger services (e) total operating expenses (f) total revenues from all sources?
2.	In 1966, what were the C.N.R. totals, by provinces, of (a) rail passenger revenues (b) gross revenues of rail services, including freight and passenger services?
3.	In 1966, what were the total operating costs, by provinces, of C.N.R. rail services (a) passenger (b) freight?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:	1. Pursuant to
section 314 I, subsection 3 of the Railway Act, the railway is required to submit, on a confidential basis, concurrently with the filing of an application to discontinue a passenger train service, a statement of costs and revenues of the company attributable to the carriage of passengers by the service as the commission may prescribe. The foregoing requirement was met by the company in connection with its application for authority to discontinue passenger train service between
[Mr. Coates.1
Port aux Basques and St. John's, and by order No. R-507 dated November 6, 1967, the Railway Transport Committee gave notice that it had determined the said passenger train service had incurred an actual loss of $918,000 in the year ended December 31, 1966.
2 and 3. The information is not available in the form asked as the system is administered by regions which do not conform to the geographical boundaries of the provinces. System railway operating revenues and expenses for the year 1966 may be found on pages 4, 5 and 6 of the company's printed annual report for that year.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO CANADIANS IN U.S.
Mr. Dionne: What have been the results to date of the efforts by the representatives of the Canadian Government to reach an agreement with the United States authorities concerning the eligibility for Unemployment Insurance benefits of Canadian workers in U.S. Territory, especially in the States of Maine and New Hampshire?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: A survey is currently underway covering Canadians who habitually work in lumbering and logging in Maine. The purpose of this survey is to assess the possible cost to Maine if a reciprocal agreement is negotiated. It is expected that the results of the survey will be tabulated within the next three months following which the Maine authorities will make their decision. There are no negotiations underway with New Hampshire at the present time.


* BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	What quantity of butter was imported in the year 1967-68, at what cost and from what countries?
2.	What quantity of butter is being kept in storage in Canada?
3.	What quantity of butter does the government intend to import during the year 1968-69?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the departments of Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. The quantity and cost of butter imported in 1967-68, by countries, is as follows:
November 4, 19G8

January-December 1967	Questions January-August	1968*Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueCountry	Cwt.	$'000	Cwt.	$'000Belgium-Luxembourg	58,534	1,351	-	-France	330	11	-	Netherlands	6,614	135	56	1Germany East	4,409	98	-	-Poland	3,307	67	-	-New Zealand	22,500	851	100	4Totals	95,694	2,512	156	5
Figures may not add up due to rounding. * Latest import statistics available.
2.
Stocks of Creamery Butter in Storages in Canada at the Beginning of Each Month
During 1967	and 1968	to Date
	1967	1968
	'000 lb.	'000 lb.
January 1	61,228	57,239February 1	49,687	43,866March 1	38,050	28,046April 1	27,076	19,062May 1	28,565	18,068June 1	34,398	24,873July 1	49,803	43,782August 1	66,199	55,038September 1	76,188	69,717October 1	84,501	76,308November 1	80,539	December 1	69,761	
3. It is not possible at this time to determine how much butter may be required to supplement domestic supplies over the winter. This will depend on production and consumption during the coming months. Stocks on October 1 were eight million pounds below a year ago, which is about two per cent of annual Canadian production.


POST OFFICE PARCEL POST POLICY
Mr. Harkness: Is it the policy of the Post Office Department to (a) hold parcels for only 10 days (b) discourage the use of parcel post?


Eric William Kierans: (a)	No; unless different instructions are received from the sender or addressee, parcels are anormally held for a period of 15 days.
(b)	No.


COMMERCIAL FISHING LICENCES, B.C.
Mr. Durante: How many commercial fishing vessel licences were owned by (a) British Columbia Packers (b) Canadian Fish Company (c) Nelson Brothers, as of (i) August 31, 1968 (ii) September 30, 1968?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: (i) (ii)
(a)	British Columbia Packers 147	147(b)	Canadian Fishing Company 178	178(c)	Nelson Brothers	160	160


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD, TORONTO
Mr. Ryan: Is it the intention of the government to establish permanent facilities in Metropolitan Toronto for the hearing of appeals to the Immigration Appeal Board and, if so, when and where?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The establishment of permanent facilities of the immigration appeal board at any point other than Ottawa is dependent upon the results of the current experimental extension project just recently-put in operation at Montreal.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS REMOVAL FROM EAST BLOCK
Mr. Reid: What plans has the government to move the remnants of the Department of External Affairs from the East Block and is there a timetable for this move?


Arthur Laing: This matter is under consideration but no decision or timetable has yet been established.

November 4, 1968
Questions


Mr. Robinson: What steps are being taken and/or are proposed to enforce anti-noise procedures at Toronto International Airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: When the department has been informed that a jet aircraft has not complied with noise abatement procedures for reasons other than safety, the incident is investigated and appropriate follow-up action is taken with the aircraft operator.


Mr. Robinson: What steps are being taken and/or are proposed to curtail and obviate air pollution at Toronto International Airport?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Subsequent to the
preparation of the reply to question No. 184 (Mr. Gillespie), the occupational health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Ontario air pollution control service began last week to take the necessary air samples at Malton airport and surrounding urban area to determine the extent to which the air may be polluted in this vicinity.


Mr. Robinson: Is the Department of Transport considering a policy to compensate property owners for the loss of enjoyment of their properties due to aircraft noise and pollution?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No.


Mr. Robinson: Is the Department of Transport considering a second airport for Metropolitan Toronto and, if so, will it be a satellite some distance from high centres of population?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The departmental plans for expansion of airport facilities to meet future requirements in the Toronto area have included consideration of various alternatives, although no final decision has as yet been taken and the matters involved remain under discussion with representatives of the provincial government, of interested municipalities and of other groups concerned.


Mr. Schreyer: To whom is the approved subsidy of $41,666 (as noted in the reply to Question No. 263) to be paid under the terms of the Fisheries Development Act for the purpose of construction of storage facilities and of fishing vessels used in the inland freshwater fishing industry of the prairie region?


Eugene Whelan: Winnipeg Cold Storage Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba.


Mr. Crouse: 1,	Is the government giving consideration to dredging the navigation channel and the area on both sides of the railway wharf at Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, to a depth of twenty-one feet of water at low tide and, if so, what is the amount of funds that will be set aside for this work?
2.	When can the six large shipping and refitting firms whose operations are seriously affected by the situation expect the necessary dredging to be carried out?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. It is not customary to give the estimated cost of a project before tenders are called and a contract awarded.
2. This project is being considered for the 1970-71 fiscal year.


Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Have the initial displacement trials been completed for the Royal Canadian Navy Hydrofoil at Halifax, N.S.?
2.	When is it expected that the gas turbine engine for transmission will be installed?
3.	When is it expected that further trials will be held?
4.	When will this ship be available for operational duties?
5.	What is the total cost of the project to this date?


David Walter Groos: 1. Some displacement trials have been carried out; others are scheduled for about the end of the year.
2.	The main propulsion gas turbine has been installed for several months.
3.	About the end of the year.
4.	HMCS Bras d'Or is a developmental model hydrofoil and is not scheduled as yet for operational duties.
5.	As of October 31, 1968, $46,300,000.
November 4, 1968


Mr. Schreyer: 1.	With reference to the protection works constructed or contributed to by the Department of Public Works, in each of the last three fiscal years at ten locations along the Fraser River, B.C.; three locations along the St. Clair River in Ontario; one location along the Detroit River in Ontario; thirty-one locations along the St. Lawrence River in Quebec; and seven locations elsewhere in the Province of Quebec, in how many of the foregoing cases was riverbank stabilization the primary or only purpose of such works?
2.	What levels of government, corporations or persons were involved in the cost-sharing of these works and in what proportion did each interested party share these costs?
3.	Which of the foregoing cases involved river-bank stabilization for the protection of (a) Crown-owned property (b) municipality-owned property (c) private-owned property?


Arthur Laing: 1. In all cases.
2.	Fraser river: Federal government, 37J per cent; Provincial government, 37J per cent; Municipality or district through tax levy, 25 per cent. St. Clair river: Federal government, 50 per cent; Private owner, 50 per cent. Detroit river: Federal government, 100 per cent; St. Lawrence river: Federal government, 100 per cent.
3.	All properties were privately owned.


Mr. Blouin: 1.	What were the results of the testing of the Terraplane at Orleans, Ont. as referred to in a Department of Transport Press Release issued June 21, 1968?
2.	Does the government intend to submit this vehicle to further tests in other regions of the country, especially where there are no roads?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. The results were inconclusive due to the development of several component defects which precluded testing the vehicle in northern Canada.
2. Not unless engineering modifications are undertaken by the manufacturer. The subject is, however, still under correspondence.


Mr. Muir (Lisgar): What are the names of all individuals who were federal candidates for any political party since April 1, 1963, and who have been appointed to the Senate, the Bench, any federal government Board, Commission, Agency, Enquiry, Study or Advisory Group or to any Civil Service position or who have
Questions
been employed in any capacity by the federal government, giving (a) the position to which each was appointed (b) the date of any such appointment and the duration of the appointment (c) the amount paid to each such individual in each year, for all purposes, including salary, expenses and allowances?


Yves Forest: See the
reply made this day to question No. 155.


Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has any officer in the Prince Albert Penitentiary been charged with selling drugs to prisoners?
2.	If so, what disposition has been made of the charge?


George James McIlraith: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Caouette: 1.	During the past three years, which judges of the Superior, District and County Courts, as referred to in Section 96 of the BNA Act, have been appointed to extra-judicial functions, such as sitting on Royal Commissions, and advisory committees?
2.	What remuneration in addition to their regular salary have these judges received in such cases?
3.	What is the policy of the government with regard to the extra-judicial functions of the said judges?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL LOANS ON VARIOUS PROJECTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What has been, the financial involvement of the federal government either by grants or loans, in the construction of the St. Lawrence Seaway, the South Saskatchewan Dam and the Columbia River Development?
2.	What was the rate of interest or rates of interest charged by the federal government on loans made available on the three projects?
Return tabled.


FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many federal correctional institutions are there in Canada?
2360	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
2. What are the names of the Wardens of each of these institutions, and (a) how long have they been in their positions (h) what are their professional qualifications?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
1 would like to make representations to the hon. Secretary of State and ask that questions numbers 40, 41, 43 and 44 be answered as soon as possible. These questions were partly placed on the order paper during the last session and the Civil Service Commission could answer them more quickly.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Perhaps I could deal with that question. My information is that most of the material from the departments concerned is now at hand and I expect to be in a position to reply to Nos. 40 and 41 on Wednesday next.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSED TRANSFER TO PROVINCES OF FISCAL POINTS IN RELATION TO SHARED COST PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is a fact that his government has resurrected the proposal which was turned down by the provinces several years ago, to offer an additional 17 points of personal income tax to those provinces which would take over the hospital plan, the Canada assistance plan and the program of health care; and would the Prime Minister say whether this is the only proposal of substance, rather than of detail, which the government of Canada has made to the federal-provincial conference of finance ministers?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I do not want to comment in too great detail on these talks which are beginning today and which will continue tomorrow. The Minister of Finance will be here to reveal any part of the discussions on which there is agreement, or agreement to disclose; but in a general way I can say that the government of Canada has renewed, with slight modifications, the offers which were made in the fall of 1966.
DEBATES	November 4, 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, arising out of the reported remarks of Prime Minister Bertrand this morning concerning the 2 per cent social development surcharge and the remarks of the provincial treasurer of Ontario concerning the futility of the federal-provincial conference as a result of the timing of the budget, will the Prime Minister say whether the 2 per cent surcharge in particular is subject to any review by the government?


Mr. Trudeau:: No, Mr. Speaker, because we think it is erroneous on the part of the provinces to submit that this 2 per cent tax is linked specifically to medicare, as they do in their briefs. It is a general tax for social development purposes, and has been imposed to meet the escalation of costs in many areas of expenditure.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Would the Prime Minister advise the house whether this renewed offer of 17 points on the income tax bears the characteristics of the previous offer, that these would be subject to refunds from the provinces if the yields in this field of taxation were in excess of the costs of the programs for which they were being turned over to the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the offer made in 1966 was perhaps slightly different from that which I understand the hon. member to be saying. It was 17 per cent as a transfer of fiscal points plus a supplementary to equalize total receipts, so it would cover the expenditures which are variable. Seventeen per cent did not mean the same thing for all provinces because of the differences in size and so on. It was 17 per cent plus a supplementary amount which was meant as an equalization amount.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister say whether his government is making specific proposals to the provinces, either at the finance minister' meeting or at the meeting of the minister of health, with regard to a ceiling or some other formula for the control of the shared cost programs? Will there be such specific proposals and, if so, will they be communicated to this house as they are presented to the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: During the discussions there will arise certain suggestions on our part as to ways in which expenditures might be limited, but we are making them only by way of suggestions. As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the expenditures themselves are

November 4, 1968

controlled by the provinces and we are not in a position to force them or to suggest that they do anything in particular that they do not want to do themselves. We are exploring with them certain ways in which savings might be achieved if they so desire.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government of Canada is not proposing any specific ceiling for these expenditures to the provinces, nor any departure from the existing agreements except such new agreements as may be reached with the approval of the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Generally speaking that is correct, Mr. Speaker. We are not proposing any unilateral cessation of agreements which have been reached by both parties at the present time. We are suggesting that they either be phased out, if we have the right to phase them out, or that they be allowed to expire in certain cases and perhaps not renewed. We are taking the position that both parties together should look now for a decrease in expenditures before any renewal period or expiration period is reached.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the concern, particularly in Manitoba, which has been created by reports that the federal government would like to get out of medicare in 1972, can the Prime Minister assure the house and the country that as far as the federal government is concerned medicare is here to stay?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think there is perhaps a misunderstanding on the part of the right hon. member. As he well knows-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Merci beaucoup.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. I am happy to honour the hon. member.

As the hon. member should know-let me put it that way-the law is made for a period of five years, and after the five years it is the intention of the federal government to transfer tax points to the provinces so they can continue with the medicare program. In other words we, the federal government, are raising taxes now and giving the produce to the provinces. After five years when the program
Inquiries of the Ministry is well established we suggest that the provinces raise the taxes themselves, and the federal government will evacuate that tax room to an equivalent amount.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it
not clearly understood that any change at the end of the five year period would have to be by agreement between the federal government and the provinces, and not by unilateral action of the federal government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: My reading of the law-and perhaps we should not here be arguing the law-is that after five years, at the end of the scheme as it now exists whereby the federal government taxes for the provinces-it is a five year period in which the federal government will be helping the provinces meet the costs-there will be a straight transfer of the tax room.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I should not have asked the question.


Mr. Fairweather:: Is the just society of five years' duration?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the federal government is to vacate its responsibility for financing medicare at the end of five years, is it also the intention of the government of Canada to vacate the social insurance plan on its own if this is legally possible under existing agreements?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid the hon. member over there is showing his ignorance, but there is nothing new about that. The five years is not something I have invented today. It is something which has been set out in the law and which was discussed with the provinces at the time medicare was being set up. So there is nothing surprising about it.
On the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I might say in a general way that we indicated in 1966 and repeat now that it is our intention to get out of a lot of these areas of social services and let the provinces assume them. We will give them the tax room which goes along with these expenditures. We decided in 1966, and are following the policy now, to have all the provinces follow the precedent set with regard to the province of Quebec, whereby that province has much more tax room than the other provinces but also has much greater responsibility for the spending. This is nothing new. It was announced a full two years ago.
2362	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister not agree that this is new; was there not two years ago a proposal that the provinces might elect, whereas the Prime Minister is now indicating that the federal government will exercise its option to vacate these fields voluntarily and compel the provinces to assume full responsibility for carrying the costs of these programs, with the help of whatever points of taxation the federal government gives them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the questions and answers are now developing into a debate. I wonder if we might go on to another subject.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I just ask one more supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the Minister of Finance did say the other day that the federal government would not get out of medicare unilaterally?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is not acceptable. The hon. member is asking whether it is or is not a fact that a statement was made. The question seems to be argumentative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask the question in this manner, Mr. Speaker. Was the Minister of Finance stating government policy the other day when he said the government would not get out of medicare on a unilateral basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; but he was stating government policy under the law. The hon. member should realize that the law says in five years we will get out of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
will get out of more than that in five years.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, to follow the same fine of thought, and since the Prime Minister says that, in five years, the federal government will be obliged by law to hand over to the provinces full jurisdiction in that field, can he tell us, since the joint programs-and this is truly a joint program, just as there are many others in the fields of hospitalization, social welfare, etc.-represent a double expenditure-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question?

DEBATES	November 4, 1968


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am getting to it.
Since the joint programs result in double expenditures for the population, could the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends withdrawing from these joint programs and grant financial equivalence to the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is the policy which the government has been following for at least two years. That is the policy which has been established for the province of Quebec and which we suggest the other provinces should adopt also.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government has prepared five year projections of the cost of these programs, particularly medicare, and whether these projections will be made known to the provincial governments and to this house.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have some projections, but I am not sure that the computers are as accurate as the hon. member would like them to be.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because I believe the Prime Minister has misinterpreted section 8 of the Medical Care Act. Therefore I should like to give notice that I will ask my question again at the first opportunity on an adjournment debate.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Since the Ottawa civil servant in the James Earl Ray case has been identified as Mrs. Claire Keating, could the minister now tell the house whether his investigation is under way and whether a charge is contemplated?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Nothing has been placed before me that
November 4, 1968
would warrant instituting criminal proceedings against any person arising out of dealings with James Earl Ray, other than a person who has been charged in Toronto for violation of sections 10 and 12 of the Ontario Commissioners for Taking Affidavits Act. That person is Henry Moos, manager of the Kennedy Travel Bureau in Toronto.



PUBLICATION OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS IN RECENT BOOK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of the suggestion by the Prime Minister that recent stories which appeared in La Presse might involve a question of theft, and the undertaking to have the Solicitor General investigate that possibility, does the Prime Minister propose to similarly refer to the Solicitor General the case of the publication in the book "The Distemper of Our Times" of the full texts of various cabinet and government documents?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I have not read that book, Mr. Speaker, but I will ask the Solicitor General whether there is anything in it which requires such action.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I apologize for not having given him notice, but I imagine he knows the answer. Is it correct that the government is financing a one week long or some other type of English course for Czechoslovakian refugees who have recently emigrated to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find it difficult to determine whether this involves a matter of urgency. If it does not, the question might be placed on the order paper.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO ACTION RESPECTING OFFSHORE MINERAL RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Prime Minister. Further to questions asked in this house on September 18 and October 23-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
29180-150;
Inquiries of the Ministry


Erik Nielsen: -I have been rather preoccupied with certain proceedings back in my riding. Further to questions asked in this house on September 18 and October 23, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether the federal government has communicated to the provinces the federal proposal concerning offshore mineral rights?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I realize that the anniversary of the opinion of the Supreme Court will be coming up pretty soon, and I hope that on or around that anniversary certain proposals will have been made to the provinces.


Erik Nielsen: Will the Prime Minister state whether the matter of offshore mineral rights will be on the agenda at the government's meetings with the premiers of the provinces?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not specifically. The general area of division of power is on the agenda, but it is rather low on the agenda. For that reason we do not think this discussion will be held at this particular conference. We will be making certain proposals to the provinces which are not necessarily related to constitutional amendments. Therefore there will perhaps be no need to discuss them at this conference.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister tell the house why he found it necessary to send what might be called a personal presidential emissary to Lagos instead of using the legal channels of the federal government through its high commissioner there? Did Mr. Head see any member of the Biafran administration while he was in west Africa?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: In respect of the first point, Mr. Speaker, I asked Professor Head to go there as my personal representative because I could not go myself as I had been urged to do by many hon. members. I felt that Mr. Head would do an excellent job of communicating my feelings to the government at Lagos and bring back first hand information as to their feelings. Mr. Head has had quite a lot of experience in African affairs and in international law.

2364	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
On the second point, Mr. Head was not instructed to communicate with any of the Biafran authorities which, as the hon. member knows, are not recognized by the Canadian government.


VIET NAM-CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday in replying to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, asking whether Canada had a contingency plan with a view to supplying peace keeping forces that might be required in Viet Nam, the Prime Minister advised the house that he was not in a position at that time to answer the question. May I again ask whether Canada has a contingency plan outlining the forces that might be required for preserving a peace settlement in that country?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker, my position today is the same as it was on Friday. We have received no specific request, and it is very difficult at this stage to know what might be requested of us. It is obvious that we cannot undertake any kind of policing action over the whole of the territory. It is also our position that any action we would contemplate taking would have to follow an agreement between the so-called parties to the peace talks or arise out of the Geneva machinery. If the agreement is under the present I.C.S.C., this action would have to be taken after an agreement had been reached by the three members of the I.C.S.C.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether I can assume from his reply that to date there have been no discussions whatsoever about a contingency plan which Canada may or may not have or need in the future.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There have been no discussions with any foreign power, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Fisheries whether renewed representations have been received from the Fisheries Council of Canada urging that Canada declare a 12-mile Canadian fishing

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
limit, spelling out its powers, and if so, what consideration will be given to this?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce who has been appointed the new director of the company of young Canadians.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe this matter comes under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State, and I see that he is here today.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Company of Young Canadians sent us the name of a candidate for this position, and this application will be considered as soon as possible by the cabinet.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the uncertainty surrounding the operations of the Company of Young Canadians as well as the abnormal change in its internal personnel and the confusion in the public mind as to the objectives of the C.Y.C., will the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister be prepared soon to make a statement on motions outlining the direction of the C.Y.C.?


Gérard Pelletier: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I did not catch the last part of the hon. member's question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement soon on motions outlining the objectives of the Company of Young Canadians?


Gérard Pelletier: I will be happy to consider this suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State mind including in that statement an analysis of the last audit of the affairs of that Company of Young Canadians?
November 4, 1968


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State indicate whether it is his or the government's intention to replace the provisional advisory council to the C.Y.C. by a permanent advisory council?


Gérard Pelletier: I think I was asked two questions, Mr. Speaker. I could not answer the first because the second one came too soon after.
In answer to the first question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that, as in the case of all companies of that sort, the estimates of the Company of Young Canadians will be presented to a committee and that all the hon. members will have the opportunity to put questions directly to those in charge of the company.
As regards the second questions, I do not remember. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If I am not mistaken, under the act this temporary council will, after a certain time, become permanent.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Is he considering the possibility of replacing the Company of Young Canadians by instituting a draft for social service?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the two subjects-and I believe I already said this in answering another question-the two subjects are not related in my mind.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. I would like to know whether or not the rumour that the minister intends to commit political suicide by becoming head of the Liberal party in British Columbia is founded?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Justice. In view of the rejection by the law enforcement board of Ontario of a claim for compensation by the dependant mother and survivors of Larry Botrie, the Toronto cab driver who was killed by a criminal recently, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation during this session to compensate innocent victims of criminal acts?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for the moment I think the definitive word on that subject was pronounced by my colleague, the Solicitor General, before the committee on justice and legal affairs.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the question I asked the Minister of Justice to the Solicitor General. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation to compensate innocent victims of criminal acts?


George James McIlraith: Not at this session, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
ACTION TO GIVE STRATEGIC MOBILITY TO MOBILE COMMAND On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 the Minister of National Defence indicated in an answer he gave at that time that no decision had been taken as to whether the government would purchase tanker aircraft to give the CF-5 strategic mobility. Will the minister state now or at an early date what action the government is taking to give mobile command strategic mobility?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member is not asking for information from the minister of a type which should normally be given on motions? The minister might indicate whether he proposes to make such a statement.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not make myself clear. I asked whether the minister would be prepared to make such a statement now or at an early time, perhaps on motions if that is suitable.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minisier of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I can say that mobile command has strategic mobility now, because it has access to something like 24 Hercules aircraft.
November 4, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry THE MINISTRY



INQUIRY AS TO CODE OF ETHICS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the code of ethics issued by the former prime minister to his colleagues on November 30, 1964, is still a matter of government policy?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refresh my memory to see what the code of ethics then was. I was not a member of the ministry in those days, but I suggest there is no particular urgency to this question.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering whether the Prime Minister when examining this could also consider whether the code might be amended to give it the required degree of flexibility.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPRESENTATION OF YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the inquiries which have been directed to the Prime Minister by the elected council representatives in the northern territories in respect of representation at the federal-provincial conference now under way, I should like to ask whether any representative of those elected members of either council is at the conference and, if not, whether it is the intention of the government to provide some representation in this regard.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question will be answered by the adoption of the procedure followed last February, according to which members of the councils could sit as part of the federal delegation.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which is supplementary to the answer he gave a moment ago concerning representation at the federal-provincial conference of the elected representatives of the two northern territories. Can the Prime Minister through this house assure the councils of those territories that he will immediately dispatch an invitation to them to attend the meetings in the manner he has described, since no such invitation has yet been received by any of the representatives of the Yukon?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the federal delegation has not yet been composed, so it is a matter of seeing who is to be a member of the delegation and who will perhaps be invited as observer for the federal government. As soon as this is decided 1 will dispatch invitations.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the minister say whether he is prepared to make a statement, which he promised several days ago, regarding departmental expenditures with respect to the Atlantic development area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I
undertook to give my hon. friend the information which he sought on that occasion, and I will be happy to give it to him now in one or two sentences. I mentioned to my hon. friend, in connection with his question on the municipal winter works and our replacement program, that we were increasing our training funds in the Atlantic provinces. In these provinces we have increased our funds from $18 million last year to almost $27 million for the current fiscal year.
Most of this money will be spent in training workers who are unemployed in the winter months. It will be seen how significant this expenditure is in comparison with the total expenditure for municipal winter works in the Atlantic provinces, which last winter reached the figure of $li million.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In light of the rising and very serious unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces, could the minister tell the house where these trained people will find employment?


Mr. Coates:: In Ontario and Quebec, of
course.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Could the minister take the time of the house at the next sitting
November 4, 1968

to give us a breakdown of the extra expenditure of $8 million as it relates to each province, and also as it reflects on the general employment situation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The information requested would be largely statistical, and I will be happy to produce it on the order paper in answer to a written question.



CANADIAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. It arises out of the government's continuing emphasis on the participation of youth in governmental processes, and on the basis of assurances given by the Prime Minister on October 1 and October 21 in this house. Has the Prime Minister reached a decision with respect to the reconvening of the ad hoc committee on the proposed Canadian youth parliament?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have given consideration to this matter together with some of my advisers and with the President of the Privy Council. We do not feel that at this time the kind of expenditure this would involve would be justified. We do not feel this is the best way of ensuring that kind of participation. This is the decision I have reached at this time. I may want to reconsider it at a later date.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government contemplates substituting the youth service program or cultural conscription program, which has been proposed by the Secretary of State, for the youth parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is repeating a question which was asked a moment ago.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: have a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister, at this time or some time soon, can tell the house what alternative uses he is planning for this money which could have been used for the Canadian youth parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not as though we had money which could have been used for the
Inquiries of the Ministry Canadian youth parliament. This is money which we would have had to take from the taxpayer.



INQUIRY AS TO CHARGES RESPECTING COUNTERFEIT PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who I trust was not injured in his car accident over the week end. Can the Solicitor General advise the house when the government will be laying charges in connection with counterfeit drugs on the Canadian market?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, as acting minister, I would like to say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) has left me a note saying that the answer to the hon. member's question is in the mail, as is the answer to another member I cannot mention, because I only have his name ar_d I do not know what riding he represents.
I do not know whether the minister intends to answer orally in the house when he comes back, but the two members who asked those questions last week and who were promised an answer this week will get their personal written replies.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize, but I thought the Solicitor General was in the house. May I redirect my question in his absence.


An hon. Member:: He is here.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then why did the acting minister answer?


George James McIlraith: Because he is not the acting minister.


J. Michael Forrestall: But, Mr. Speaker, I directed my question to the Solicitor General, not the acting solicitor general.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a little confusing.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon-Easl Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the same subject I have raised many times, that is to whom members
2368	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services are entitled to put questions. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East made it clear he was asking a question regarding prosecutions under the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, which he directed specifically to the Solicitor General. If the Prime Minister would look up his roster I am sure he would find that the Solicitor General is here today, and if he would look to his right he would see him in his place.


An hon. Member:: He is here every day.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Howard Lundrigan: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, which I will pose to his parliamentary secretary in the event that he is willing to attempt an answer. He may want to take it as notice, in which case I will wait until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might ask his question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary if the presently planned purchase of five million pounds or 50,000 quintals of Atlantic salt cod fish by the government for Biafra will mean an upward revision in the price of fish to Atlantic fishermen?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.


John Howard Lundrigan: Then I withdraw the
question.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

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


The Deputy Chairman:: House again in committee of supply on the revised estimates of the department of supply and services for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. These estimates can be found on page 482 of the blue-book, and the details thereof are listed on page 484.



DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES

[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, $4,973,100.
['It is my\nduty, pursuant to provisional 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 Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Grace Maclnnis)-Consumer affairs-Edmonton-the weight of fudgeicles; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Airports-Toronto-Expansion of facilities being contested; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Federal government medical plan in 1972.', "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.\n[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)"]
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: The estimates which we are considering today, Mr. Chairman, reflect

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
the changes that have either been undertaken in the new department of supply and services or those which are contemplated in the immediate future. In introducing these estimates there are just a few comments I should like to make so new members in particular may be better informed on just how this department functioned in the past.
Quite frankly, since this is my first responsibility in this regard it will give me an opportunity as well to set the picture, as it were, in proper perspective. The Department of Defence Production, as you know, has been in existence since 1951. The primary purpose of the department up to now has been to act as the procurement agency for the Department of National Defence. I believe it was generally agreed, and I think the record has tended to support this assessment, that it was in the best interests of public expenditures and of the nation generally to have a civilian oriented department undertake the job of procurement of the many and varied needs of the Department of National Defence. More recently, as a result of the general recommendations of the Glassco commission and since approximately 1963 or thereabouts, additional responsibilities have been assigned to the Department of Defence Production giving it the responsibility for purchasing on behalf of a number of civilian departments. Members will be interested to know that to date the amount of work in this connection that has been done embraces between 35 and 40 civilian departments or agencies. We are now responsible, in the department, for approximately 60 per cent of the expenditures on purchases by civilian departments.
As the transition continues and transfer of this purchasing authority continues to be brought over into our area of responsibility, it is expected that we will, within a comparatively short time, reach a point where we are doing a very substantial amount of, if not all, the purchasing for civilian departments. I think the record of the department is an indication that the concept of combined buying is equally as defensible and effective as has been the concept of a civilian department buying for the armed forces. We are planning now to continue to extend this consolidation and, as members will know, in July of this year it was announced that we are to establish a new department of supply and services.
Very briefly, this department will embrace those activities which I have already outlined to members, that is, purchasing for the armed
November 4, 1968

forces and a continuation of purchasing on behalf of civilian organizations. It will embrace these and a number of other very important functions. On the supply side, the department of supply and services is tp undertake the major portion of what were, up to now, the shipbuilding responsibilities of the Department of Transport. In this way we will assume most of the things which the Department of Transport has been doing for itself in terms of design, procurement, the issuance of contracts and the general followup operations on shipbuilding projects to meet D.O.T.'s needs.
It is intended also that there will be an extension of the responsibilities which up to now have belonged to the Department of Defence Production with regard to the Queen's printer and the Canadian government printing bureau.
On the services side of the new department, and the estimates are presented in such a way that hon. members will have an opportunity to deal with both supply and services functions more or less simultaneously, the central element that will be brought over into the new department will be the comptroller of the treasury which up to now has been the responsibility of the Department of Finance. As you know, the comptroller of the treasury has a great many important responsibilities. These include, of course, the duty and function which, I suppose if one wished to oversimplify, could be called bookkeeper to the Canadian government. There are a variety of other services that are performed by the comptroller of the treasury, and some of these and the extension of them that we propose I will deal with in just a moment.
The second function which is to be assumed by my new department will be responsibility for the central data process service bureau. A third responsibility will be for the bureau of management and consulting services. If members will permit me, I should like to spend a few moments outlining the specific ideas that we have and the specific responsibilities which will be exercised under these headings.
The central data process service bureau is a reflection of an important change which is evident not only in government but in industry, with regard to the greater use of computers and other data processing equipment of one kind or another. The establishment of this bureau would mean that we would employ these new techniques in the best and
Supply-Supply and Services most efficient way possible. I want to emphasize that it is not intended we will create a single unit that will do all the data processing for all departments of government. There will be specific responsibilities and specific jobs each department will continue to do for itself, but by and large the objective is to establish a new, central data process bureau as a facility which will be available to all departments that require it. In addition, we will thereby build up a bank of experts on computers and the like so all departments will have the capacity to draw on these and gain the benefits of the experience and knowledge these authorities possess.
The bureau of management and consulting services is, I think, also a most useful part of government structure. It is one which I believe will be employed more and more in the future. Essentially, the function of this bureau is to provide for any government department or agency expert advice to review procedures within a given department, to analyse the techniques that are being employed and to make recommendations or provide other help which will enable these departments to perform in a more efficient manner.
The department has achieved quite an impressive record in the past year. There have been some 60-odd studies which have been made at the request of specific departments and the results of these have, generally speaking, been very productive. They have brought about improvements in the functioning of these departments and agencies.
Returning for a moment, if I may, to some of the responsibilities on the supply side of the department of supply and services, I have outlined what its functions are. In this current year we have a number of special projects, most of which I believe are listed in the estimates. There are one or two, however, to which I should like to call particular attention as they represent some of the major areas for which we are now responsible in the defence production field. There is, for example, a construction program for the CF-5 aircraft centred in Montreal but with benefits in other regions as well. Under this program we are the responsible agency for the contract which will result in the construction of 115 of these CF-5 aircraft. There is at the same time, within the production facility where these are being built a similar order, not necessarily in size but for that type of aircraft, for the government of the Netherlands. These two
2370	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services projects are going forward simultaneously. My main reason for mentioning the Netherlands order is to give an indication of the international co-operation which my department, in co-operation with others, has been able to achieve and which I believe has resulted in very substantial benefits not only in terms of government orders but in terms of our assistance to Canadian industry, particularly industry that is oriented to the defence field.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The second major project that is now under way and in which hon. members will be interested concerns the contracts already issued for the construction of D.D.H. destroyers. I confess that I have had a great deal of trouble within my department trying to keep all the initials correct, but I think I am right in saying that this is the official designation at the moment of these four vessels. Two of them are being built at Sorel in Quebec and two at Lauzon in Quebec. This is probably the single major defence construction project under way at the present time.
In addition to the shipbuilding work on these four vessels there is an enormous amount of what I choose to call complementary work, that is to say, work on the various equipment needs of these vessels, and these items are being constructed and designed in many different parts of Canada. If hon. members so desire I would be pleased to outline where these contracts have been placed and their nature.
In addition to these two major projects, as I describe them, the Department of Defence Production is also very directly engaged in a number of other projects of a defence nature. It has, as well, been participating in a number of international programs which have resulted either through direct involvement by government, or, in an indirect way, through the initiatives that we have taken, in considerable foreign sales of one kind or another. I have mentioned the Netherlands air force as one example. Another is that just recently some 15 of our Buffalo aircraft which originated as the result of a D.N.D. requirement have been sold in South America.
In addition to the new construction of the magnitude I have outlined, Mr. Chairman, there is a continuing repair and overhaul requirement. This amounts to many millions of dollars annually. It is one of the more difficult areas, as some hon. members will know, because of the need to try at least to

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
ensure that most of the facilities in Canada do have a capability in this regard. We try to see that each gets a portion of this work.
This is not always easy, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is extremely difficult to bring into line, to rationalize, if you like, the needs of individual plants with the other and fundamental requirement which I suggest rests on my department, namely, that of getting the best value possible for our defence dollars, as well as for our purchasing dollar generally.
Our total purchasing in the department in the current year is in excess of $1 billion. This is a very sizeable sum of public money and I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities that are ours in ensuring, as I said, that our money is spent to best advantage. Of this $1 billion plus, about $500 million or slightly more than half that amount is for the Department of National Defence. These are direct and specific requirements of the Department of National Defence and we, as the procurement agency, follow through on their demands. In addition to these expenditures on behalf of the Department of National Defence, the remainder, or about 45 per cent, of the expenditures are included under a general heading: for example, purchases on behalf of foreign governments in Canada as a result of various international agreements of one type or another.
We have also undertaken some expenditures on behalf of external aid programs when it has appeared that the use of the expertise that we possess has been desirable in order to obtain the best kind of arrangement. This is not, I should add, a total involvement on our part. It is not one of the agencies that has been completely transferred to the Department of Defence Production in terms of its purchasing needs. Where we have demonstrated or it is obvious that we can be of assistance, we have made certain external aid purchases.
Then there is the money that is spent on behalf of civilian or civil departments. When the total transfer of these civil departments is completed, which I anticipate will be over the next year to two years, we will then be adding to the total procurement value for which my department is responsible an extra $100 million, or an amount in that neighbourhood. That is our general assessment.
There are some interesting statistics in relation to the service side of the department in which I think hon. members may be interested. As most hon. members know, we
November 4, 1968	COMMONS
are the cheque issuing agency for the federal government. All payments go through the comptroller of the treasury. In the present year the government will issue in the neighbourhood of 78.5 million cheques. This number of cheques will go out from various government agencies and departments.
It is also interesting to note that of this total of 78.5 million cheques, about 53.5 million are taken care of under about three headings. These include, for example, family allowance payments, old age security, family assistance and the like. So in total 78.5 million cheques are issued, with 53.5 million of these cheques being issued under various social programs.
I should also add that in the consultation process in which we are engaged, which was going on long before I was responsible for the department and is now being accelerated in view of our intentions in this matter, we have in operation the central travel service which, from all accounts and from what I have been able to determine in my short time in the department, is a very useful and productive new operation. This is the centralization of all travel requirements and various related needs of government departments, and it is working out extremely well.
We have also introduced the vehicle fleet management information service. Related to this-and I suspect this will interest hon. members-we have in this year undertaken a consolidated vehicle purchase program. This means that we will adopt a sort of master contract approach which gives us the chance to take the best advantage of our purchases in terms of price, quality and the like. With the exception of external affairs, where there are a variety of unique problems inasmuch as vehicles are being exported overseas and we have not yet ironed out all the technicalities, we are now purchasing all the vehicles for civilian departments.
I believe this represents in capsule form some of the developments that are under way. The only other matter to which I should like to refer specifically concerns the Department of Public Printing and Stationery. As hon. members know-and I suppose this is the most familiar of all its activities-the Canadian government printing bureau is responsible for the publication of statutes and for the preparation and publication of the myriad documents-indeed, I am sure hon. members sometimes feel there are far too many-which are required in connection with
DEBATES	2371
Supply-Supply and Services the House of Commons and the general activities of government.
In addition, the Queen's printer has a special responsibility in terms of acting as adviser and the giving of expert assistance with regard to the best, most efficient and least costly way of preparing various government documents and the like. Perhaps hon. members will be interested to learn that in the run of a year through the printing bureau and the Queen's printer we produce-the figure will vary, of course, from one year to the next-several thousand documents. I was going to call your special attention, Mr. Chairman, to the increase during centennial year when, as you know, a number of very special books and the like were produced which gained international recognition. Indeed, in one case the book, "The Year of the Land," won an international award as well.
The result of this kind of activity-it was mainly attributable to centennial year-was an increase last year of 47 per cent in the sale of various documents, of the total available output of the Queen's printer, if you wish. Normally the increase in sales is approximately 10 per cent annually.
We have also been going through the process of providing outlets in at least each one of the major regions of Canada. In these centres we have a sales facility so that interested parties can obtain any government document in which they are interested. By and large these book stores have been very successful and have provided what appears from all the evidence that reaches us a most worthwhile service.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Before I conclude what I was going to say there is one other point that I should mention in connection with the supply side. Another of our assignments is to consolidate the purchasing and the warehousing of the needs and supplies of the department. This is the commodity approach to purchasing. We now have a pilot plant under study in the capital region under which we will bring together the known needs of a common nature of all departments and supply those departments directly from this type of centralized warehouse. This pilot project has only advanced to perhaps 10 per cent of its ultimate effectiveness but already we are satisfied that it represents real savings. For example, the best assessment I obtained as of today is that in the capital region, adopting this commodity approach and the centralized warehousing
November 4, 1968

Supply-Supply and Services idea, our savings will probably be approximately $3 million annually. We suspect, on the basis of what is known so far, that we can look for savings of 10 per cent to 20 per cent over all in our purchasing requirements generally when this system is fully functional.
I believe that is as much as I can tell hon. members at the moment about the background of the department and the plans we have. All this is, I think, evidence that we are moving in a most complex and difficult field to bring the most modern management and control techniques available to the service of government. When the job is finished we hope to have a very substantial pool of experience and expertise, as I have described it, available to all departments. We hope to remove from those departments responsibilities which more properly can be undertaken by a more central agency, which will leave them free to pursue their main assignments and responsibilities.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note the ready grasp the minister has of his department and its objectives. Obviously the minister has had experience in operating concern of substance. He is capable of running this department efficiently and in a manner that will truly benefit the taxpayers of this nation.
The minister touched on most of the Glas-sco commission's recommendations and I am pleased to note that substantial savings have already been made as a result of the central warehousing pilot plant that has been established in this area. This indicates how great the benefits to the taxpayers will be if all those suggestions are implemented on a national basis.
I am also pleased to note that in many areas manpower is to be cut down, as recommended by the Glassco commission. Those who are concerned about the proliferation of jobs in our public service will be especially pleased with this. I assure the minister that he will receive every consideration from the official opposition in his endeavours to eliminate red tape and streamline and modernize the government's purchasing program.
Since I represent a constituency containing an aircraft plant I am probably more closely associated with that part of the former department of defence production having to do with aircraft matters than with other parts of the department which have fallen under the minister's responsibilities. In dealing with officials of the department on matters pertaining to the government's aircraft program I

have become aware of their keen awareness and helpfulness and their desire to do everything humanly possible to facilitate the wellbeing of industries that are located in the Atlantic area. Unfortunately the officials have had their hands tied by government policy.
Knowing the very real ability the minister has shown in private life and in his brief stint so far as a minister of the crown, I hope he will develop a policy with regional implications that will recognize the special problems of the Atlantic provinces, much though the mandarins abhor the suggestion that there are such special problems, and provide additional employment to an area that desperately needs it. I believe the minister can do this. As his personality gradually makes itself felt in this administration I look forward with anticipation to a time when he will put forward regional policies that will be truly valuable not only to the people of the Atlantic area but to all the people of Canada. Certainly any benefits that accrue to the people of the Atlantic provinces must at the same time accrue to all the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: by bidding on contracts to supply equipment of various sorts.
It is often the case that competitive bidding is not wholly satisfactory from the government point of view. Because of their personal association with members of the government of the day, persons such as I have described are able to convince the federal authorities that the groups they represent can offer the people of Canada the best that is available in a certain field of supply. As a result of these activities the taxpayers end up purchasing goods or equipment which may well not be the best available. It is considered the best, though, because it has been promoted by friends of the government.
This is a dangerous type of development of which every Canadian and, indeed, the government itself should be leary. I would not like to think that a certain firm employed officers who could write letters to people in Canada saying: I am having difficulty getting office space but until I am settled you can always contact me by telephoning the office of the Prime Minister or the office of the Minister of Transport. A persons getting a letter of that kind might well feel: I do not know whether my product is as good as others are but if I have the help of that individual, I am half way there so far as selling to the government is concerned.
I do not suggest for one minute that any cabinet minister or any government would consciously and deliberately favour a certain product simply because a particular group or individual was promoting it. But I do say there are many unconscious considerations, of which a partisan association over a period of time is certainly one, which a man is bound to look at more than once before he can obliterate them from his mind. I like to think there are many reasons why young men should be attracted to the many positions very close to the top which are available in the government service. I like to think these positions are a training ground for political scientists, for budding politicians. But I do not like to think that certain individuals in this country are endeavouring to take advantage of those with whom they become associated by the kind of thing which I fear is indicated by the establishment of the firm to which I have referred.
Something else concerns me. I do not know whether it comes strictly within the purview of the minister; it may be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. I hope that eventually, however, this matter will
Supply-Supply and Services come under the minister's jurisdiction if it does not do so at present. I have in mind the kind of activity in which some of the hon. gentleman's colleagues have been engaged recently in respect of office space and office furnishings. I realize that the government is in office for at least four years; there is no argument about that. But I do not think the style of an office should depend upon whether parliament is in a minority or a majority situation. This should make no difference to the amount of space in an office, the kind of furnishings, and so on.
When we seek election to this chamber and have the good fortune not only to succeed but to be selected as cabinet ministers, it does not mean we should surround ouselves with opulence as has been the case, it would appear, in too many instances since the last general election. We are not maharajahs; even India does not have them any more. And there is no reason why we should be acting like maharajahs. To behave in this way is to tell the people of Canada how cynical we are and how cynical they ought to be about politicians. When we present ourselves to the people of a constituency we ask them for their support in order that we may assist them. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that it makes no difference whether one of the people's representatives has a dollar wastepaper basket or a $35 wastepaper basket, whether he sits in a $30 chair or a $300 chair. This has nothing to do with what one may accomplish for the people of Canada. I suggest that the minister take a close look at some of the activities of certain of his associates. While he may be a junior minister from the point of view of service I am sure he is not a junior minister from any other standpoint. I am sure he will guard the taxpayers' dollars as closely as possible. I am also sure he will find examples of waste and extravagance for which some of his own cabinet colleagues are responsible. If waste and extravagance are to be found there, what kind of example are they setting for individuals in the public service?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I have no doubt that in the days ahead the minister will do an outstanding job and will be a credit to our area. I have told him previously, and I do not hesitate to tell him again, that I am quite willing to give him any assistance he may seek from me at any time because I believe that at all times he has the problems of our area very much in mind.
2374	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services However, I believe that some of the developments that have taken place and are continuing to take place since the last federal election are disturbing Canadians. He has some control over certain developments and I would like him to use his ability to correct anything which might be damaging to the nation's taxpayers. After all, we are all protectors of the taxpayers, and each day we spend their dollars.
I shall not comment on the shipbuilding program. My colleague from Central Nova will do so. On more than one occasion he has questioned the minister about it. I also know that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East will be asking certain questions of specific concern to him dealing with Fairey Aviation and other matters. I congratulate the minister for the effort he has made to adopt as many of the recommendations of the Glass-co commission as possible. I am pleased to see the grasp he has already acquired of this department. It is not a small department. Any department that spends $1 billion per year is a mighty big one and one that is bound to weigh heavily on the shoulders of the individual in charge of it. In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the concern I have expressed about a number of specific things, and I wish him well in the days ahead.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North in wishing the minister well in his new portfolio and in congratulating him on his maiden speech. It seems to me that about the only speeches we have heard from him so far have been maiden speeches. It was not so long ago that he addressed the house as a very brilliant backbencher and we congratulated him on his forthrightness. I do not know how much farther he can go because the room at the top is getting smaller all the time.
As a sign of the affection in which I hold the minister I shall refrain from making a speech to him today. However, I would like to ask him a number of questions. The first is in reference to a section of the Watkins report on foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry, prepared for the Privy Council office. This is the section dealing with extra territoriality, and if I may refresh the minister's memory I shall quote from paragraph 2 on page 407:
It is recommended that, with respect to United States restrictions on the freedom of its Canadian subsidiaries to export, a government export trade

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
agency be created with the necessary powers to ensure that export orders are filled when they conform with Canadian law and Canadian foreign policy. State trading organizations of communist countries could register orders placed with Canadian firms with the agency. Where an American subsidiary refused to fill a bona fide order placed with it, the agency would assist in having the order placed with a Canadian-owned firm or a firm owned overseas. Where no such firm could fill the order, the American subsidiary would be require to show cause to the agency. If the agency judges the sole inhibition to be American foreign assets control regulations, the agency would purchase the item on its account for resale to the state trading organization, with supporting legislation making it a criminal offence for a firm to refuse to sell to the agency at existing market prices.
Having read the annual report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation it seems to me that in effect we have such an agency in Canada that would fulfil the requirements mentioned and would consider the dangers pointed out in the Watkins report. I read from page 5 of the annual report of the Canadian Commercial Corporation:
The principal purpose of the corporation is to act on behalf of the Canadian government as the contracting agency when other countries and international agencies wish to purchase defence and other supplies and services from Canada on a government to government basis.
Does the minister see the Canadian Commercial Corporation as a suitable agency to fulfil the recommendation of the Watkins report and, if so, is it his intention to see that that agency carries out the Watkins report recommendation? I shall give the minister a chance to reply before asking him further questions.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: As you know, Mr. Chairman, and as the hon. member knows, the Watkins report is being considered by the government and to date no decision has been made on what portion or whether all of it is going to be implemented. In a sense, and with deference to my good friend, I could say that his question therefore is hypothetical in regard to whether the Canadian Commercial Corporation could be used for this purpose. I am not at all sure that my answer will be satisfactory on this ground, that I am not in a position to say whether we could use the Canadian Commercial Corporation to implement something which is not yet government policy.
I believe the Canadian Commercial Corporation illustrates the positive way in which this kind of international relationship can function as opposed to the idea of providing prohibitions, penalties, or something of that nature. Certainly in the field within which the
November 4, 19G8

corporation functions-and it is not only in relation to the United States but to some European countries as well-its effect has been very salutary in terms of getting additional business for Canada.
From my limited experience, which I hope the hon. gentleman will appreciate, I do not recall any case where a Canadian subsidiary refused to produce anything we wanted. Generally speaking it is the other way around. They have been most anxious and have cooperated fully, whether they have been wholly Canadian owned companies or subsidiary companies, in the manufacture of those items which, as a result of the activities of the corporation of my department, have been offered to them. The chief example, and the one which I used in my opening remarks, concerning the Netherlands air force is the most immediate one I can cite in support of this position. I would like to look further into the question to discover whether a case has arisen such as outlined by the hon. gentleman. I would be very surprised if that were so. I think its functions are in the reverse order. On this basis it has been useful in getting business for Canada, both in respect of wholly Canadian companies and subsidiaries. I shall be pleased to amplify if I have not adequately answered the question. I am sure the hon. member can appreciate the difficulty in view of the fact that the Watkins report has not been declared government policy.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I hope you will provide me with some latitude for clarification of this question. The passage I read from the Watkins report, where the recommendations to the government are stated, seems to me in some ways to be covered by the terms of reference of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. There does not seem to be any difficulty so far as the Canadian Commercial Corporation carrying out the intent of the Watkins report is concerned.
I should like to ask the minister whether his department has been asked to examine the Watkins recommendations with a view to stating his position to the government. I believe the minister stated something along the line of the information I am seeking in my second question. However, I should like to have clarification. At any time has the Canadian Commercial Corporation been refused goods that it ordered? Then I have a third question. At any time has a country like
Supply-Supply and Services Cuba tried to place an order through the Canadian Commercial Corporation? If so, the minister might give me some indication what the response of the corporation has been to such a request. A few years ago there was considerable publicity over the fact that some United States corporations felt they were not in a position to mill flour for the Cuban government. I should like some information concerning the position of the department at that time.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I shall be glad to find this out, but if the hon. member would permit me I should like to take a few moments to do so. This was before my time of responsibility. In answer to the second part of the question with regard to whether or not we were ever refused, while I do not know the answer the information conveyed to me is that the answer is no. However, I shall arrange to obtain the answer for the hon. member.
In so far as the operations of the Canadian Commercial Corporation are concerned I should like to examine the terms of reference to determine whether there is some expanded role for this corporation which would be profitable and useful. As things stand at the moment its fundamental and almost exclusive function is to deal with foreign governments and provide the financing needed to bridge, as it were, the financing between the Canadian industry involved and a foreign government until such time as payment has been made by that foreign government. It has largely restricted itself to that area. However, I most certainly will take note of the hon. member's observations on this point. I will see whether there is an ability to do this. I shall also endeavour to obtain an answer to the other two questions.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the minister will require some time and that he will wish to consult with his departmental officials before giving an answer. I wonder whether he would also consider this request? Would his department consider a somewhat more aggressive and enlarged policy in terms of informing foreign countries of their services? Perhaps there is such a policy;
I do not know. If there is, I have not heard of it. I should like to know from the minister, first of all, whether his department does pursue such a policy aggressively in the sense that it has liaison with other countries whereby it tells them of the services it has to offer
November 4, 1968

Supply-Supply and Services and indicates the willingness of the department to purchase on their behalf. Would the minister give us a report in this regard, first of all, in respect of the present policy and, second, in respect of the future work of the department?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, in outlining the summary of the activities of the department at the beginning of my remarks there were so many headings that I neglected to inform hon. members of one of the elements which has been taken out of the Department of Defence Production or its progeny, I suppose, the department of supply and services. I am referring to the international programs branch. Up until the transfer of duties was promulgated, if that is the correct term, in July the international programs branch was under the direction of the Minister of Defence Production and did precisely what the hon. member has outlined. It was considered, and I believe it was a wise consideration, that this branch more properly belonged in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The international programs branch has now been transferred. Its objectives are precisely what the hon. member mentioned.
This branch maintains a liaison with the various world capitals and with other centres of commerce and industry. The representatives of this branch aggressively search out opportunities for sales of Canadian produced materials and items of a variety of types. As a department of supply and services we will still be involved in this in some degree through the Canadian Commercial Corporation in the manner I outlined in providing a degree of financial help and of course in our fairly considerable program with other countries in research development and related matters. So in a sense it will be a conglomerate in that there will be portions of responsibility which will be vested in my department and some which will be vested in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In addition, some will indirectly be the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of National Defence.
It is very difficult to divide the line here. But I suspect that as the amount of fall-out- this is how it is described, although it may be an unfortunate term-benefits increase from a civilian point of view as a result of the developmental projects in which we engage, it will become more a matter for industry than for the supply and services department of which I will be the head. Perhaps I might


illustrate this by giving a couple of examples. The twin-engine Otter aircraft which had its essential beginning in relation to the Department of National Defence now has emerged as a very successful type of aircraft for civilian use throughout the world. Similarly, there is the Buffalo aircraft. From the results of our development work there has emerged, for example, a water bomber and so on. As these things involve largely a civilian function I think the hon. member's question would get a more thorough answer from the Minister of Industry than from me. I assure him, however, that we are pursuing a most aggressive sales policy in both the departments I have mentioned.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I shall leave this question for the moment, although I intend to pursue it at another time. I see the difficulty in terms of turning this publicity agency over to the trade and commerce group which I think is essentially oriented toward trade between private individuals and the encouragement of trade between private corporations and governments.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I interrupt to say that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is involved in a government to government kind of operation and in that context we must keep up the kind of liaison mentioned.


Max Saltsman: Yes, and in view of the fact that such a large part of the world has established state trading corporations, it would seem there would be a real need for the department to have an aggressive policy of maintaining contact with the state trading corporations with a view to assisting them in their purchasing. However, we will leave that for the moment.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If I may interrupt, I have been advised-I knew this but I had forgotten-that the estimates of the Canadian Commercial Corporation have been referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. So there will be an opportunity in committee to explore these questions in detail.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Max Saltsman: I should like to direct a question to the minister regarding the change-over from military to non-military work in some of the agencies connected with his department. Hopefully, it looks as though the war in Viet Nam may be drawing to a close, and military orders in respect of cost
November 4, 1968

sharing programs may be undergoing a change. We have built very substantial facilities in this country geared to military sharing and the provision of aircraft and other types of equipment. Can the minister give us some indication, first of all, as to what plans his department has for this change-over and, second, to what extent difficulties will arise from this change?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, like my hon. friend, I am relieved to know that at least from all appearances the Viet Nam situation is cooling off and, God willing, it will no longer be the threat it has been for so long.
For my own part, and I have stated this on many occasions since assuming this responsibility, it is my opinion that our Canadian defence oriented industries should be making a maximum effort to reduce their reliance on defence spending. I happen to feel philosophically, apart from all other considerations, that the faster we can beat our swords into plowshares the better it will be for all concerned. This is the philosophical approach to the matter but there is a very practical one as well.
As hon. members will know, a review is under way of our defence posture, but even if the situation were not to change at all-I assume, as I hope we all will, that there is going to be a lessening of world tenisons-the fact of the matter is that defence oriented industry as such in Canada cannot be supported to the degree it will need in respect of production and income by defence oriented contracts.
There are a variety of reasons for this, and my hon. friend will understand if I do not go into them in detail because this would to some degree waste the time of the house. There have been things which are prolonging the life of more and more of our armed forces units. For example, the need for repair and overhaul is to some degree reduced by new methods and techniques. Similarly, if our budgetary position or decision, conscious and deliberate, was inevitably to reduce the amount of activity in which these industries are engaged there would not be the same need for repair, overhaul or replacement.
We have to concern ourselves, and I think the primary responsibility is on industry, with taking the knowledge, first of all, that we have acquired through all these affairs of defence production and, second, utilizing the very substantial amount of equipment and plant, a very large percentage of which was
Supply-Supply and Services provided by public moneys, and find uses which are civilian oriented and will fill what I have suggested to industry on a number of occasions are vacuums in the needs of industry or the civilian community which are not now being filled in Canada. I believe there is a good deal that can be done in this direction and I have accorded this top priority within my department in order to encourage the maximum amount of creativity on our part so we may make the proper kind of suggestions to these people for new uses of equipment and the like and, second, for a maximum amount of creativity on the part of the industry concerned so it too can have a more dependable base than it can ever hope to have as a war oriented industry.
I am happy to be able to tell the hon. member in this regard that there have been extremely satisfying results in some areas. He may have noted from the newspapers and other news reports in recent days an indication of the development of the DC-10 program, the Douglas aircraft program. As a result of a co-operative effort on various intergovernmental activities with the United States a very large subcontract has come to us. If the DC-10 is as successful as it now appears likely to be, there will be a benefit in this regard not only to one plant in Canada but to several other plants because there will be other subcontracts. This is a commercial type aircraft. I mentioned earlier, and I hope I will be forgiven for repeating myself in this regard, that the Canadair facilities and the expertise and knowhow which they have developed largely, although not entirely, with our help, have now enabled them to design a water bomber which I understand has a potential market throughout the world.
These are the ways in which we are moving and I assure you, sir, that for our part we will keep trying to find these new ways and we will keep urging industry to do so. I could relate this matter, but I will keep my answer to the question asked by the hon. member, to the questions asked by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North. He raised a matter in relation to the regional problems that this has created, but generally speaking we are moving in the right direction.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to note that the minister is aware of the necessity for placing top priority on his operation "plowshare", if we may call it that. This is necessary for a number of obvious reasons. First of all, this is a difficult problem which will require advance planning. Second, it
2378	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services might happen that this situation will develop very quickly, and the government should not be caught with its trousers in the half-mast position. I use that term in speaking to a man from the maritimes. Third, having accepted these plans we must realize that these industries are located in various parts of the country where there are very few alternative sources of employment. It is vitally necessary for the department to have very firm and convincing plans about what it intends to do.
I do not wish to press the minister further, but I should like him to make a statement in the very near future indicating, first of all, the priority his department is giving to this matter and, second, what it intends to do, It is not good enough to say that he is aware of the problem and is giving it top priority. We hear this from every minister. We must know what kind of people the minister has at his disposal, how qualified they are to do this job, the size of this group and what tentative plans they have reached. This is very important and those of us who are in the house today do not want to have to get up some day and say to the government that we pointed out the urgency of the matter. It is vitally important that the minister anticipate the difficulties and do some very substantial planning.
Let me move on to a question in relation to drugs. I presume the department of supply purchases drugs for various government agencies including the armed forces and hospitals. Is that correct?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not know to what extent we have assumed this function, but I did say earlier that there is a transitory period under way at the moment. We have taken on certain responsibilities from certain departments. If the hon. member will give me a little time I think I can get an answer for him. My recollection is that we do but I do not wish to deceive the hon. member.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Chairman, when the minister is pursuing that question will he check with the officials of his department to find out whether they would be amenable to purchasing drugs on behalf of provincial agencies and provincial hospitals? Perhaps this is a matter of government policy, but I understand that the federal government makes substantial purchases of drugs and is able to obtain excellent prices and services from drug manufacturers. Perhaps it would also be willing to do this kind of purchasing on behalf of provincial agencies if such a request were made to it.

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, as did the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North I also wish to make to the minister a few representations regarding the shipbuilding industry. I commend the minister's appointment to the cabinet. May I say that since he comes from the Atlantic area where shipbuilding is most important and where the sea is at our gates I look to him for great things in the cabinet in regard to this most important industry.
I should like to refer to the debates which have already taken place in the house during this session. I will not repeat what some of my colleagues have said. For instance, the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster presented a notice of motion during private members' hour regarding a marine policy and he pointed out at that time how the ship owners and the shipbuilding authorities were in agreement on the fact that a policy must be forthcoming at an early date.
In answer to a question I asked the minister last Friday he stated that he was meeting with officials of the shipbuilding industry. Like his predecessor twice removed, Mr. Pickersgill who has gone to fairer fields, he would not give a date on which he thought a statement would be made. I asked the former minister at one time whether he could give us a date when a statement would be made but he said he was not going to be caught on a date limit. I do not blame the minister for that but may I say that I believe it should be done at an early date.
The minister said in his statement that his department would be assuming the shipbuilding role of the Department of Transport. In answer to questions which I put to him in the house in the last few weeks he stated that he, the Minister of Transport, and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had met with the officials of the shipbuilders association. He stated at the time that probably the Minister of Transport would be the one to make a statement on shipbuilding policy. However, in view of the new role assumed by the department I hope the minister will be the one to undertake this important task.
If my memory serves me correctly, it was about the year 1961 that a shipbuilding subsidy program was introduced. I remember it well because it was nurtured and initiated by the former head of the Canadian maritime commission, Mr. Alex Watson, who is now with the Canadian Transport Commission.
November 4, 1968

This program was a creature of his, one on which he worked hard. I remember being in his office a number of times and discussing it with him. He had a black book in which the beginning of that policy was written down. He liked to show hon. members, especially those from the Atlantic area and those from other parts of Canada where the shipbuilding industry is important, what this policy would be. Finally it was brought forward. It did a great deal to encourage Canadian shipbuilders. Before that program was established they were competing with shipbuilding firms in other countries and we were losing a great deal of our shipbuilding business to them.
The initiation of this policy, not only for commercial vessels but also for fishing vessels, meant a lot to our shipbuilders and enabled them to compete with shipbuilders of other countries. This subsidy has been cut back to 25 per cent and by 1970 or 1971 it will be further lowered to about 17J per cent. Of course we know that subsidies for the fishing trawler program have been cut back from 50 per cent to 35 per cent. It is most important that there be a marine policy coupled with a policy in regard to our shipbuilders at an early date.
I am thinking now of the unemployment in shipyards throughout this country, on the west coast and in the great lakes area where a shipyard was closed not long ago. I am also thinking of the shipyard which is the main industry in the town of Pictou in my constituency. Until July or August of this summer it employed about 400 men but has now cut back employment to 100 or 150 men. I point out to the minister that this industry is a most important one. In this connection may I draw to his attention an article which I believe appeared in June of this year in the Chronicle-Herald, written by Mr. John Meyer, a well known financial critic in Montreal. This is what he wrote concerning the George T. Davie yard:
The decision to close down Geo. T. Davie followed by an offer from Davieship for the useful physical assets of the yard, became Inevitably a political issue. The minister of manpower has since sought to resolve it by having the frigate New Liskeard and a smaller vessel diverted to Lauzon for refit. The New Liskeard, at least, was to have refitted at Pictou, N.S., which-only incidentally, of course-is located in a riding held by a Conservative.
Pictou is in my constituency, and I was most interested in this article. The yard in Quebec has not seen this ship; neither has the Pictou yard. I want to ask the minister where
Supply-Supply and Services the New Liskeard is and whether she will be refitted. I think tenders were up on October 10. I know the New Liskeard is not in Pictou, nor is she up the river. She is a ghost ship. At one time a ghost ship used to appear at Pictou and my wife's people as well as an old sea captain used to tell me stories about the phantom ship. Now the New Liskeard has become a phantom ship. I know why it has not been refitted but I would like to find out what the minister has to say about it.
To go back to the article I was reading which, by the way, is entitled "Political Play No Answer For Stricken Shipyards", may I say that Mr. Meyer had some interesting things to say. The article continues:
There is probably a valid case to be made for rationalization of the Canadian yards. There is not the volume of business now available, or likely to be made available by increased subsidies or other forms of assistance to the industry, to support capacity operations in more than the major yards on the two coasts, the St. Lawrence and possibly on the great lakes. One yard has already closed on the west coast and another on lake Ontario, in addition to Geo. T. Davie.
To what extent closing the marginal yards has been accelerated by the progressive reduction in subsidies to builders, currently 25 per cent and to be lowered over the next three years to 17\ per cent, is difficult to say. Certainly, it has done nothing to slow the process. The fact remains that with the slowdown in naval and other government construction and with commercial contracts originating in the coastal and fishing traffic, the business just isn't enough to keep all yards active.
Then Mr. Meyer points out, and the minister also suggested it, that in various types of industry, such as the aircraft industry which is important to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North and the shipping industry with reference to which I can point to the yard in my own area, there has been some diversification so that various components such as drums for oil companies and so on are now being made. I certainly agree with the minister that one cannot expect the government to do everything. There must be diversification. At the same time some assistance must be given to this important industry.
I should like to continue quoting from the article written by Mr. Meyer. He goes on to say:
Underlying these considerations, is the absence of a consistent and constructive maritime policy which extends to both builders and operators. It is all very well to establish a frame of reference for rationalization through reduction of subsidies
2380	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services and adoption of competitive bidding for government contracts but with rationalization now progressed to the extent it has, the time has come to assure the continued existence of the remaining yards.
I should like to emphasize the last sentence in particular, that the time has come to assure the continued existence of the remaining yards.
I do not intend at this time to go into the matter of naval contracts. I know that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East will wish to speak on that subject. However, I wish to point out that according to the latest statistics employment in Canadian shipyards has dropped from 17,000 to 9,000 men.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Over what period?


Howard Russell MacEwan: During the last year or two,
I believe. I can give the figures to the minister later. Right now I do not wish to delay my colleague. Perhaps the minister could advise us whether or not these figures are right. They are the latest figures, and I believe they cover a period of two years.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
In any event, suggestions have been put forward by various representatives of the shipbuilding association and various shipbuilding companies. I believe this article, of which the minister is well aware, by Mr. Axelson, the editor of Canadian Shipping and Marine Engineering News, contains some suggestions which have been used quite effectively in other countries. I was interested in the table appended to the article, which points out the assistance given in other countries. One suggestion which has been made, of course, is the continuation of subsidies. In this regard I should like to mention subsidies to fishing trawlers. The minister may say that the fishing industry is in such bad shape that it does not need new trawlers. However, industries have been set up in this country which have been given generous subsidies, up to 50 per cent. I can see that the brake should be put on the shipbuilding subsidy program. I believe the minister should consider the possibility of granting subsidies for the modernization of trawlers, for instance, from a side trawler to the stern trawler type. This would relate to existing companies. When the minister is attempting to arrive at a policy he should consider the fact that it is most important that we have modem trawlers. I can think of several established companies that could benefit from such a program.

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
Another aspect to be considered is tax concessions. I know this is done in other countries. Consideration could be given to long term financing and depreciation allowances. I believe that when the hon. member for South Shore spoke in the throne speech debate he made some suggestions concerning what he called investment allowances which are used in the United Kingdom. When these suggestions are all tied together they form a most important element in the consideration of this matter. A policy decision by the government in this regard is urgent.
I noted with interest an article, and I do not intend to go into it, by Mr. Papachristidis of Montreal, who is one of the leading shipowners in this country. He made some very interesting suggestions for helping not only our marine policy but the establishment of a Canadian merchant marine and assistance to Canadian shipbuilders.
I believe that is all I wish to say at this time except that I should like to stress again the necessity of arriving at a policy at an early date which will assist the Canadian merchant marine and also our important shipbuilding industry. I was interested to note that the brief from Montreal quotes the words that are imprinted over the doors of the House of Commons, "The wholesome sea is at her gates, her gates both east and west". Now, is it strange that we should love this land, our land, the best? I hope the minister will not forget that we are a maritime nation and that shipbuilding concerns are of importance to the economic life of Canada. They are vital to us as a coastal country. I hope there will be a revitalization of our subsidy program or that some of the other suggestions I have made earlier will be put into effect. We will be waiting with some anticipation outstanding results from the minister.


Barry Mather: Mr. Chairman, among the multitudinous activities of this department which were outlined rather interestingly, I thought, by the minister, there was one of special interest to me and I believe to a great many Canadians who drive cars or trucks. I refer to that branch of his department which I believe is known as the Canadian Specifications Board. Among the responsibilities of this board is the setting of standards of safety for the construction and operation of vehicles. Those of us who were members of the last parliament recall the number of bills put forward by members on the subject of automotive safety. These bills were referred to the
November 4, 1968

justice and legal affairs committee and we had the benefit and counsel of some of the officers of the specifications board. I think I can speak for all members of that committee when I say that we benefited from their advice.
The work of the specifications board is of extreme importance to almost all Canadians. Every year about 5,000 Canadians are killed on the highways of the country, 150,000 are injured and some $600 million or $700 million per year is the economic loss resulting from traffic accidents. It can be seen, therefore, that the specifications board carried a very heavy responsibility on its shoulders because this toll is really warlike.
About a year ago, Mr. Chairman, following the report of the justice and legal affairs committee, the government announced that it intended to set up a new program under which a public safety board, would be established. This board would encourage and expand the work of the specifications people in the interests of Canadian safety. We applauded that decision, but actually very little has been done toward implementing the government's announced program. The performance of the government in this regard reminds me of the performance of some of the sports cars one sees throughout the country, not much speed but a great deal of noise.
I realize that the minister concerned with the safety program is the Minister of Transport. Every few weeks we ask him what is being done about setting up the public safety board as well as encouraging the work of the specifications people with regard to the components of the vehicles. We get very little in the way of a satisfactory reply.
I have received complaints from an automobile dealer in Ottawa to the effect he does not wish to sell a car which he is importing because there are no standards set for the safety of a three point seat belt. This car is equipped with such a seat belt but he does not want to sell it because he does not want to take the responsibility for marketing an article for which there is no specified standard of quality in Canada. This is his complaint to me. I urge the Minister of Defence Production, who has responsibility for the specifications board, to do all he can to speed up the activities of that body. If possible, perhaps he could go beyond that and encourage the Minister of Transport to spare some time from looking after harbours in Vancouver and housing across the country to
Supply-Supply and Services get some action in establishing the very necessary public safety board to deal with matters of automotive safety in Canada. I find it difficult to imagine anything that is more important or would save more lives than a better policy for traffic safety.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I answer a question that was asked earlier? I do not know whether the hon. member is in the house at the moment but I am sure he will get news of the answer. I said I was not sure what our involvement was with regard to the purchase of drugs. I am told we do buy all drugs for the Department of National Defence, Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of National Health and Welfare. In addition, we are quite prepared to discuss with other agencies, including provincial agencies, possible joint purchasing programs. This is a matter that is under review, and I gather some initial discussions in this regard are taking place.
My hon. friend who asked about the New Liskeard is no longer in the chamber so I will keep the answer to his question until later.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Chairman, I have a series of questions more than anything else at this stage of the minister's estimates. May I join with previous speakers in congratulating the minister on his new role and I wish him well. Many of us will be looking to him on a continuing basis as time goes by for answers to our questions.
The minister mentioned drugs, and I must not let the opportunity go by to ask those who purchase drugs not to get involved with counterfeit drugs about which I have been harping in this chamber for the last few weeks. I have indicated to the minister that there is sufficient of a contraband substance, which is the constituent of a very popular brand of drug made in Canada, in the hands, I understand, of the Mafia to produce some 10 million tablets. To date about 500,000 tablets have been recovered. I simply indicate that there are 9,500,000 of these tablets made from counterfeit drugs on the market. Whether this substance has all been converted to tablet form yet really does not matter because the conversion is very easy. However, I would ask the minister, in the interest of our veterans and hospitals across Canada, to exercise caution in this matter. The department purchases its supplies in bulk and it is very easy to slide in a few hundred thousand tablets of counterfeit drugs.
November 4, 1968

Supply-Supply and Services
The questions I want to ask today are fairly varied. I need not elaborate on them because I think the minister is familiar with at least one of the areas I am concerned about. I refer to the relationship between the government's defence purchasing agency and the plant of Fairey Aviation of Canada which is located at Eastern Passage, just outside the city of Dartmouth. I would ask the minister, at some later point in the discussion of his estimates, to bring the house up to date on a number of questions that were asked by representatives of the international association of machinists and aerospace workers. Members of the House of Commons were also present at the time in the minister's office. In this connection I am pleased to see the Minister of National Defence with us in the house.
There is one way in which these workers can receive assistance. I refer to working-out parties at the Canadian Forces base, Shearwater. I might point out that Fairey Aviation is a highly sophisticated and key industry within the metropolitan area of Halifax and Dartmouth, and must be sustained over what is going to be a rough period for the next two or three years.
Up to about two years ago a substantial number of workers not only from Fairey Aviation but from other related firms, such as electronics and radar manufacturers, in order to facilitate the work of the maintenance people within the armed forces at the naval air station were permitted to do technical jobs at the base. At times, this outside work force numbered, if my memory serves me correctly, in the order of 65 to 70 men. However, as a result of the cut-backs that were made during the last two years at Shearwater the situation has changed. In 1960, just eight years ago, 811 shopmen, that is to say, men working in the shop using tools and instruments-sheet metal workers, airframe and engine mechanics, painters and so on- worked at the base. Today there are 317 and actually that figure has been reduced further as of last Friday, though I do not have the exact number.
On the other hand, in the same year, 1960, there were 187 people employed in the management branch. Today there are 221. So we have the number employed on the management side growing and that on the workshop side reducing. I am not in any way suggesting that the company is in error here. Perhaps it is simply the result of the company endeavouring to build up a competent engineering and sales staff so that it can diversify

its production. As the minister is aware, the workers realize the necessity for the company moving away from total reliance on military purchases to the area of commercial production-to diversification, which I think is the word most commonly used today.
As I say, I should like the minister to bring me up to date on this situation. I also hope the Minister of National Defence is in a benevolent mood in this regard and will see fit to reintroduce work contracts, if only on a from time to time or interim basis. This will be one of the most useful and readily accessible tools to enable the Minister of Defence Production to assist the plant in sustaining itself over this most difficult two year period. It seems to me that two or three weeks ago an order did emanate from maritime command to employ a small working-out party composed of 12 or 14 men for a specific project at Shearwater.
The policy that has been in effect for, I imagine, about 18 of the 20 years in which Fairey Aviation has been located in this area seems a not unreasonable one, particularly in light of the alternatives. These are pretty straightforward: either close the plant down, or both management and union make an appeal to the government for work under a regional development program. This would involve a department not yet formed and assume policies not yet enunciated or, I suspect, completely thought out. I suggest that the first alternative is unthinkable in terms of its effect on the economy of the Dartmouth and Halifax county area. Its impact on the tax assessment rolls and on the corner store would be the same as anywhere else in Canada. Perhaps the minister would throw some light on this situation.
I would also be grateful if the minister would tell me whether or not he was successful in diverting any contracts for the Yukon aircraft from Canadair in Montreal. Certainly they would be very useful to Fairey Aviation.
The matter to which I now refer may not fall directly within the minister's purview but I would ask him to give me some explanation why competent aircraft inspection teams are finding that roughly 50 per cent of the recommended overhaul, repair and maintenance work is not being carried out by the air force at this time, particularly work on Argus aircraft. Is the reason simply shortage of money? Perhaps there are some specific modification programs that can be deferred without danger to the safety of the aircraft, the air frame, the engines or any of the radio-navigational aids on board.
November 4, 1968
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
It is important that the Fairey matter be dealt with quickly. If it cannot be dealt with quickly we should be informed.
I want to know the present status of the general purpose DX program in the United States, as this has some relation to our participation under defence production sharing arrangements with regard to the bear trap or haul-down device for rotary winged aircraft. Perhaps the matter is classified and I shall therefore understand if it cannot be dealt with now. Perhaps the minister might tell us the present disposition of the bear trap program as it relates to our own four destroyer escorts. When may our plants anticipate receiving the benefits of this additional work? Is there a contract for it? Is there any competition? Also, will the addition of this instrument have any great impact on operations?
An earlier speaker touched on the McDon-nell-Douglas DC-10 program. I think the minister and Canadian industry generally are to be congratulated for the way in which the matter has been handled. This program is probably the largest single acquisition that has come our way for a long time. That is true, certainly, in the field of commercial aircraft. The dollar benefits are almost unpredictable. Engineers of the Canadian aircraft industry and individuals who took a leading role in this matter are to be congratulated for creating a proper atmosphere which was conducive to the favourable negotiations with the McDonnell-Douglas people. Though the Fairey people have a small part of this contract I wonder whether the minister could make sure that they receive some additional work under the program. I apologize for rambling on about Fairey aviation. Generally the aircraft industry in Canada is in a healthy state. Companies have diversified and are keeping busy. Most of them are expanding rapidly in the field of aircraft and aircraft components and allied fields. Unfortunately Fairey aviation appears to be the one company in Canada that is encountering trouble.
May I also ask the minister to bring us up to date on our four new DDH's-the words stand, I think, for destroyer and helicopter deployment. I have had trouble pronouncing them though we all know what they mean. On February 21 of this year I placed on the
Supply-Supply and Services order paper the following question which I shall read in part:
1.	What is the present total estimated cost for construction of the four new destroyers, including the equipment costs of these ships?
2.	When will the review of the bids for the construction of these ships be completed?
And so on. The minister replied that the estimated cost of construction is between $220 million and $225 million. I ask the minister whether that figure has changed since February 21, 1968. If so, in what quantity? Perhaps I should ask, what is the quality of the change? Have components been changed or have they become more expensive? If they have been changed, are the changes substantial? Have the minister's colleagues asked him to buy bigger and better equipment for the ships? An elementary question is, what type of propulsion unit is to power these ships? One type of unit was contemplated and a hull designed for it. Then the unit was changed, the one finally chosen being a gas turbine, I understand.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If the hon. member wishes perhaps I might resolve that matter quickly at this time. The hon. member quoted the figure that was given in answer to his question, between $220 million and $225 million for the four vessels, and that figure still stands. I am sure my hon. friend will not ask me to differentiate between a DDH-280 and a DDH-283. It is anticipated that two will be delivered in 1971, one in June and one in November, and the other two in 1972, one in June and the other in September. The propulsion units are gas turbines. I hope the hon. member will not ask me to go too deeply into the technical aspect. I know they are approved types of gas turbines to be supplied by United Aircraft of Canada Limited, in Quebec. The estimated price of the propulsion units is about $44.2 million.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is that $44.2 million for the four vessels?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is the total contract.


J. Michael Forrestall: Has the minister been alerted to possible increases in the cost of this program?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Chairman. For once in our lives the estimate that was provided over one year ago is hanging pretty firm. I am advised that the total amount, as contained in the answer, is to be between $220 and $225 million or in that neighbourhood.

2384	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister ought to quit while he is ahead.


J. Michael Forrestall: If he can keep the cost to those figures I shall apologize for any unkind remarks I may have made. I had anticipated the cost rising to the neighbourhood of $400 million for the four vessels. I hope I am wrong. I congratulate the minister on his ability in keeping this type of program within the confines of budgetary commitments. Perhaps it is too early to ask this question but perhaps the minister could tell us what policies are to be followed with regard to purchasing the equipment for these ships, particularly with regard to components having to do with automated fire control systems and so on? Are these specially designed things for which research grants are made available to industry in the hope that industry can develop a special program, or are we simply going into the market and inviting submissions on such equipment? Can the minister answer this question now?
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not in the detail which the hon. member has suggested. However, in connection with the major items, about 167 contracts have been let for these four destroyers. The main contracts, of course, relate to the propulsion machinery. There is also the Sea Sparrow missile system which is being developed by Raytheon, Canada, Limited, and the five-inch gun-


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister need not trouble to go over the whole list. Would he simply tell me how they were purchased?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It was all in line with the normal kind of purchasing we do. In some cases there was a special requirement and it was obviously necessary to order from a supplier who was exclusively able to provide it, but wherever there was a possibility of competitive tenders being called-and this was in the vast majority of instances-this was done.


J. Michael Forrestall: I thank the minister for that information. There are other detailed questions I should like to ask but I shall wait until we get off the generalities of item one. For example, I should like to ask the minister to tell us in some detail what his projected spending on the fleet will be after his present program is completed. I will ask this question in the light of Admiral O'Brien's remarks in Halifax over the week end when he

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
expressed concern about our present ability to meet our commitments. I should also like to ask the minister later about the hydrofoil program, and whether or not the hon. gentleman and his colleague, the Minister of National Defence, are any closer to a decision about the refueling tanker, or the role of the CF-5. What order of expenditure is the minister budgeting for through the next four or five years? But I will wait until we reach a more appropriate point-items in connection with which we can be given information in some detail. Again, I wish the minister all the best in his undertakings.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, allow me
to make a few remarks about the estimates under consideration this afternoon.
The study of that department's estimates reminds me of a question I asked last Friday.
I was wondering if any attention was paid to the reports of the experts who stated that a saving of $10 million was possible should the maintenance base for jet airplanes in Winnipeg be closed and transferred to Montreal. I hope that this needless expenditure which would be incurred if the base were maintained will be considered because it has been asked that it be phased out gradually until 1973.
I hope that the department representatives will accept to meet the members of the Q.F.L. to discuss the recommendations made by the committees of experts. We receive at our offices reports and studies of all kinds and if, after the statements by the experts, the need to make those studies over again is felt, there will be no end to all that, and I feel that the fact that a saving of $10 million can be made by moving the base from Winnipeg to Montreal will weigh heavily in favour of that move.
Like the member who spoke before me, I should also like to draw the attenton of the house to the Lauzon shipyard. I know it well, for several of my friends and relatives work there. We were not indifferent to the human tragedy that occurred there in 1967-68. We kept hoping that the member for Levis (Mr. Guay), would mention to the house the disaster which left over 1,000 workers unemployed. The situation is odd for two miles further up the river from the shipyard known as "le petit chantier"-since the Davie Shipbuilding yard is still in operation-which belonged to Canadian Vickers and was sold to Davie Shipbuilding, there is the Levis ferry-boat
November 4, 1968
crossing. Ferry-boats would be needed there to transport cars between the two shores without some cars having to wait, as long as two hours sometimes, on the Quebec side as well as on the Levis side.
Now, while workers at Lauzon are looking for work because they refused to go to Newfoundland-after having lived there for 20, 25 years, with their families, their friends, their common heritage, they did not want to leave Lauzon-there is a shortage of boats nearby, and subsidies are not even made available to provide for larger and faster ferry-boats between Levis and Quebec. Some of the ferry-boats now being used were built in 1927 and in winter they cannot take more than 25 cars at one time when, in fact, 1,000 cars per hour should cross from one side of the river to the other.
Here is an example of what goes on in that part of the province: last Friday, it took me one hour and ten minutes to fly from Ottawa to the airport at L'Ancienne Lorette; it took me exactly one hour and fifteen minutes to cross the Quebec bridge, on my way from the airport at L'Ancienne Lorette to Saint-Nicholas. We put up with that because the ferry-boats between Quebec and Levis cannot take cars for lack of space. Everyone uses the Quebec bridge and the situation is deplorable.
There are anomalies, such as stupid statements of which, amongst others, that were made last week by the member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet) who spoke instead of the Grande Hermine. He did not know where the Grande Hermine was hiding. He went to Montreal then to Quebec, to be told by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) that instead of giving work to the labourers at the Lauzon shipyard, the Grande Hermine would finally be taken to Lauzon, and winter there. They are trying to save face by talking about the many advantages of the proposed Cartier-Brebeuf park, but nothing is done to diminish the unemployment which affects many families on the south shore.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Unfortunately, the hon. member for Levis has not yet expressed his views. We, on this side of the house, expected him to mention this deplorable situation. I see that he is not in the house today-incidentally, he is not here very often-and the people of his riding must often think that they might as well not have a representative in parliament. Unfortunately, my friends believe that silence should be kept concerning situations of this sort.
2385
Supply-Supply and Services Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks, I would like to say that we support the idea of a merchant marine, since our workers want to work and are ready to give the best of themselves, but we do not want to see sacrificed for nothing these ships which have cost millions of dollars.
For example, a Greek, Mr. Onassis, who recently married Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy, once bought a Canadian ship for only $70,000.' Today, that ship is apparently worth $50o'o00. If we already had ships which cost millions of dollars to build, I cannot understand how one man was allowed to make such a huge
profit-they say he is worth $500 million___
while we in Canada, thanks to the St. Lawrence which is open to ships of all nations could have built up a merchant marine of our own which we would still have and which would prevent a few individuals from getting rich at Canada's expense.
In closing, after these few remarks, I ask a question to which I hope I shall get an answer. How can we explain the transfer to Newfoundland of the Lauzon shipyards in an attempt to force our Lauzon workers to go and work in Newfoundland which, for us Quebecers, almost means a deportation.
We, on the south shore, judge as abnormal such a deportation of workers to Newfoundland. We would rather ask that shipyards such as those in Lauzon continue to be prosperous as they were during the war.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I hope that in his native tongue the hon. gentleman was not using the word that came through in translation. I am sure he did not mean to suggest that people from Lauzon are being deported to Newfoundland. We are a little removed yet from the category of Devil's Island.


Bernard Dumont: The minister might wait until tomorrow to read my statement to the effect that the Lauzon workers who were forced to go and earn their living in Newfoundland on account of the subsidies granted to that province thought they were deported.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Chairman, on rising to speak on the estimates of the new department of supply and services I also offer congratulations and best wishes to the minister, but as a new member and a comparatively modest businessman I am a wee bit suspicious of the words he used today in explaining how he

2386	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services will go about operating his department, taken in conjunction with words he used recently in Newfoundland.
The operation of his department, as he pointed out, is a heavy responsibility. The minister is charged with the duty of spending $1 billion for purchases for various departments. I wonder how he can reconcile his statement today with a statement he made recently in Newfoundland defending the waste in spending by the premier of that province. In Newfoundland he said:
Unless we are prepared to gamble with the future we will find that in 50 years we are a sorry duplicate of the maritime provinces.
He went on to say:
If it comes down to good hard logical and taking chances then there is no question as to which side of the argument I am on.
I sincerely hope that he does not apply this gambling technique, which has been so harmful to the financial situation of Newfoundland, in carrying out the heavy responsibility involved in spending the vast sums of money over which he has charge.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope he will give sympathetic consideration to a petition forwarded by the citizens of Stephenville who are facing the disposal of the Air Canada terminal building there by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. When he receives their brief I hope he will decide not to dispose of the terminal building to anyone but the citizens of Stephenville.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member would like to qualify his opening gambit. For the record, what he quoted was probably essentially correct but to some extent it was lifted out of context. However, that is beside the point. I am not aware of any petition which has reached my office yet, but I can assure him that it will receive every consideration. May I ask the hon. member whether it is due to arrive shortly?


Jack Marshall: I have a copy in my hand. It was given to me as I left to return to Ottawa. I think the minister's copy is on the way but if it would help I am willing to lend him the copy I have.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If it does not reach me within the next day or so I shall let the hon. member know.


Robert Carman Coates: In a general way the Glassco commission was fairly critical of the Crown 
DEBATES	November 4, 1968
Assets Disposal Corporation in its present form. The minister did not mention the corporation in his opening statement and I would like him to enlighten the committee on his intentions with regard to this agency.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess I ought to apologize for not referring to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The reason I did not is that there is not a particular vote with regard to it, and I was merely looking at the different headings in the estimates. A number of suggestions put forward from time to time with regard to the corporation, including suggestions by the Glassco commission, have been implemented. I am satisfied that present procedures are an improvement on what they were previously. We have a very aggressive general manager in crown assets today. He, along with the president of the board, has been reviewing their techniques and procedures. A good deal has been done. For myself I am not entirely happy that we have got the optimum situation yet. I have begun a series of reviews with crown assets on their methods and practices with a view to increasing the corporation's productivity and its returns to the Canadian taxpayer.
The hon. member for Central Nova asked me a question about the New Liskeard. This vessel was to be phased out and there was a time lag between the time she would no longer be serviceable and the time when her replacement, The Quest, now under construction, would be ready. It was determined in the first instance that the amount of work intended to be done on her was really too costly in reference to the length of time she would be in service. Therefore the decision was made not to proceed with her repair and overhaul.
Subsequently it was suggested that there might be a period during which she would have to be employed before The Quest was ready, and so absolutely minimal repair and overhaul proposals were made. Again in a third phase, as The Quest program was stepped up and it became evident that this vessel would be available more quickly, it was decided not to proceed with any expensive repairs.
The hon. member for Frontenac made reference to Mrs. Kennedy purchasing a vessel from us previously. Mr. Chairman, I would be only too glad to enter into negotiations with her about the New Liskeard in a few months.
November 4, 1968


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to get in a question all afternoon. I had not realized that my hon. friends were so adept in presenting their viewpoints, and I had figured that these estimates would have been passed quite some time ago.
We were all impressed by the minister's opening statement. He showed by his attitude that he is very capable of running his department. We are also happy that the Minister of National Defence has the attitude he has toward the eastern part of Canada. He has been very co-operative with my colleagues on several matters. The question I wish to ask is not directly related to the minister's department. I am thinking of the national defence training base in the most easterly Canadian province. Some time ago questions were asked of the minister about Russian activities off the east coast of Canada. These aroused quite a bit of interest in the eastern part of Canada. We on the east coast are always a little leary of Russian activity and we recognize a need to step up defence activity on the eastern seaboard.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Second, we perhaps are a little bit-how should I put it-unhappy about the fact that despite the billion dollars which is being spent in Canada annually under the Department of Defence Production and I suppose the Department of National Defence very little of this money actually is being channelled into the easterly province to which I am referring.
I wonder whether the Minister of Defence Production or the Minister of National Defence would ract to the reasonable suggestion that a national defence training base be established in the province of Newfoundland in view of the recent activities by Russia- and in view of the fact that it would stimulate the economy of that area.
The Department of Defence Production has been stepping up activities one way or another in the area of Gander, Newfoundland. I know there have been some discussions concerning the provision of housing in that area involving about 100 units. Could the minister enlighten me on the degree to which that program has been adopted by the government and the extent to which we will have these housing units which are badly needed? I think the people of the town of Gander would be very happy to have some clarification concerning this matter.
29180-151J
Supply-Supply and Services


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I congratulate the hon. member for his ingenuity in getting in a representation in respect of a defence base. Under the circumstances it is a good effort. As a Newfoundlander, apart from my ministerial functions, this has my full support. This is under review in respect of the whole defence program.
With regard to the housing project the information I have is that a number of alternative plans are being examined and a number of submissions have been made. I would hope that in a comparatively short time a decision will be made concerning which of the proposals made by a number of firms will be accepted.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I have a supplementary question on the subject of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Could the minister tell the house how much was realized from the sale of the centennial caravan, if in fact the centennial caravan has been disposed of? While he is answering that question could he tell the house how much the caravan cost the government of Canada and how much was realized from its sale? What I have in mind-and the minister is quite familiar with this-is the interest that was expressed in the centennial caravan by the government of Newfoundland. The premier of Newfoundland or someone in the government made a statement to the effect that the government of Newfoundland expected to get the centennial caravan for a nominal sum after centennial year. We hear reports now that the caravan is to be disposed of through Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. I am wondering whether in fact it has been disposed of and how much was realized in the sale. I should also like to know why the caravan was not turned over to the government of Newfoundland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot be specific in my answers to all these questions without consulting with the officials of Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. My information, to the best of my knowledge, is that the fisheries college in Newfoundland has expressed an interest in obtaining, I believe, three of these caravans. Initially they were interested in one and subsequently they were interested in two others. As far as I am aware the arrangements have been completed. I do not have in my head the detailed information concerning how much was paid or the basis of the sale, but I shall be pleased to obtain the information for my hon. friend and see
2388	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services that it is provided to him at the first opportunity.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate I quoted some figures concerning employment in the Canadian shipbuilding industry. At that time I believe I stated that the figure fell from 17,000 to 9,000. I believe the minister is aware of the publication from which I took this information. It is a chart of the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repair association. The figure of 17,000 was in the year 1952. This has not been the average figure for years. I know that the figure for 1961 was 10,000. In the last two years it was 12,893, nearly 13,000. As of July of this year it was 9,603. Furthermore, I have figures from the association which show that as of August this year the average employment in Canadian shipyards was 8,995. So there would appear to be quite a decline. I just wanted to straighten out the figures for the record.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question concerning the sale of the centennial caravans through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. Is the previous practice of putting materials up for tender still in effect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is one of the matters which I suggested I would investigate further in order to determine whether or not we could improve this method. There is no deviation from the tender process. As the hon. member knows, certain agencies, first of all the federal government, the provincial governments and the municipalities, have priority. This system is in effect, but there may be room for improvement and we are examining it. It may be that the bulk system is the best way to do it or it might be that there could be some improvement whereby smaller firms, if not individuals, might have access to some of these materiels. But the basic program and policy are as the hon. member stated.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, my purpose is not to follow the minister in his quest for the New Liskeard, but I should like to wish him well in his negotiations to sell the New Liskeard to Mrs. Onassis when it has served its purpose in the naval environment of the Canadian armed forces. As members perhaps know, Mr. Onassis bought a Canadian warship previously and transformed it into a yacht. If the minister is successful in selling

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
the New Liskeard to the former Jackie Kennedy, Mr. Onassis would simply have to paint out the name on his yacht and they could be marked "his" and "hers" in order to differentiate.
There would seem to be a fair maritime flavour about the debate. Like my colleagues I wish to join in wishing the minister well. I do not think too many people realize this, but I believe it should be on record that he was the one candidate for his party in that province who put himself forward to a nominating convention. He was also the one candidate who escaped the avalanche of common sense which otherwise swept over Newfoundland. So I suggest we have here a figure to be reckoned with. Probably the most powerful Newfoundland Liberal is the one who now sits in this chamber. I do not know whether he has pretensions about going back home but in any event we wish him well.
My purpose in rising is to support the request of my colleague the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East with regard to the Fairey Aviation Company and also to utter a bit of a caveat to the minister with regard to his plowshare philosophy. Generally speaking I think this is a fine philosophy, but it has its hazards and pitfalls. After all, defence spending is one of the weapons available to our society as it exists now for spreading out economic benefits to the less developed parts of Canada. I believe it is a useful weapon in the war on regional disparity.
The idea behind our thinking in respect of the Fairey Aviation Company is that we might be able to provide the greater Halifax-Dartmouth area with technicians and people of other skills. Besides being of help to an area where there is regional disparity this would be a useful equalizer so that everything does not wind up in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto golden triangle. Therefore, as the minister adopts his plowshare philosophy I hope he will hold something in reserve until new and different programs or approaches appear as alternatives to the decentralized spending of the defence dollar. I hope he will not advance his theory too far but if he can bring it into being, more power to him.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. To what countries does Canada sell war materials?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will have to take notice of that question in view of its importance rather
November 4, 1968

than dash off an answer at this time. I will be glad to provide an answer as soon as I can.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the minister indicate what type of war materials Canada is selling to the United States?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Once again, I would have to give a very general type of answer. By and large my recollection is that it is aircraft and that kind of thing from the aircraft industry. In fairness to the hon. member it would be better if I obtained a list for him. I will be glad to do that to the extent it is possible.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, am I allowed to make a simple comment? I do not object either to ships being sold to Mr. Onassis, but I would prefer it if they were sold at cost price plus 10 per cent profit for Canada.
My question deals with the repair work on the New Liskeard. Reference has been made to the ghost shop in Lauzon and the minister replied that it had been decided not to repair her, because she had been replaced.
Was the decision to repair the New Liskeard taken before June 25?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think there were three different decisions as I mentioned earlier. The first was to renovate the vessel to the minimum extent possible. This was subsequently decided against on the ground that the cost would be too great. There was then a need for the continuation of this vessel in service for a minimum period, so minimal improvements were necessary. Subsequent to that it was discovered that The Quest would be ready in time and therefore the whole renovation program was withdrawn or cancelled.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell us on what date the final decision to postpone the repairs was taken?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not recall the exact date but it seems to me it was some time within the last month or six weeks. I believe it was some time in September, as I recall it.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the minister would like to get his estimates through but I want to refer to a subsequent item. If there are no other hon. members who wish to discuss the first item we could let it
Supply-Supply and Services pass. My question has reference to the printing bureau.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am at the disposal of the committee.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask whether the minister will produce a table showing the increase in the sales of weapons by Canada to foreign countries between 1965 and 1968, with an indication as to what particular countries we sold more of this type of supply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: This is related to the question asked earlier and I indicated I will do my very best to get the maximum amount of information possible.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When can we expect answers to these question? Can we expect them right after the supper hour?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would expect that it will require a good deal of research. The hon, member asked about all countries. I do not know how far back he wishes me to go. If the hon. member wishes something fairly current I believe I can provide that information after the dinner break. Perhaps I can at least make a partial answer to the question within the context of the current situation.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, the minister will probably have his officials in front of him on the floor tonight. In the event perhaps we could ask our detailed questions then.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is correct, but the question asked by the hon. member seeks information which I would think no one would have in his head. I think it will require some research and it may take a little time to get an answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with other hon. members in congratulating the minister on the very knowledgeable and usual eloquent way in which he has presented his estimates to the committee.
I should like to ask him to bear one thing in mind, although I am not sure it is relevant to the subject.
The minister is aware of the difficulties that have been encountered at the C.N.R. drydock in St. John's in trying to get work. There have been a number of lay-offs which have now become almost of an annual nature. Perhaps steps can be taken to anticipate these lay-offs. The minister might use his considerable influence in the government to divert Canadian naval vessels or any other type of
2390	COMMONS
Supply-Supply and Services vessel to that drydock in St. John's for refitting.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will do my best, Mr. Chairman. I am sure the hon. member will run into enormous pressure from his own colleagues, the hon. members for Dartmouth-Halifax East, Halifax and so on.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the New Liskeard?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have some information for my hon. friend about the situation in respect of the St. John's drydock. I will be glad to provide it for him at any time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[The following items were agreed to:] Administration-[DOT]
5. Administration and (a) the care, maintenance and custody of standby defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling; (b) grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes on Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors; and (c) the repair of office equipment for all Government Departments, $24,359,490.
10. Payments, subject to the approval of the Treasury Board, for capital assistance for the construction, acquisition, extension or improvement of capital equipment or works by private contractors engaged in defence contracts, by Crown plants operated under lease or other management arrangement or by Crown companies under the direction of the Minister of Defence Production, $200,000.
Services-
15. Administration, including the administration of the Superannuation and Retirement Acts and recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada Pension Plan and the National Harbours Board, $34,375,900.
Public Printing and Stationery-
20. Administration, Publishing, Selling and Distribution of Official Documents and Publications to departments and the public, and the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the Treasury Board may approve, $4,252,200.
B-Canadian Arsenals Limited-
30. Administration and Operation, $1.
35. Construction, Improvements and Equipment, $340,200.
["I have some information for my hon. friend about the situation in respect of the St. John's drydock. I will be glad to provide it for him at any time."]
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, it is six o'clock. We have had a good day and we are right on top of things. Perhaps we should catch our breath over the supper hour.


Albert Béchard: This completes the study of the estimates of the department of supply and services except for item 40 which was referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs on September 16, 1968.

DEBATES	November 4, 1968
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to provisional 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 Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Grace Maclnnis)-Consumer affairs-Edmonton-the weight of fudgeicles; the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert)-Airports-Toronto-Expansion of facilities being contested; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Federal government medical plan in 1972.

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.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Private members notices of motions-Mr. Roberts -That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of transferring the authority over the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to the Secretary of State and of expanding the responsibility of this board from concern for buildings and monuments of unique historical interest to general assistance in the preservation of towns, villages and landmarks of artistic, cultural or historical interest.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) deposited this notice of motion. He has been away on government business and is supposed to return shortly. Would the house agree to standing this motion in order that it may keep its place on the order paper? I am informed the hon. member will be ready to proceed at the next opportunity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 4, 1968



WATER RESOURCES


Robert Carman Coates: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the construction of the Chignecto complex, with the construction of dams on the Minas Basin, Cumberland Basin and Shepody Bay and the construction of the Chignecto Canal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is often said that it never rains but it pours, and certainly this would apply today so far as this subject is concerned. I never miss an opportunity to place before members of this house the problems which we face in the Atlantic provinces and some of the ways in which I feel we might be able to find solutions to them.
It is my belief that in this session we have often spent a great deal of time talking about things over which we have little or no control, such as the civil war in Nigeria, and all too little time facing up to the problems over which we do have control if we would only do something about them. I witnessed with a great deal of interest the federal-provincial conference held in February in which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took such an active part. I listened to his comments about regional economic dispartity in Canada. I heard him repeat them when he sought the leadership of his party last April. I listened once again to discussion of the problems created by regional economic disparity during the election campaign. Yet I come to this house and I am still waiting for the government and the ministers responsible to take some obvious action which will help to eliminate these problems which everyone seems to recognize but which unfortunately no one in the present government appears really to be determined to do anything about.
One of the things that shocked me as a member from the Atlantic provinces was the fact that the Prime Minister would not give special priority to the establishment of a special department about which he talked so much. I am sure that the people of the Atlantic region are becoming more and more disillusioned as each day passes with no indication from the government that it is ready to move forward in the fashion which we had anticipated from the statements of the Prime Minister.
The motion before us, if adopted, would eliminate many of the arguments which I anticipate will be put forward when the final
Water Resources
studies are completed on the engineering feasibility of the construction of dams to harness the tides to produce power in the bay of Fundy. I do not think there is any doubt that the project in question must be feasible for it is obvious that in France they have harnessed the tides and as a result they are now the beneficiaries of the power which is available from this source.
I have learned from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of Saturday, October 26, that the Severn river tidal power plant project in Great Britain is being seriously considered, for they too realize the value of harnessing the tides to obtain power.
For a long period of time I pressed the former Liberal administration to try to get them to initiate studies, but it was only after a great deal of procrastination on their part that a body was finally established in co-operation with the governments of the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. I understand that the project for the construction of the dams is going forward as fast as possible, but what concerns me is that as soon as the study is completed we will begin hearing arguments about the economic feasibility of the project and about whether or not money of the government of Canada should be invested in a project in the Atlantic provinces. This concerns me because we are the afterthought area of Canada. After everything is done that is required in the other six provinces of Canada the crumbs are brushed off the table for the four Atlantic provinces and we are told: this is good enough for you fellows down there.
This has been the philosophy for 100 years, and in this regard the present government does not appear to be different from the last government. When they were talking about cutting down expenditures, one of the first big cuts of which we became aware was the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway. In other words, when projects are put on the cutting table they look at the Atlantic provinces first to see what they can take away from them because there are fewer of them and therefore they need not worry about the mess, especially these days when most of the members from that area belong to another political party. This is the sad fact.
As a matter of fact, the premier of Prince Edward Island came here with his 15 cabinet ministers to make representations to the Prime Minister, and it is my understanding that the Prime Minister had only six minutes available in which to hear the premier on this very

November 4, 1968
Water Resources
important transportation link in our area. But this is not something new; it is the old philosophy which has been in existence ever since confederation. It is the kind of philosophy that will do damage to the possibilities we have available in the Atlantic provinces with the harnessing of the Fundy tides.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
With these Fundy tides there is another logical project that should follow and that is the Chignecto canal. At the time the St. Lawrence seaway was being built for central Canada we told the people of Canada that we should have the natural extension of the St. Lawrence seaway, the Chignecto canal. The St. Lawrence seaway was built but we are still waiting for the Chignecto canal. Last session I wanted to ascertain just what the people of Canada were asked to invest in the St. Lawrence seaway. Since we are part of Canada, some of our tax dollars went to provide this more efficient method for shipping into central Canada. The figure with which I was provided indicated that the people of Canada expended a total of $541,940,000, or 80 per cent of the total cost. The United States invested $131,054,000. The total cost of the project was $672,994,000. The important factor is not that we spent that kind of money to build the St. Lawrence seaway but that prior to its construction we were told of the great benefits that were going to accrue to Canada, that it would be a paying proposition and there would be no difficulty in getting a return of the invetment that we made as taxpayers of this nation.
In the same question I asked how the principal was being retired. I was told that payments have been made only to the extent of a portion of the interest accrued and therefore there were arrears. In other words, not only is the principal not being retired on the St. Lawrence seaway debt but we are not even getting enough from the tolls to pay the interest. We were led to believe that there was no doubt this would be a paying proposition and that the people of Canda had no need to fear about their tax dollars because they would be returned. I have no argument about the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. I think it was a valuable thing for this nation to have this modern form of transportation available. What I say is, should not we in the Atlantic provinces have a right to expect similar treatment of the kind of projects we have available?

Certainly the New Brunswick-Prince Edward Island causeway is one of those projects we should expect to be constructed because it will be of benefit to the people of Canada. For one thing, the completion of this project would eliminate the huge deficits the taxpayers of this nation are required to meet each year to provide transportation facilities for the people in this area.
One of the really serious things this government should consider when it is talking about regional disparity, when it is talking about equality of opportunity, when it is talking about the just society, is that we in the Atlantic provinces should be provided with the same opportunities as everyone else. One of the suggestions that concerns me most in the submission made by Premier G. I. Smith of Nova Scotia to the federal-provincial conference in February is the suggestion that while we move ahead we move backwards at the same time. These are the figures that are so frightening from the Atlantic provinces' point of view. Mr. Smith is talking about regional economic disparity and he says:
The chief available statistical measure that shows the economic disparity between Nova Scotia and the rest of the nation is per capita personal income. To illustrate the seriousness of this gap we wish to draw the conference's attention to the following examples: In 1961 Nova Scotia's per capita income was $1,097 or 76.5 per cent of the Canadian average. In 1966 per capita income had risen in Nova Scotia to $1,583, 74.2 per cent of the Canadian average.
The important figure is not the amount of money but the percentage. The percentage of the Canadian average was 76.5 per cent in 1961 and 74.2 per cent in 1966. In other words, in those five years we fell farther behind while having more money in our pockets. We fell farther behind by 2.3 per cent. If this trends continues, God knows what is going to happen to the area. There is no hope for the Atlantic provinces of Canada unless we have from the federal government the kind of policies that will eliminate regional economic disparity. Up to the moment there has been little indication from the government that it is taking the problem as seriously as one would have expected from the statements made by the Prime Minister during the period of time he was running for office. What we have to do now is get on with the job, get these projects under way.
While the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) can tell us the amount of money being spent for training and retraining the people in that part of Canada, there is not much value in the training from
November 4, 1968

an area point of view if as soon as the people become trained they go to other parts of Canada for employment. We are not interested in becoming the training ground for workers for the remainder of this nation. But that, Mr. Speaker, is the sad situation today. There just is no choice for our workers. We have to have projects that will go along with the training. Then we will be happy; then we will know we can live wherever we wish to live and have equality of opportunity. This is what this government has not produced and I hope that in the days ahead there will be more indication of action, more indication that it is endeavouring to do something about some of the things over which we have control and less talk about what is going to be available in the just society 15 years hence. We are interested in what the government is going to do today, not what it is going to produce for us 15 years from now. We are waiting for this government to move.


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: The hon. member who put this motion on the order paper, Mr. Speaker, has used it as a narrow base from which to deal in a broad fashion with 'the subject of regional development. I think this is a proper matter for us to talk about in this chamber this evening. I am not suggesting it was not in order to do so; I think it was quite in order that he should broaden his remarks as he did.
I am very pleased that he did so because it gives me, and I hope my colleagues on this side of the house, the opportunity to deal for a few minutes with some of the projects and plans of the government in the field of regional development.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Before I do this, Mr. Speaker, let me comment for a moment or two about the launching pad for our debate this evening, if I may call it such, the motion that is specifically before Your Honour for debate. The hon. member who put the motion on the order paper seems to suggest that this house should ask the government to proceed with a project without really taking the opportunity to assess the feasibility and financial consequences thereof.
I do not think my hon. friend would want the government of Canada or indeed, as he properly pointed out, the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, all three of whom are engaged in a study that is being carried out by the tidal powers programming 29180-152
Water Resources
board, to embark upon such a project now. As the house knows, this board is investigating the physical and economic potential of the development of electric power from the tides of the bay of Fundy and the transmission of this power to markets in Canada and the United States.
This is an investigation that is, as I say, being carried on by all three governments and will provide a realistic assessment of the feasibility of tidal power development in the Atlantic region and its potential effect on other aspects of area development, including among other things the Chignecto canal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, putting the matter on that rather narrow base, I think we should reasonably and realistically wait until this investigation has been concluded and we have the board's report.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, because all hon. members will agree that we cannot do everything we want to do as quickly as we would like. By "we", I mean those of us at the federal and provincial levels who are concerned with regional disparity. Therefore some priorities have to be established, and it is important that the governments concerned wait for the board's report. In the meantime, and indeed after the report has been received and assessed, we should try to establish priorities so that the not inexhaustible amount of money involved can best be spent in correcting regional disparities particularly in the Atlantic provinces.
I think my hon. friend has probably read the remarks made by the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Marchand) in Halifax a week ago tomorrow night when he spoke to the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council. I think it would be timely for us to talk of regional development at this time because we can do so in the context of the minister's remarks about the sort of broad area of operation that he foresees for his department.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend was being a little unduly critical in suggesting that nothing was being done by the department in this regard. I should like to take a minute or two to refer to some of the things the minister said in Halifax last week, and also to mention that although the legislation has not been presented to the house yet-again, it is a question of priorities; we have been dealing with other very important legislation-the minister did say the other day that it would be presented as quickly as

November 4, 1968
Water Resources
possible, or at least pretty soon. It is, as I say, a question of priorities.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, the department is not at a standstill. Under the other legislative authority that we have, the Government Organization Act, the minister and his officials have been putting together this new department, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed his intention of setting up this new department a good deal has been done.
I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the question of priorities in determining the projects about which we should be thinking for the Atlantic provinces, as well as the necessity for waiting for the report of the board. May I refer for a few moments to the minister's speech which he delivered at Halifax. In dealing with the question of priorities in regional development he had this to say:
That realization has brought us to phase three in the history of regional development, represented at the federal level by the decision to set up a new department with comprehensive responsibility for planning and co-ordinating action for regional development.
That involves much more than the federation of existing programs, in order to eliminate duplication and improve government efficiency. I don't undervalue that. But there is much more to our objectives.
The new department is being created essentially because regional development is a matter of top priority for the federal government.
"If the under-development of the Atlantic provinces is not corrected-not by charitty or subsidies but by helping them become areas of economic growth-then the unity of the country is almost as surely destroyed as it would be by the French-English confrontation."
The minister then went on to say:
Those are the words of the Prime Minister, and there are many more to the same effect.
That indicates, Mr. Speaker, the importance of priorities and indeed the importance placed by the Prime Minister on the work of this department.
In dealing with the task before the department, in his speech to APEC in Halifax last week the minister had this to say:
We have to see that the forces of economic demand operate more consistently across the country. Or, to put it in another way, our job is to see that economic growth is dispersed widely enough across the country to provide equal access to opportunities of productive employment for Canadians everywhere.
That is what I mean by a regional development policy. I mean that the federal government is prepared to take special action where it is needed to bring opportunities up to standard. Broad national policies for employment are not enough. And it is not sufficient just to add to them a
[Mr. Honey.1
variety of area plans and agencies. There has to be a comprehensive structuring of government action to regional needs.
I was with the minister on his visit to the Atlantic provinces last week, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to put this proposition to the hon. member who sponsored this motion.
I suggest there would not be anything like majority agreement in the Atlantic provinces with some of the suggestions he made in his remarks a few minutes ago. I had the opportunity of talking to the people there and I do not think that they would agree with his appellation of them as "have-not" provinces. All of us who are responsible for trying to even out opportunities and incentives in this country are doing the best we can. We may not all be perfect, of course, and other governments prior to this government have tried to do their best. Nevertheless there is always room for criticism. The general impression that I gathered from spending two days in the Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia-and I believe the minister to whom I am responsible shares this view-is that the provincial governments and the federal government are working well together.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
There was, indeed, a great concentration of effort to assist the Atlantic provinces, and perhaps I might be permitted to indicate some of the things this government and its immediate predecessor have done in that direction. I do not want to be overly critical of my hon. friend who sponsored the motion, but his remarks leave the implication that little has been done.


Donald MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Russell Clayton Honey: I want to put certain information on the record and then, if there is time, I shall gladly answer my hon. friend's questions. Let me deal first with the Atlantic Development Board and some of the expenditures it has made in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am in a difficult position, not having heard the presentation of the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates). I therefore cannot determine whether the remarks of the parliamentary secretary are about to fall within the confines of the resolution now before the house. On the other hand, if there is no objection, perhaps the parliamentary secretary might be allowed to continue.
November 4, 1968


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, since my remarks were pretty far ranging I think it only fair to allow the hon. member wide latitude in his remarks.


Russell Clayton Honey: I thank my hon. friend who sponsored the motion. I think it is fair to have a wide ranging debate. I was referring to approved expenditures of the Atlantic Development Board as of September 30, 1968. Those expenditures can be summarized as follows:	Newfoundland,	$41,879,008; Nova
Scotia, $40,392,260; New Brunswick, $37,818,470 and Prince Edward Island $7,022,000.
In addition there are projects of a regional nature which cover more than one province, and here I refer to pollution abatement equipment and that sort of thing. The total amount committed for those projects is $2,025,000.
In addition, the trunk highway programs have total approvals in the second agreement for the four provinces of $30 million; in the third agreement the approvals for the four provinces are $25 million. In addition, special assistance to Bell Island stands at $1,750,000. That is the approved amount, since I am only referring to approved amounts. In the case of Bell Island $357,331 has been spent so far. Then, of course, the expenditures with re-
Water Resources
spect to the operating expenses of Dosco are $2 million.
These figures are with regard to the Atlantic Development Board, and in the few minutes that remain to me I should like to refer to the cumulative expenditures in the four Atlantic provinces with regard to various other regional programs undertaken between April 1, 1965 and March 31, 1968. I will give the totals, Mr. Speaker, and I ask leave of the house to have this table appended to Hansard since this will save much time. The table was prepared by officials in the Department of Forestry and Rural Development. Under the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act total expenditures for the four provinces stand at $2,852,473. Under the ARDA program the expenditures total $7,971,345. Under the FRED program in New Brunswick only the figure is $4,284,207, and under the area development agency programs the total is $5,357,543. Grand totals are shown in the table. I ask leave of the house to have it appended to my remarks in Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The table referred to above is as follows:]
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES FOR PROJECTS Period: April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1968
Rural Development Programs	Development
Province__________MA1.R.A. A.R.D.A. FdJTUX Toth Programs Total

Newfoundland	
-	1,133 814Prince Edward Island	336	l, 208,057Nova Scotia	
1,385,798	3,359,920New Brunswick	
1,466,339	2,269,554Total	
2,852,473	7,971,345
I think that is all I can usefully say. Again I thank my hon. friend who sponsored this matter for the opportunity afforded to have a wide ranging debate. If we are to achieve our great potential in this country we must, in the Atlantic provinces and in the rest of Canada, put our shoulder to the wheel and make these programs work in co-operation with provincial governments.
29180-152J
$	$	$	$-	1,133,814	114,587	1,248,401-	1,208,393	196,532	1,404,925-	4,745,718	1,827,993	6,573,7114,284,207	8,020,100	3,218,431	11,238,5314,284,207	15,108,025	5,357,543	20,465,568


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a question to ask.


Donald MacInnis: My question has little relevance now, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping the parliamentary secretary would compare developments in tidal power and the St. Lawrence seaway project. Programs are only good, bad or in-

November 4, 1968
Water Resources
different when compared with other programs, and I think it unfair of the hon. member to tell us only what the government has done without also telling us about some other matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 thought the hon. member was to ask a question.


Donald MacInnis: My question is of little value now, Mr. Speaker. I think, for a just comparison to be made, the parliamentary secretary ought to tell us not only of amounts expended on programs in the Atlantic provinces but of amounts expended on like programs in the rest of Canada. Does he not know that the Sydney operation has been kept going only because of the efforts of the provincial government? The refusal of the federal government to act in that area is well known.


Russell Clayton Honey: I do not want to take much time to answer that question. I understood that the sponsor of the motion referred to the St. Lawrence seaway project in passing. I did not think from his remarks that he was critical of that program. Perhaps we ought to return to the substance of the debate.


Donald MacInnis: Does the parliamentary secretary
know why the St. Lawrence seaway was developed?


Thomas Miller Bell: As a seconder of the motion I wish to indicate my support for it. The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North deserves credit for bringing forward this question again. He has been persistent and consistent over the years, both when he was in the government party and out of it. He has supported the subject matter of this motion and has put his thoughts on the record in a clearcut way.
I was pleased to hear that the parliamentary secretary attended with the minister the recent meeting of APEX in Halifax, but I am sorry he did not display more enthusiasm. He seems to reflect an attitude that has been prevalent for the short time this government has been in power, that of stalling on reports, looking into this and that, and trying to break promises. We would have been more pleased had the parliamentary secretary returned from his trip to the maritimes and said in this house: I am sorry about conditions in the maritimes; I am sympathetic; I will do all I can; I do not know the details, perhaps, but I am in favour of doing something to bring the

just society to the maritimes. Instead, he tells us that the government needs to wait for another report. He says: We must look into this; we have to know where we are going. It is the same story; it goes on and on.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I want to say there have been many reports on this Chignecto project and every one of them to my knowledge has been favourable. As a matter of fact, in 1891 there was a full communications system built up over this canal; the remains of the old Chignecto railway are still there today. We realize that it takes a long time for projects to sink in. Even the Prince Edward Island causeway idea took a long time before the government accepted it, and started to work on it. Now that the causeway is almost completed we think hon. gentlemen opposite should turn their minds to another project.
I know there are many other hon. members who wish to speak; this is one of the most enthusiastic private members hours I have seen for a long while. I hope that members other than maritimers will support this motion. In conclusion, I voice once again my support for the canal project, and the power project which in itself is bigger then even the Churchill falls scheme. With nine million horsepower at three mills it is better than Churchill falls. I hope the government will stand up for its principles, abide by its election promises and get right on with this tomorrow. Let us not find these pre-election promises turning into post-election corpses.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), first of all, because it deals with a project now under study for the Atlantic region and, secondly, because area development interests me very much.

I should like to congratulate one hon. member of this house-he is sitting in the chamber now-who was instrumental in getting this study going when he was premier of the province of New Brunswick. I refer to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. Flemming). Back in 1966 a board, known as The Atlantic Power Tidal Program Board was set up to study the feasibility of using the tidal power of the Chignecto complex. I do not think it would be wise for the federal government to accept the motion before us until the
November 4, 1968


J. Michael Forrestall: November 4, 1968
Water Resources
It would mean much to us in terms of a simple servicing industry. It would call for plants that would do nothing but build giant turbines, because turbines would quickly wear out in this type of project and would need to be replaced. The energy developed would enable us to attract some of the reduction industries to our deep, natural harbours. These would provide more employment and build up the marketing potential of the area. There would be a continuing demand for secondary industry.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Honey) has said that we cannot jump into these things, and that we must study them. Of course we must study them, but we have been studying them for 100 years. How much longer must we wait until we get some action? A Liberal government has been in control of our destiny for some 28 of the last 35 years. Maritimers are on the doorstep of one of the most critical periods in their history. Quite frankly, sometimes I think we would be a lot better off if we looked a little more to the south.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North (Mr. Coates) upon his initiative in once again bringing this matter before the house. He has spoken correctly of the disadvantages which the Atlantic area suffers within Canada. Net average income in the Atlantic area is normally two thirds to three quarters that of the rest of the country, and its rate of unemployment is quite often double that which exists elsewhere. In recent years there has been a net migration from the area of almost 20,000 people a year. Mr. Speaker, I speak as one of those migrants, and I accept the invitation of the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) to indicate the interest of another part of the country, a nonAtlantic region, in this subject.
The parliamentary secretary has outlined what the federal government has been doing in this area, and has spoken of the priorities which exist. I wish he had been in a position to speak also of the priority which the government would be prepared to give to the Northumberland causeway to Prince Edward Island.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


J. Michael Forrestall: You live somewhere else in Canada, where you enjoy some of the benefits of this country; but we don't get the same benefits. The answer given to the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) was that we cannot go willy-nilly into these things. But nobody is suggesting that we should go into these things with our eyes closed. What we are urging is that the government do something about this matter now, not in 10 or 15 years time.
Hon. members may talk about the Atlantic Development Board's plan for attacking the over-all problems of regional disparity. Such a program was called for six years ago. Where is it? We are still waiting for it. I am not sure that it is not because it has not been produced. I am not at all sure that perhaps it has not been suppressed. A quick procedure that would realize the potential economic benefits of this scheme would portray the government in the light that many Canadians had hoped for, and which many of them still hope for; and I may say to hon. members on the other side that I number myself among those Canadians. But if members of the government continue to talk and do not do anything about it, nothing will be achieved.
[Mr. Forrestall.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but the hour assigned for the consideration of private members business has now expired. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.
The Chairman:: The house again in committee of supply on the revised estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 392 of the blue book. The details thereof will be found at page 394.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
1. General Administration, including grants as included in the estimates, $31,015,000.
Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, this is the first
occasion upon which I have had the responsibility of bringing before the house the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I
November 4, 1968

want to thank members in advance for the kind consideration I know they are going to give me. I say this in lively anticipation of further favours to come.
I think it would be well if I were to say a few words about the general reasoning behind the estimates of the Department of Public Works in this current year. It has been the desire of the government to cool somewhat the inflationary tendencies that we have found in the economy, and probably particularly in the construction industry. At the same time we are fully aware that we cannot cool inflationary tendencies to the point where unemployment is aggravated or to the point where we fail to supply the requirements either directly on our own initiative or on behalf of other departments. I do not think we have done that in the current year.
It would be false economy, for example, to suspend completely the construction of office accommodation. In the long run this could only add an additional burden on the taxpayers, because the ultimate result would be to force up rentals to an exorbitant level. The office accommodation problem is always with us. No matter what we do, its solution usually seems to be a good long jump ahead of us. Populations in the nation grow and governments grow. Buildings become obsolete in some instances, and new types of accommodation such as buildings with strengthened floors to support the weight of the paper needed to feed data processing systems are required. We find a new situation in respect of the employees of the government. At every level of government we find the situation where employees no longer want to work in gloomy or airless accommodation or in surroundings that were typical of office buildings a half century ago. There has been a very marked upgrading of accommodation in the Public Service of Canada.
There are several approaches to the accommodation problem, all of which are reflected in the current estimates. One is to bring existing accommodation up to modern standards by introducing air conditioning and up to date lighting and generally refurbishing the office workers' surroundings. The other three ways, in increasing order of costs, are to build our own office accommodation, as we are doing in respect of the general purpose office building now rising at Tunney's Pasture, to enter into build-lease arrangements with the construction industry or to rent existing accommodation.
Supply-Public Works
It is hoped that substantial economies in crown construction will result from the adoption of modular co-ordination, which involves the use of standardized units in planning and standardized measurements in the production of building material. I should like to pay a tribute to the department, in that I think it has taken a very commendable leadership in the development of modular co-ordination in the last couple of years.
You will have observed from the estimates that the amount we are spending on harbour and river development has shown a decrease. Some very desirable projects have had to be postponed, but we have been able to retain other important works such as the St. Charles river control structure, Matane harbour, the development of Long Harbour, Newfoundland, and the New Westminster trifurcation project. No interruption has taken place in respect of those very important public works. In the case of the New Westminster trifurcation project, this project should be completed during the coming fiscal year and should result in significant long term savings in the form of reduced annual dredging costs.
The house is aware that a major harbour, capable of handling giant tankers, is being developed at Point Tupper, Nova Scotia. The work will be carried out by the Department of Public Works. This year the engineering plant is well under way in preparation for tender calls in the new year. This, in addition to the already mentioned Long Harbour project, is following a relatively new pattern in the assistance by the Department of Public Works of the development of major resources. These and certain other large harbour projects are subject to capital recapture from the mam beneficiaries. This is a trend we have been following in recent years whereby a public works project gives advantage, or contributes in a major way, to the economy of the country. The government has, in other words, advanced for the companies involved the amount of capital required to build docks and wharves. As I have said, this capital requirement in the first instance is recoverable.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The fast developing program of mineral exploration in the north, particularly with reference to oil and gas, accents the role of the Mackenzie river as a main transportation route. The department's dredging fleet in the Mackenzie basin is being used to maximum advantage and such major obstacles to river

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works transportation as the Sans Sault rapids are being eliminated.
Along the northwest highway system, many of the bridges built around the end of the second world war are being replaced under a program costing about $2 million a year. I am speaking of the Alaska highway. In some cases these bridges have reached the end of their useful lives, and in others they were under designed to handle modern traffic. Additionally, a dust abatement assessment program is being carried out in the vicinity of towns through which the Alaska highway passes.
About the time I was appointed Minister of Public Works it was announced that the Canadian government exhibition commission would be transferred to this department. The transfer was completed in September and accounts for an increase of some $5 million in our estimates for the current year.
In line with the recommendations of the Glassco commission and following a survey of departmental functions and operations by a management consultant group, a new organizational structure was devised for the department. Since a year ago last April the department has been operating under a decentralized system, with much of the authority formerly concentrated in headquarters delegated to six regions and 18 districts across the country.
I want to pay a compliment to my predecessor in this post. I think this decentralization aspect and the presence of the government of Canada in these regions and the districts of Canada is a very forward movement. I should like to compliment my predecessor the present Solicitor General for taking this action. A great number of our clients and contractors in the country, and probably a considerable number of members of parliament, are still not aware that the authority granted to these various districts is almost equal to that which could be obtained from our headquarters in Ottawa.
It is my hope that members of parliament will use these district heads from now on in respect of the work going on in the various districts, because the authority granted to these district heads is almost equivalent to that which exists here in Ottawa.
The advantages of decentralization have already become obvious to the department. In placing more authority closer to where the action is taking place our reactions have become faster and there is an increased aware-

ness of local needs. Our performance will continue to improve as the remaining problems in respect of the reorganization are solved.
What I have said gives the committee in the most general terms some of the objectives and problems of the department in the current year. I shall endeavour to see that hon. members are provided with complete and accurate answers to any questions which might arise from a study of the estimates now before the committee.


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the estimates of the Department of Public Works now before us. I welcome the minister to this post and I hope that his department under his direction will be in a position to do more planning and exercise more foresight than has been the case in the past.
I have already suggested, in my maiden speech, that we should have long term planning. There appears to have been a lack of planning in this and other departments, and perhaps there is also a lack of co-operation. Let me give a good example of what I have in mind.
The National Arts Centre was first estimated to cost about $9 million. This cost was re-estimated at $18 million, but it will now reach something in the order of $46 million. Something must have gone wrong somewhere.
I am not against an arts centre but I am against extravagance at a time when this sort of money could be put to much better and more practical uses. It could have been spent to improve the marine facilities for fishermen. I do not blame the minister in this regard, since he is new to this department, but I hope such things can be avoided in the future.
Let me give another example. According to reports I received today the town of Rock Island in Quebec is to have a new post office, despite the fact there have been many objections raised. It has been suggested that the present post office is perfectly adequate and that the reason for building is to provide cafeteria facilities for the four people employed by the post office. Apparently the government is desperate to build a post office at this location.
It has also been brought to my attention today that 26 post offices in Nova Scotia will be closed beginning Ocotober 21, 1968 and carrying on into 1969. Four of those post
November 4, 1968

offices are in my constituency, and I am wondering whether this is justified. I should like to suggest to the department that a new post office be constructed at Parkers Cove. Perhaps the money allotted for the construction of the project at Rock Island could be devoted to some other use.
There obviously is a lack of planning and I hope the new minister will correct this situation. Many large fishing boats have been constructed in the past few years, particularly following the introduction a few years ago of subsidies in respect of wooden ships. These ships have been constructed, but wharves have not been improved or constructed to cope with the increased number and size of the ships. Perhaps there has been a lack of co-operation between the two departments concerned.
In my part of the country we do not have one good deep water harbour. Many fishing boats have been constructed in this area, but why has no major improvement in wharf and dock facilities taken place? The government has paid subsidies on the construction of these boats, yet facilities capable of accommodating them have not been provided. There appears again to have been no planning in this regard.
It is not my suggestion to the minister, as I said in my maiden speech, that every little village should be provided with a new wharf or breakwater. I do suggest in respect of southwestern Nova Scotia that we should maintain and preserve present wharves and breakwaters, while at the same time developing deep water harbours perhaps every 50 miles.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
For example, in Annapolis county in Nova Scotia there is a need for at least one deep water harbour. There has been some talk along these lines for many years, and fishermen in the Parkers Cove area have asked for one deep water harbour for many years. The policy seems to have been not to do anything to improve some of these facilities and finally to say that it costs too much to repair them. I think the fishermen would be content if we were to maintain and preserve the present structures that we have, and every so often make any necessary improvements. The same applies to the town of Annapolis which has a large export business of lumber, and pulp-wood. The government told one area in my riding that they cannot have a wharf in every little village. I am referring mainly to
Supply-Public Works wharves simply because about 95 per cent of my constituents depend on fisheries. The government told these people that they should try to get together to plan their action, and that when they do so the government will be prepared to go ahead with it.
This has happened in one instance in the Cape Sable Island area. The people got together and decided it was necessary to go ahead with the construction of a wharf at West Head, but the position of the government was that they had no money and could not do this work. Yet the people followed the advice of the government and did what was asked of them. This is another example of what I say is lack of planning on the part of the government.
In my constituency we have 63 breakwaters and 80 wharves, or 25 per cent of all the wharves and breakwaters in Nova Scotia. One good deep water port is required every 50 miles along the coastline of the constituency. There is a need for a deep water port in Pubnico and the Wedgeport area, since the Yarmouth port is not adequate. I will have more to say on this when we come to the details of the vote. For example, Wedgeport has been promised a wharf for many years. We hear the same story in every election, but no action is taken. Last year a wharf broke down in my constituency in Pinkney's Point. This year we find nothing in the estimates to cover the cost of rebuilding it, yet last year it was considered essential. This is what I mean by lack of planning.
In another instance, money was voted last year for a wharf in my constituency, yet no work was done. I could go on to mention every little village and town in my constituency where a wharf is needed but no work is being done. I know the minister is aware of the situation in the Digby area. I am sure he knows there is need for action with regard to a combination regional harbour for an efficient fleet, and there is also need for a permanent crossing. This has been recommended in a report.
During the last election the Liberal candidate in my riding said that the federal government was ready to go ahead with this, but that the provincial government did not want to take any action in this respect. However, my information is different. The one place in which the Prime Minister made a promise during the election campaign was in my constituency respecting the port of Digby. I refer to the $17 million project to improve ferry facilities between Digby and Saint John. The

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works project was to include $7 million for the construction of a new vessel and $10 million for docking and other facilities.
On looking through the estimates I found that half a million dollars was allocated for Digby and $475,000 for Saint John. At this rate it will take ten years for this project to be completed, and yet it has been promised. It has been said many times in the house that there is a need for improved facilities here, and that we will get them soon; yet nothing is being done now, and work will not be started for another couple of years.
This is another example of lack of planning. People are promised things and the promises are not kept. Quite a number of people are employed in the handling of freight at Digby and Saint John. What will happen to these people when the new vessel is constructed? I imagine that many will be out of work, so let us provide an alternative for them.
Let me remind the government of some of their promises given at a meeting in Digby, at which one of the speakers said there is a need for improved transportation facilities and larger wharves, and stressed the need for more adequate harbourage. According to what Dr. Stewart, the Liberal candidate in my riding, told the audience, if the government of Nova Scotia decides there is a necessity for a deep water crossing it should participate in the design work so that any project for marine harbour facilities will be as useful as possible. Again, at another meeting it was said that marine facilities are the backbone of the economy in our area. We must strive for continual improvement of these facilities if we are to have a fair share of the ocean resources available to us. This was stressed not by myself but by my opponent who was then parliamentary secretary to the minister. I wish that some of the funds could be reallocated or divided in a fair way. We have been told there would be a ferry in a few months time. The few months have gone by, but the tenders are not out yet, although I understand they will be any day.
I hope the minister will consider some of my proposals and, in co-operation with other departments, will do some long term planning to solve the problems facing the fishermen. We are not asking that everything be done this year, but we would like to know the plans for next year.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to congratulate the minister on his

appointment, and to say that I hope he will last the full four years and that he has no intention of moving to the other place, because his department is a very important one requiring the direction of a senior cabinet minister like himself.
In his opening remarks he mentioned the cooling of inflation tendencies in the construction industry. This is in direct contrast to what the former minister said in his opening remarks last year, when he presented the estimates to the standing committee, upon which occasion he said:
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
We expect that this increase in our construction activities for 1967-68 will provide some relief to the construction industry which has been experiencing a decline in its activities.
I should like to point that out to the minister. Here we have a former minister talking about a decline in construction activities while the present minister wants to cool the inflationary tendencies in the construction industry. He also mentioned the improvement in buildings, when putting in more paper. This appears to be the paper generation. I am just wondering if he is the minister amongst the cabinet ministers who wants to be the most Xeroxed. I hope that does not apply to the Minister of Public Works. The minister used the phrase-and it is quite popular these days: This is modular co-ordination. Perhaps he could tell us in more precise terms what he meant by modular co-ordination.
I thought these estimates would have gone to the standing committee on national resources and public works, because of the necessity for a detailed study which would require the officials of the department to give answers to some of the problems that face us. I can recall that when we had those officials before the standing committee last year there was quite an array of them. I notice that tonight there are very few officials in the gallery and it would be nice to know that we could have them available to answer any questions that come up.
The other important aspect is that I thought we could examine the new departmental organization which should be examined on the basis of the functioning of the various branches. As you know, the reorganization was based on the theme of decentralization of authority to 6 regions and 18 districts. The headquarters organization was changed from one based on functions to be performed to one based on the sequence of
November 4, 1968

operations applying to projects. There aie three different branches: one, programs and planning; two, design and, three, construction and operation.
Then, there was to be a program evaluation directorate, as well as three separate directorates which would provide financial, personnel and administrative support services. There was also to be a change in procedures between programs and projects. It would have been very nice to have before the committee the full array of officials who are responsible for these different changes and organizations, to give us their reactions to the changes in organization.
One feels, Mr. Chairman, that the minister must be the leader of this department and not the follower. We have found in the past that many civil servants lead the minister to the point where he is just like a marionette. This particular minister, during his period with Indian Affairs and Northern Development, was a leader. I would hope he would lead this department and not be a marionette at the behest of senior officials.
Last year during the consideration of the estimates we were supplied not only with a chart setting for the reorganization but a pamphlet with regard to tendering procedures. If I read this pamphlet correctly, there is a main principle with regard to tendering which is set forth in government contract regulations. This principle is, in effect, that before any construction contract is entered into the contracting authority shall invite tenders. There are three exceptions set forth. The first is where the contract is for less than $15,000. The second is where the contract is one related to a pressing emergency in which a delay would be injurious to the public interest. The third is that the work can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the employees of the appropriate contracting authority.
Now, you can state the general rule that there must be tenders, with three exceptions. This rule applies to four main types of contracts dealing with public works. There are construction contracts, purchase contracts, service contracts and leases. We find this pamphlet also contains a description of tendering, which reads:
"tender" means,
(i)	with respect to a construction contract, a tender invited by public advertisement, and
(ii)	with respect to a purchase or service contract, a tender invited by public advertisement or from a representative list or representative lists of suppliers.
Supply-Public Works
So, Mr. Chairman, there is the general rule with regard to tendering. It means that with regard to any construction contract treasury approval is necessary unless the contract is less than $15,000. If it is more than $15,000 and not more than $1 million, two tenders are necessary. I should like to ask the minister or his officials just what the breakdown is with regard to the different types of tenders for the different types of contracts. For instance, I should like to know how many construction contracts we had which were between $15,000 and $1 million. How many tenders were made with regard to those contracts? I should like to know also just how many contracts we had over a million dollars where treasury approval was necessary, and just how many tenders we received for them.
The reason for my request, Mr. Chairman, is that I feel the Canadian public have been milked by many contractors on government contracts. The sophistication in contracting firms today is something of which Canadians should be aware. I am advised that some of them have the same ownership but different names. For instance, in the province of Ontario we have about six major contractors, and even though the names are different the ownership is the same. When a tender is given on a government contract, in truth and in fact one and the same contractor is bidding on the job. It does not matter whether you have one, two or five of these particular contractors because, in reality, you have the same owner. They agree amongst themselves who will take the particular government job. Having agreed, the bids are then presented and are slanted to the position where the one that is selected obtains the job. If this is so, I would think the only way to look into the matter would be to get the owners of these different contracting firms before a committee, and make a thorough study of the ownership situation. As I say, the ownership is very sophisticated and is difficult to determine.
As an example, let me cite the Mannix Construction Company in the west. Mannix Construction was a privately owned contracting firm but was sold to a particular group of contractors. Mr. Mannix remained as president, so you can see that the public would believe he was still the owner of the firm. But he is not the true owner. These are some of the things that we, as a committee, should be studying. If we are overpaying on contracts, then we should know to whom we are overpaying. We should know who are the true owners of these contracting firms, because

November 4, 19G8
Supply-Public Works these firms do make contributions to political parties. If this is so, then we should know who is making the contribution. The least the government could do is to have some type of clause in their contracts prohibiting the firm involved from making a contribution to any political party.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
These are some of the matters on which I should like the minister to dwell when he deals with tendering on some of the contracts let by the government. This particular department, Mr. Chairman, is going to spend $306 million, which is an increase over last year's $294 million. That is a lot of money and I think we should have full value for it. We should also have answers to our questions.
I should now like to direct my mind to the third aspect of the operations of the minister's department, namely the question of waterfront lots. I am sure the minister remembers the heated debates that took place last session on the subject of waterfront lots in the Toronto area, more especially those in which the former member for York-Humber engaged. During those debates the hon. member obtained a legal opinion from the former minister of public works, and I should just like to make reference to the former minister's remarks on the subject of this legal opinion as they are reported at page 3367 of Hansard for March 29, 1966, where he said:
Mr. Chairman, last Friday when these estimates were being discussed some questions were raised about the problem created by the practice ol fill being put in waterlots along a long stretch of the shore of lake Ontario. The same matter was raised again today. I think I should explain where the responsibility of this parliament lies and how the situation is somewhat complicated by a division of jurisdiction.
Now comes the legal opinion, Mr. Chairman.
The provinces own the land under the water, in other words, these waterlots, and it can be transferred by them to private owners, as is the case in the situation presently under discussion. When private owners acquire the waterlots the federal government cannot interfere with that in any way. Then the municipal affairs department of the province and the governments of the municipalities have jurisdiction in the ordinary way over building permits and that sort of thing. The federal authority has jurisdiction over the subject of navigation, and it is only in that connection that it is able to have any legislative responsibility and can take legislative action as set out in the Navigable Waters Protection Act. The difficulty in this particular case-and I am very quick to admit it is a real difficulty-is that of a person owning the lot getting a building permit from the municipality in the usual way.

So from the former minister of public works, Mr. Chairman, you get the legal opinion that this waterfront property is owned by the province, but that there is a divided jurisdiction between the federal authority and the provincial authority.
You might ask, Mr. Chairman, just why I am inquiring about this matter. I should like to ask the minister as to the position of the federal government in regard to the Roberts Bank property in British Columbia. If the position is that the province owns the land under the water, then all that the provincial premier has to do is to convey it to the proper authority, and then the proper authority has full control and jurisdiction over the property. The present minister has taken a very active part in the Roberts Bank dispute and has said that the federal authority has full responsibility. If we were to apply the legal opinion and the reasoning used by the former minister of works, then we may find, Mr. Chairman, that it is the province that has full authority. We are going to spend a great deal of money on the Roberts Bank project, Mr. Chairman, so I think we should clear up once and for all who it is has authority over the waterfront lot on which the harbour is going to be built. We would not want to invest so much money unless we had full control over the property.
The last item I should like to discuss is the co-ordination of his department with others. What co-ordination exists between the minister's department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. If ever a problem was plaguing Canadians these days, it is that of pollution. I think the Department of Public Works should work hand in hand with whatever department of the federal government has responsibility for that problem. I should like a statement from the minister concerning the co-ordination that is necessary to solve this problem. Whether we like it or not, Mr. Chairman, there is a feeling among Canadians that this problem of pollution appears to be just lying in state at the moment, with the federal authority taking no real initiative to find a solution, trying to rest its case on the argument that the responsibility lies with the provinces.
One can readily say, Mr. Chairman, that there is dual responsibility for this problem on the part of the provinces and the federal government. I should like a clear statement from the minister that his department is taking active steps to meet the problem of pollution by co-ordinating its activities with those
November 4, 1968

Supply-Public Works
of the Department of Energy, Mines and especially trucks have a hard time getting Resources.	across.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I would blame myself if I did not point out to the minister how essential it is not to spend all his budget in some ridings which seem favoured by the government, at the expense of other ridings.
For instance, in my own riding, for a long time we have been asking for repairs to the post-office or for a new building, and it is precisely the Department of Public Works which should look after that. A few years ago, the old post office is Rouyn was repaired and an annex was added which, strangely enough, looks a lot like any hen-house we can see many in various parts of the country. A hen-house which is called the post office, right in the middle of the town of Rouyn, is certainly not very aesthetic.
When I mentioned the fact to the minister-not this minister but the previous Conservative minister-everyone wondered what had happened. Did the government architects lack judgment or did the government not know who to hire as a qualified architect to draw the plans so that our post office would look like one.
We still have that post office in the city of Rouyn which is in the last analysis the metropolis of northwestern Quebec. Beautiful post offices were built in Noranda, Val-d'Or, Malartic. But in Rouyn, it seemed good enough to build an addition to the existing post office dating back to 1928, I think, and it is a sorry sight as far as public buildings are concerned.
Many requests have been made over the years to the present Minister of Public Works and to his predecessors. For instance, there is in Notre-Dame-du-Nord an old bridge which must date back to the time when the Oblate Fathers were living in the old fort at Ville-Marie and there were only vehicles drawn by animals. In those days two ox-drawn carts could meet on that bridge but today, it would be nice if two cars could do the same, but it is rather difficult. Quite often, one car has to wait until the other has crossed the bridge, which is rather a long one. Such a state of affairs in 1968, in a region like Temis-camingue, does not make drivers very happy. Even if those who use horses or oxen today can quite easily cross that bridge, cars and
I am told that the department is trying to negotiate the sale of that bridge to the provincial authorities. I cannot recall for how many years there has been talk of that alleged intention of selling the bridge at Notre-Dame-du-Nord to the provincial authorities, but it belongs to the federal government at the present time. We have been waiting to hear about it for a long time. I understand that the budgets are not generous enough to allow the Minister of Public Works to authorize such constructions at the present time, but a start must be made. People have been asking for a new bridge at Notre-Dame-du-Nord for over 10, 15 or 20 years and the money has never been found to build one. Even when the riding was represented by a Liberal member, under a Liberal government, or by a Conservative member, under a Conservative Government, no way was found to improve that situation.
There is another problem, which is serious enough for the farmers of Temiscamingue: Lake Temiscamingue, one of the most beautiful lakes in Canada, is eroding its shores. For years now the government has been asked to build retaining walls to keep the waters from eroding the land of farmers who have been settled along the shores for several years. There again, we are told that the budget does not allow it. Still, during the election campaign, some time in May, a Mr. Bedard, a civil servant of the Department of Public Works, went over to grant small contracts in the riding of Temiscamingue to repair the wharves or, for instance, to put up $125 or $150's worth of rubber along a ramp. An amount of $125, $150 or $200 was spent per parish and people were told: See how generous the government is towards the people in these parishes.
They were given suckers just like that, at a cost of $125, to the extent where some contractor in a small parish came to see me at one point with a paper signed by Mr. Bedard authorizing him to do $225 worth of work. He said: The government does not want to pay me right away. You know, Mr. Caouette, I am a Liberal but could you not help me to get an advance of $225 from the bank at Rouyn? I then told him: Go to the Imperial Bank of Commerce in Rouyn tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock with your little paper signed by Mr. Bedard, and the manager will probably lend you the $225. If he refuses, tell him to call me. When the man told the bank manager to

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works call me, the latter said that there was no need to call me, and that he would lend the man $225 on the strength of the note signed by Mr. Bedard.
That, Mr. Chairman, happens during election campaigns. I see the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry shaking his head.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Laniel:: Just Beauharnois.


David Réal Caouette: Just Beauharnois. That is a lovely riding, but the hon. member is not quite as handsome as his riding.
Mr. Chairman, I will be told that that is but a slight case of political patronage. It is indeed. Why send a junior officer of the Department of Public Works? I sometimes call on senior officials in the department and I am treated very pleasantly. I get very good replies, for which I thank those who run the department. However, why send Mr. Bedard? Why, first of all, was he sent to give out small sums of $125 or $150 for slight repairs to be made to a wharf? These people are wasting their time with such money-tricks, trying to win votes and train organizers paid for the duration of the election campaign.
Mr. Chairman, this is a method which I would not use. I do not sit on the government side of the house; I could do such things, but I do not. People are free. But when important works must be done in a constituency, Mr. Bedard should be there and make appraisals. It is in such circumstances that Mr. Bedard should render a service not only to a political friend of the government, but to the public as a whole.
Now, with respect to the Department of Public Works, I have nothing else to say this evening, because I do not want to delay the consideration of the estimates. However, I insist that the minister and the officials should seriously consider the logical requests, whether they come from a Liberal, a Conservative, a Creditiste or a New Democratic constituency. It does not matter. All Canadian citizens, whatever their allegiance, pay taxes to the federal government and they are entitled to be treated on the same footing and with fairness. If we want to establish social justice and the just society, it is time to restrict petty political patronage during election campaigns and to act intelligently in the best interests of the people.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to consider the possibility of acceding to my requests for the constituency of Temis-camingue. Since other members are making

requests for their constituency, I am doing the same for mine.
In the first place, as for the Rouyn post office, let us demolish the hen-house and build a post office.
Then, as for the bridge at Notre-Dame-du-Nord, it is essential to rebuild it. In addition, the shores of Lake Temiscamingue should be developed so as to protect the land. In fact, we have wonderful land in the constituency of Temiscamingue, but if we permit erosion by the waters of lake Temiscamingue, later on, we will have problems other than those which we now have.
Therefore, I call the attention of the minister to the immediate needs of the constituency of Temiscamingue.


Mr. Slewari (Cochrane):: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Western Nova alluded to the cost of the arts centre. Before going further could the minister tell us whether it is proper to discuss the estimates of that building at this time? This matter, as hon. members know, is before the committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts, and we were told in that committee that it might be dealt with in the public works estimates. Is it to be dealt with in detail this evening or is it to be left to another committee?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Chairman, I can probably shorten this discussion by saying that the National Arts Centre is to be dealt with in the estimates of the Secretary of State and should not be discussed under the present vote. In any case, as the hon. member knows, the matter is now before a standing committee of the house.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Ralph Wesley Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I wish to bring to the minister's attention a serious situation in my riding, in which he may be helpful. In my riding of Cochrane is the town of Kapuskasing in which is a landmark known for many years as the Kapuskasing Inn. This is a solid brick and steel building worth about $750,000. It was erected some years ago by the Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company and was used as a hotel until recently. A few weeks ago the building was closed because it represented a liability; the company is not in the hotel business. I happen to know that the company in question would be interested in making this building available for community use, provided some
November 4, 19G8

good use would be served by it. The provincial government has looked into this, and is still considering it.
I have asked two departments of government whether they would be interested in this building. I asked the Department of Manpower and Immigration whether the building might not be used as a training school for the forest industry-the most important industry in our region. I asked another department whether it could not be used as a cultural centre, because there is none in existence in northern Ontario at the present time. I happen to know that this building which is worth, as I say, $750,000, could probably be purchased for a nominal sum, perhaps even for a token amount of one dollar. It is true that a few thousand dollars would need to be spent on its renovation.
So far these efforts have been futile. Various departments have replied with quotations from the rule books. I think this is a special case, one which is not covered by the rule books. It is not every day one can buy a beautiful building for next to nothing for the people's use. But not one of the departments of government appears to be interested, so I ask the minister whether he will take special note of this project-whether some means could not be worked out whereby this fine building would remain where it is and be used for community purposes. Otherwise, next spring it will be torn down, and this would be a tragedy to happen to the skyline of Kapuskasing.
There is another point I should like to mention. Many members of parliament have been concerned about office accommodation in their ridings. I know governments are hesitant to make any pronouncement on this question because it is not popular politically, perhaps, to announce that the government is willing to establish offices for members of parliament in their ridings. At the same time, there are a number of ways in which something could be done. For example, when there is a public building belonging to the federal government within a riding it seems to me space could be made available in it for the use of the member of parliament, at least when he is seeing people in his riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I see by the estimates that improvements and alterations are going on to the federal building-it is a post office-in the town of Cochrane. I know for a fact that room could be made available in
Supply-Public Works that building, or that at least a small corner could be provided for a member to take his messages and see people, at least when he goes to his riding at the week ends. I do not think anyone in the house would be against using public buildings in this way, so I would ask the minister to consider carefully whether this privilege could not be extended to members wherever no additional expense would be involved. I do not think this is unreasonable.


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, first of all I wish to echo the last words of my friend for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) who asked that premises be found in public buildings to accommodate the members, so that they might have a place to meet their electors. Indeed, I believe I speak for the official opposition in saying that if the government were willing to build such premises to make it easier for members to meet their electors, we would agree with the party in power.
If my colleague would kindly stop speaking with the minister, I would continue my remarks.
Mr. Chairman, the minister should take note-I believe he has done so already-of the unanimous request of the house. Though it may be said in certain quarters that the minister may only be temporarily assigned to that department, were he to provide each member with an office in his riding, I would say that he is a great Minister of Public Works. That is a necessity.
Most of the members do professional work which often requires them to see their clients as well as their electors. If the government in power, through the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), decided to provide in each riding, in public buildings, premises where the members, not only the members of the government, but also the members of the opposition could meet their electors and discuss their needs. I say, in advance, to the minister that such a decision would certainly be welcomed by the members of the official opposition.
Often, there is a tendency to minimize the importance of public works; yet, to my mind, they constitute a refund, a dividend to all the taxpayers. This department is important, especially in the ridings located along the St. Lawrence river, and I also wish to emphasize at this point, the particular geographic location of the riding I have the honour to represent.

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works
Mr. Chairman, if we study the estimates of the hon. Minister of Public Works, we can say that once again Quebec is discriminated against with regard to the amounts allocated by the Department of Public Works to projects which should be carried out in Quebec.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
If we refer to page 397 of the Blue Book, we find that in relation to other provinces, we receive lesser amounts and are not treated on an equal footing as far as concerns our needs and services that the Department of Public Works should provide. This gap could be filled now by the appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works of the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois), to whom I have not yet had the opportunity of extending my congratulations. I therefore congratulate him now for his appointment but, at the same time, I assign him a task, that is to watch over the amounts allotted to Quebec with respect to large scale projects that Quebec municipalities claim from the federal government and that come under the Department of Public Works. This is the task which the member for Chicoutimi, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works will have to accomplish during his term. Considering his interest and affection for Quebec, I am sure that he will succeed.
Mr. Chairman, since the Liberal government has taken office, that is since 1963, the policy regarding the building of retaining walls along the St. Lawrence river has changed. When our party was in power, we built several such walls. However, the municipalities or the water-lot owners had to prove that the erosion was due to navigation and the Department of Public Works sent engineers to complete a survey. If there were sufficient grounds for the complaint, the municipality or the water-lot owners received the funds required to build a retaining wall. This happened along the St. Lawrence river, in Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive and Saint-Irenee in my riding.
However, I am told that, for the past two years, the policy of the Department of Public Works has changed completely. Therefore, the time has come for the minister, during consideration of his estimates, to clearly define the policy of his government with regard to the construction of retaining walls along the St. Lawrence river. I made several requests in this regard lately to the department; it seems impossible, under the new
(Mr. Asselin.l
policy of the minister to find out for sure whether the erosion is due to navigation. If the land has been eroded and if the properties located along the St. Lawrence are in danger, it is because the department has not built, in due to time, the necessary retaining walls.
I should also like to deal tonight with the dredging and the building of marinas.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that the provincial Department of Fish and Game, in co-operation with the Department of Rural Development, has prepared plans for the construction of marinas, in various ridings in the country.
As far as marinas are concerned, for the last three years I have been asking the federal Department of Public Works to tell us whether it is really interested in dredging in places where marinas could be constructed in my district, as well as at Pointe-au-Pic, Tadoussac, all holiday resorts where dozens of sailing boats are coming every day from Quebec, along the St. Lawrence. Those sail boats and others need shelter so as to be able to continue their trip towards the Saguenay, up to the beautiful constituency of the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois).
I would also like to know whether the minister has a policy to announce as far as the building of marinas along the St. Lawrence is concerned, especially at Pointe-au-Pic, in my own constituency, and at Tadoussac.
Mr. Chairman, before the election, a committee was set up in Quebec for the purpose of inquiring into the possibility of using fully Beauport sand bars. I know that members from the Quebec area looked into the matter and that city councils also met to study, in co-operation with experts, the possibility of using Beauport sand bars as an extension to Quebec harbour facilities. I am aware of the fact that both municipalities and chambers of commerce of the Quebec region were presented with a brief and reports. However, from the time this government was returned to power on June 25, nothing has been said about it.
Mayors of the Beaupre shore asked me lately to raise the matter in the house.


Mr. Duquei:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Martial Asselin: Yes, certainly.


Gérard Duquet: I would not like to embarrass the hon. member-
November 4, 19G8


Martial Asselin: No, this would not embarrass me at all.


Gérard Duquet: The hon. member is not unaware of the fact that a 1,000-foot-long wharf is being built at a cost of $2 million, the second one to be erected on the Beauport sand bars at the mouth of the St. Charles river. Another wharf of the same size was constructed last year. This is something worth mentioning.


Martial Asselin: That is a small beginning. I shall revert later on to the matter of the St. Charles river.
In 1965, the government and government members from the Quebec area publicized widely, in conjunction with the chambers of commerce and the municipalities, that they were to launch a huge project for the development of some of the Beauport and Beaupre sand bars.
I am very happy to have this information and I thank the hon. member for Quebec East. Of course, I cannot get this information as I do not sit on the government side of the house, but all the same I thank the hon. member for Quebec East. But if this is all, we are no longer dealing with the project of the Liberal members as well as the municipalities and the chambers of commerce concerning the use of the Beauport sand bars. If it is a beginning, so much the better. I hope the hon. member for Quebec East and those of the province of Quebec will do their utmost to convince the Minister of Public Works to go ahead. And if the hon. member for Quebec East needs the humble contribution of the member for Charlevoix, I am at his disposal.
There is also the much debated question of the St. Charles river. But, Mr. Chairman, here I am praising the hon. members opposite.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Mr. Langlois:: Keep it up, you are doing fine.


Martial Asselin: When the mayor of Quebec City states publicly that the matter of the St. Charles river does not concern the hon. member for Quebec East, he is making a big mistake. That matter concerns not only the hon. member for Quebec East but also all hon. members from the Quebec area because it should have been settled a long time ago. And if the hon. member for Quebec East is entitled to political thanks, he should get them all. If he has worked, as he seems to have, on the St. Charles river project, he should be
Supply-Public Works free to state publicly that this matter concerns him as much as the mayor of Quebec City and as much as hon. members from the Quebec area.
The hon. member for Quebec East should continue his efforts, so that those of Quebec City as well as the agreements concluded by the federal government and the provincial government may result in practical and concrete action. The inhabitants of that area have endured unacceptable conditions for a long time. I think it is time that Quebec City as well as the provincial government, with the co-operation of the federal government, take definite steps to end the pollution of the St. Charles river. It is a terrible thing for Quebecers to admire such a beautiful river which is polluted and, in my opinion, represents a real danger for the owners of riverside properties who live there.


Gérard Duquet: It has been settled.


Martial Asselin: So much the better, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member for Quebec East tells me that the matter has been settled. He is justified in keeping his political merit, because he needs it. If the mayor of Quebec City tells him to mind his own business, he is wrong. For once, I agree with the member of Quebec East. I congratulate him for his work; indeed, I suggest that he should continue to settle the important sanitation problem in that magnificent part of Quebec City which if it were developed according to the wishes of the public, would perhaps become the most charming site of Quebec City.
Mr. Chairman, since 1963, my constituency has not been spoiled by the Department of Public Works. From 1958 to 1963, $4 million were spent there. Almost all the wharves in the constituency of Charlevoix had been constructed or rebuilt. I was unable to build a few others, because I was defeated in 1963. I would like to draw the attention of the minister on the wharf of Ile-aux-Coudres, in my district. This wharf is deteriorating and it is very useful to tourists who use the ferry between Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive et Ile-aux-Coudres. I have made representations in this regard to the Minister of Public Works. I have even asked the engineers of the department whether blueprints had been submitted to the department in order to try and repair the wharf of Ile-aux-Coudres or to add thereto a cage 200 feet long so as to allow year-round navigation. I wish the minister would consider this. I understand Quebec engineers have

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works submitted to Ottawa blueprints tor the repair, reconstruction and addition of a cage to the wharf at Ile-aux-Coudres. But no amount has been allotted yet in this year's estimates for improvement.
The minister may not be aware of it-but the members of the Quebec area know it- that for the last few years, Ile-.Aux-Coudres has pre-eminently become a touristic ground. During the last four months, the provincial government has made available a ferryboat for tourists who come to visit the line riding of Charlevoix. This ferryboat has been completely full during the tourist season in spite of all kinds of difficulties she has had to face to moor alongside the wharf of Ile-Aux-Coudres. I shall pester the minister until I know what happened to the plans and specifications that were prepared by the engineers of his department for the reconstruction of that wharf, which I feel is urgently needed for navigation.
The hon. minister must be aware that Charlevoix is a seamen's riding. There are numerous boat owners who need harbour facilities to carry on with their work. Since 1965, it seems that the seamen of my riding, my constituents, are being penalized for having voted conservative. We are in the dark ages! The necessary maintenance work is not even done to keep the wharfs in proper condition.
Therefore, I am giving the minister fair warning: until I obtain the required information regarding the Ile-aux-Coudres wharf-I know the minister will seek that information

I shall keep at him about it.
The department seemed to indicate that since l'lle-aux-Coudres and Saint-Joseph-de-la-Rive were a continuation of the highway, it was the responsibility of the province to build and maintain the wharf. However, if this is the policy of the Minister of Public Works, I should like him to tell the house about it. Therefore, I ask him, if he has time, to make enquiries in order to provide me with the information I requested during this debate.
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, the Department of Public Works is an important department, since it is responsible for the distribution of the taxpayers' money in the ridings along the Saint-Lawrence River, where navigation takes place.
For some years now, as I have said before, the province of Quebec has been discriminated against with regard to the appropriations to that province for the purpose of improving our harbour facilities.

I hope that the honorable minister will take notice of my remarks and I am expecting his answer.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to act like the good Conservative I am by being conservative in respect of debating time, because I know there are quite a few hon. members who wish to take part in the debate.
First of all I should like to say that the minister's statement was impressive for its brevity. I wish also to pay a compliment to the officials of the minister's department in St. John's, Newfoundland. I listened with great attention to the minister's reference to the decentralization of the Department of Public Works. This is a step in the right direction. When I say this, you can rest assured that the work of the department, at least in St. John's, Newfoundland, is in very good hands in the persons of Messrs. Knight, Whelan and Butler. I have had occasion to talk to these gentlemen, and I may say that I hope the kind of attitude I found prevalent in talking to them is also the attitude of the new minister. I am sure it is. I hope the minister will enhance the very good relations we already have.
The estimates of this department, of course, are always of great interest to parts of Canada such as the Atlantic region because, as my colleague pointed out a minute ago, this is one area where the taxpayer gets little return from his heavy taxation. Quite a change is taking place in the various departments in areas such as regional development, fisheries, post offices, and so on. I am aware that many of these programs, which will be co-ordinated by the Minister of Public Works, must be co-ordinated in co-operation with the various other government departments. We would not like to see tabled in the interim the projects which we hope will materialize in the Atlantic region, before the necessary formal restructuring takes place.
Sometimes governments are apt to become so taken up in the restructuring or setting up of the framework of departments that they forget to govern at all. I hope this will not be an accusation which can be made about this department. I have noticed with some dismay the reductions in the expenditures under the Department of Public Works specifically as they relate to the province of Newfoundland. I notice, for example, that in the fiscal year
November 4, 1968

1967-68 there were expenditures of $4.8 million under the harbours and rivers engineering services on construction, acquisition, major repairs, improvements, plans and such for harbour and river works and so on. This year the expenditure is down almost $2 million to just over $3 million. In other words, it is almost cut by one half from what it was last year.
[DOT] <9:30 p.m.)
I notice too with a little reservation the minister's statement about the cooling off of inflationary tendencies. This has already been mentioned by a number of hon. members. I have one great reservation in this regard, because it seems to me rather contradictory to be talking about regional development on the one hand, thereby suggesting some special arrangement and programs, while on the other hand talking about the curtailement of the operational programs and expendiures.
The minister who is responsible for regional development made a statement to the Atlantic provinces economic council last week in which he referred to the great problems the government has in coming to grips with the necessity for stimulating regional development. On the one hand there is a problem in respect of stimulation of growth, while on the other hand there is apparently a need to cool off inflationary tendencies in areas such as central Canada.
There is a great challenge in this regard because any government program which is adopted on a national basis without regard for regional programs will have an adverse effect on areas such as the Atlantic region. The minister responsible for regional development is quite aware of this. I am sure the Minister of Public Works is equally aware of the fact that we cannot accept national policies and a curtailment of programs and expenditures at the risk of a lack of regional development.
The minister of regional development mentioned that there is difficulty in trying to curtail inflationary tendencies in Canada, while at the same time providing employment for the Atlantic region. Surely this necessitates a broadening of programs and government expenditure. This is one of the great contradictions in the various operations of government departments.
I have noticed in the last two weeks that almost every statement emanating from the government benches has had reference to curtailment and balanced budgets. They have
Supply-Public Works referred to cutting down on expenditures. The estimates we have before us now indicate a cut in expenditures in one small area by almost one half. This is contradictory to the philosophy of the present government that it will provide for regional development.
As I stand here today I am almost tempted to go into great detail, and I would do so if time permitted, to give the house a panoramic tour of my constituency. I am sure I would not be criticized because I believe it was Sailor Jack who was very adept at giving hon. members a panoramic tour of his district. I happen to represent almost the same area. I suppose hon. members are quite aware of the district that is now Gander-Twillingate which includes part of Green Bay provincial district, Notre Dame bay and Bonavista bay.
I could mention the various needs of the larger and smaller communities in this area and would like to do so, but I shall honour the commitment I made earlier to curtail my remarks. This will give other hon. members the opportunity to bring some of their problems to the attention of the minister. I hope that as a result of not giving a panoramic tour the minister will give a little extra consideration to my requests, which are reaching his desk every day. Time does not permit me to go into detail to point out the many and varying needs of these fishing communities along Notre Dame Bay and the Bonavista north region.
I represent three islands in Notre Dame Bay with a population of 15,000 people, who survive almost solely by fishing. This is one area in respect of which the minister can show me, as I am sure he will, that the just society will result in something tangible, and that we will receive consideration regarding the very modest requests we have made. We are not looking for great multimillion dollar expenditures, but we are looking for a variety of construction which will result in stimulating the fishing activity in the Atlantic region.
Surely the minister would be happy to recommend to his district and regional officials the implementation of many of the things I will and have directed to his attention. Let me express one grave reservation I have about one particular thing that has been brought to the attention of the minister's department. I represent the great town of Gander, Newfoundland, where the international airport is situated. This is one of the finest towns in the whole of Canada, and if it

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works were given the least bit of government support and encouragement I am sure it would become the capital of the east coast of Newfoundland, and might easily become the capital in many ways of the east coast of Canada. Hon. members are aware of the facts inherent in that statement.
For several years the town of Gander has been in need, but not lobbying for, a new public building. Before I came to Ottawa, some time during the election campaign, my opponent made reference to the need for this public building. I believe there was some preliminary statement about the construction of such a building in 1970. Since I came to Ottawa I have been in continuous correspondence with the Postmaster General about this need to house postal facilities as well as other facilities. About a month ago I obtained a commitment that the new building would be started in 1970. I very happily communicated this information to my constituency, where it was well received.
I was delighted that the government had finally realized an obligation in this regard to provide a necessary structure. Several weeks later I received notification from the minister that, on the basis of information he had, these plans had temporarily been set aside. I am not sure he used the word "temporarily", but he informed me that the plans had been set aside and that postal facilities would be extended in the community and the other people occupying the building, like the R.C.M.P., customs and excise and various other government officials would be farmed out to a number of offices in the community of Gander.
I was hoping that this would not come to pass. In the past few years this has been one of the busiest small towns in Canada. Right now we have a very inadequate public building. What this new plan will provide is modest post office facilities and accommodation for various government department officials in various new offices throughout the town. This is certainly not the way to achieve some of those ends indicated by the minister in his preliminary statement.
The minister said we could not afford to curtail office accommodation. We cannot afford this kind of activity because in the long run it will result in an increased burden on the taxpayer. I urge the minister to take heed of this particular plea. It is not often I get the opportunity to stand in this house and make reference to specific points such as the one I bring to the minister's attention now. I

hope he will at least give consideration to investigating this situation and, like the Minister of Transport, I hope he will heed the advice of the people from these areas, because they know all too well the problems facing these communities. I say to the minister that we do need this building and I assume he will take note of what I am saying and have his officials investigate the matter and remedy these present inadequate public facilities in the town of Gander.
I could go on for quite some time outlining a number of problems, but there are other hon. members who have problems of equal importance.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Jack Marshall: Mr. Chairman, in rising to speak on the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I hope we can all accomplish as much as we did this afternoon in the debate on the estimates of the department of supply and services. There was such a spirit of camaraderie prevalent this afternoon and there were so many bouquets flying around that one might have thought the government and the opposition had declared a truce.
In the short time allotted I wish only to make one plea, and my request deals with the harbour development in the city of Corner Brook, Newfoundland. I cannot stress enough the vital importance to the future economy of the whole of western Newfoundland of the completion of this project. The port of Corner Brook serves the city of some 30,000 people and it is rapidly becoming the main distributing centre of goods and supplies for western and northwestern Newfoundland and Labrador, an area with a population of over 130,000 people.
The development of new roads and bridges has made this port an essential transportation link and the gateway to the whole new and exciting area of Newfoundland. The central section of the existing Corner Brook waterfront consists of docks of Bowater and Western Terminals and the C.N.R. wharf. These docks which were built on timber piles in 1920 and should have collapsed years ago are inadequate for the volume of cargo passing through them. It was predicted that these wharves would not last beyond 1967. However, at great expense they were planked and stitched together last year, and are in such bad shape that the main carriers threaten they will abandon their service after this season. Trucking concerns will not let their heavy trucks over the wharves for fear of collapse. Last year Western Terminals handled over 74,000 tons of cargo. This could
November 4, 1968

have been much more but for the danger of landing cargoes in excess of the minimum tonnage.
The payroll of the casual workers is around a half million dollars, and some 200 workers are employed. Representations have been made mainly by the chamber of commerce of Corner Brook since 1964 to all levels of government, outlining the critical condition of the wharves and the effect on the economy of the city, and indeed of the whole western part of Newfoundland.
It is noted in the estimate that only $200,000 is allocated toward the provision of new wharving and dock facilities for 1968-1969. However, this money is provided, as I understand, from the Public Works Department for pile testing, designs and other preliminary work. It follows therefore that with this amount of money it will not be possible to start construction in the same year. If this construction is not started next year I should like to point out to the minister that some 200 men will be put out of work and some half million dollars will be lost in pay to these employees. Further, the loss of this service will have far reaching effects on the provision of goods and services to the whole of the great northern peninsula.
If the minister responsible for regional development is sincere in this planned outline for all parts of the Atlantic region, and since the Minister of Public Works will no doubt be working closely with that department, I urge him to heed my request, which is offered with sincerity, to adopt emergency measures so that moneys will be provided to complete the harbour development project in Corner Brook and to save the government serious repercussions which would otherwise arise if this project is not completed next year.


Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister for some information on several points. Coming from the Vancouver area I wonder what projects are planned to replace those that would have been possible with the winter works program. I have in mind the fact that unemployment figures were very much higher last winter in the months of November and December than they had been in the previous year in those two months, and that there is every indication that they will be going up higher again in these same two months. I wonder what program the minister is planning to supply as an alternative program to the winter works, because I am sure it will be necessary.
Supply-Public Works
He will remember that before we came here at the beginning of this year we attended a meeting of a number of workers from various trades in the North Vancouver shipyards in connection with shipbuilding, construction work and manufacturing. We were impressed by the large percentage of people who were laid off when the winter months came on. I have been looking at the estimates of the department and I just cannot find any project which I believe would be sufficient to care for the number of unemployed people there will be in this winter period.
The second point to which I should like to refer briefly relates to Roberts Bank. My colleague, the hon. member for Broadview, spoke about the recent opinion given by the former minister of public works, that the land comprised by the waterlots is within provincial jurisdiction. I am wondering how this will apply to the harbour and other attendant facilities at Roberts Bank. In other words, I wonder if the minister could let us know how the jurisdiction will be divided between the provincial and federal governments in connection with Roberts Bank, what facilities the federal government intends to build there and what will be left to the province-or perhaps I should say, what the province will leave to the federal government. It seems to me that we would be doing very well if we could get the legal opinion which the Minister of Transport assured us was being sought as to jurisdiction in the matter of Roberts Bank. I should like to ask the minister to enlighten the house as to the jurisdiction of his department in connection with the harbour facilities.
When I was on the west coast recently I heard that the provincial government was planning to take upon itself the building of quite a number of the facilities and that it might even lease them out to foreign companies. I would certainly like to hear what the minister has to say with regard to harbour facilities at Roberts Bank.
There is another matter I would like to bring up. Early this year I received letters from the building service employees union on the coast in connection with a cleaning contract they had with the Vancouver post office. They were complaining that the federal government did not adopt the policy of awarding contracts only to union firms, that it insisted on pursuing the policy of letting contracts to the lowest bidder without any particular concern for what it meant in terms of working conditions for the workers involved.

November 4, 1968
Supply-Public Works
I took this up with the then minister of public works and he told me that this had indeed been the policy, that it was not necessarily union firms which received these cleaning contracts. I would like to impress upon the minister that in awarding contracts to cleaning and other firms a policy should be adopted of dealing strictly with union firms, because it seems to me to be improper for the federal government to set such a poor example of dealing with non-union firms in awarding these contracts.
There are a number of other matters that I would like to raise but I think I had better confine myself to these three specific points. The first question is, what are the major works planned by the minister as a substitute for the winter works program which will be adequate to handle this problem, one which is always complicated in the sea of unemployment.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The second matter is Roberts Bank. How is the division of facilities going to be made between the federal and provincial authorities and what facilities has the federal government clear authority to build? The third question is this: Will the government consider revising its policy to one of dealing strictly with union firms in awarding cleaning and other contracts in public buildings?


James Aloysius McGrath: I listened with interest to the minister's statement, Mr. Chairman. I was rather intrigued by his suggestion that members of parliament could refer their requests for various constituency public works projects to the regional head offices. Perhaps he may be able to report on this, because in our particular case I understand that the Newfoundland regional head office is located in Halifax. In many instances I would suggest- and certainly it has been our experience in other areas when we have regional head offices located in the maritime provinces- that they are not fully conversant with the peculiar problems of the province of Newfoundland. I understand that perhaps the minister was referring to what could be considered miscellaneous public works, that is works under a value of $50,000.
I share with other hon. members a certain amount of disappointment over the fact that the estimates have not been referred to the committee. There are a number of questions of a detailed nature which we would like to direct to the officials of the department, and naturally many of us are reluctant to take up

the time of the committee with probing questions of a detailed nature. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate referred to the vote under harbours, rivers and engineering services and compared that to the vote last year for Newfoundland. He referred to the substantial reduction. I should like to hear the minister comment on this reduction, because I think our problems in this particular area of public works, which is so important to Newfoundland, far from diminishing are increasing yearly. If anything, we would have expected the estimates under this particular vote, which as I have said is so important to Newfoundland, would have increased substantially. It is interesting to note the comparison of this vote under harbours, rivers and engineering services with the New Brunswick vote.
Even though it, too, has been reduced as compared with last year, nevertheless it is still in excess of the vote for Newfoundland. I do not feel it is unfair of me to point out that in Newfoundland our problems are much more substantial, much more numerous. We have many more harbours, many more marine facilities because of the vast coastline of the province of Newfoundland, taking in as it does the coast of Labrador.
In connection with these estimates, Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer briefly to the St. John's harbour development. I note that the vote for this year for St. John's harbour is merely $100,000. I should like to know, for example, what this covers because we have been hearing now for a number of years suggestions that the Department of Public Works of the government of Canada would be extending the St. John's harbour development to include the eastern end of the harbour. Since some of the harbour development has been completed, there has been a quite unexpected increase in the amount of traffic flowing into the harbour of St. John's. Obviously, this is a direct result of the improved facilities that we now have in that very important port. For example, I should like the minister to tell us if there are plans to proceed with the extension of St. John's harbour. We had hoped there would be some word in this particular direction this year because, as I say, the need is great and is growing steadily.
In so far as accommodation is concerned, I should like to endorse the comments of the hon. member for Cochrane. I, too, am of the opinion that members of parliament, in constituencies where there are public buildings,.
November 4, 1968
should be provided with accommodation so they can properly discharge their duties while the House of Commons is not sitting, or indeed while it is sitting. There are many occasions upon which we have to go to our constituencies to attend to constituency public business. Many of us are at a disadvantage because we have no place from which to operate. We have no place in which to receive our constituents, no place in which to correlate our activities in relation to our responsibilities as members of parliament.
In the general area of accommodation, there is an acute shortage in the city of St. John's. I do not believe anyone will quarrel with that statement. We are experiencing overcrowding in our various government of Canada buildings. Many of our departments are housed in temporary quarters which were acquired as a result of the United States vacating military establishment in St. John's. These temporary accommodations are inadequate to serve the needs and various important functions of the federal government.
I feel it is about time the government of Canada gave serious consideration to the construction of a new public building to house these various departments that are now in temporary quarters. This would alleviate the acute overcrowding that exists in the main public building which is now most inadequate to the needs of the government in my province. There is one other important question which I should like to have answered, because I am a little confused about the relationship between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Fisheries. Many of us who come from the maritime areas are continually made aware of this problem.
For example, we go to the Department of Public Works to request a new, modern facility for a small fishing activity in a particular area. The Department of Public Works will tell us this matter has to be referred to the Department of Fisheries. We go to the Department of Fisheries and we are told by the Department of Fisheries that they cannot justify this expenditure because there is not sufficient fishing activity being conducted in that particular area. It evolves down to the old question, then, of which comes first, the chicken or the egg.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report progress?
Progress reported.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, before we begin the adjournment debate I should like to announce that the business for tomorrow will be as announced last Thursday, namely continuation of the budget debate.
[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.

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand an Ontario version of an Alberta fudgsicle, a frozen confection on a stick. I have brought it here tonight because there was so much merriment at the word "fudgsicle" the other day I felt sure that a number of members did not know what was meant by the word. I thought I had better give them some general idea.
Actually, Mr. Speaker, the matter is quite serious from the standpoint of the consumer. On July 16 a man in Calgary bought some fudgsicles made by Woodland Dairy Limited of Edmonton. The package advertised that the contents amounted to three fluid ounces. He became suspicious of the weight and volume, made tests, and found that these fudgsicles contained only 2J fluid ounces. He then became convinced that the public was being cheated one half ounce on each fudgsicle. Not very impressive, I admit, to a lot of members in the House of Commons, but much more so to a mother whose children are continually being given money to buy these things.
This man then took up with the Calgary federal weights and measures office on or about July 17 this matter of the defrauding of the public as a result of this underweight. He wrote to the chief inspector of the Calgary office of weights and measures on July 22, and also wrote the minister in Ottawa two letters dated August 12 and August 19 asking for action to protect the public. On August 28 he was assured by the minister's office that the Calgary office had the matter in hand and would get in touch with the complainant when the report was finalized. In the letter was this sentence:
The dairy products division will work with the dairy to ensure that all future production is up to declared quantity.

November 4, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Calgary complainant decided to employ the independent services of a chemical laboratory to make dead sure of his facts. From the yellow pages of the telephone book he took the name of Chemical and Geological Laboratories Limited and asked them to buy Woodland Dairy fudgsicles wherever they liked, and to give a written report on the fluid ounce measure found. The report disclosed that the average fluid measure, taking all tests and results, amounted to 2.516 fluid ounces.
This is my point, Mr. Speaker. These tests were made two and a half months after the complaint was made to the weights and measures office. As far as I am aware, no final report has yet been given to the man in Calgary who first complained. In fact he has received no information of any kind following the letter from the minister's office on August 28.
The results, Mr. Speaker, are these: First of all, Woodland Dairy fudgsicles continue to be sold at an advertised weight of three fluid ounces when actually they contain only two and a half. There are four other competitors, I might point out, who sell a similar product at the full advertised weight of three ounces per fudgsicle.
In the second place, the public continues to be defrauded by Woodland Dairy Limited.
In the third place, this dairy is piling up profits. It is an affiliate of Palm Dairies Limited, which itself in turn is an affiliate of Burns Foods Limited.
What I want to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, is why no action has yet been taken which has resulted in the making of a report in this matter. This minister has made good efforts to streamline his department, and I am anxious that he start off on the right foot. I cannot understand for the life of me why after three months no investigation has been made of this small matter-small for an investigation of this kind but a very large matter for the consumers of Calgary and area. It is also a very bad reflection on the credit of a government department which is aiming to protect the consumers of this country. I want to find the reason for the delay in this matter.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway I wish to state that the complainant in Calgary was

informed on August 28 that preliminary checks had been made on the fudgsicles sold by this dairy company. While shortages in volume of fluid ounces were found to be smaller than those reported to the department, fudgsicles checked by the displacement method had volume content somewhat below declared value. The complainant was assured that the dairy products division of the Canada Department of Agriculture would work with the dairy company to ensure that all future production would be up to declared quantity.
I was also informed, Mr. Speaker, that in subsequent checks by the dairy products division on production of this company, no shortages were found in fudgsicles, and overmeasure in all novelty lines averaged 7 per cent.
In a letter from the complainant received last week he again reports shortages of approximately one half fluid ounce on fudgsicles purchased from retail stores. I am advised that the dairy products division will again make special checks, in addition to its normal program of control, in order to determine whether the reported shortages are indicative of a current production problem or are limited to a small stock from older production.



AIRPORTS-TORONTO-PROTESTS AGAINST EXPANSION OF FACILITIES

John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 I directed a question to the Minister of Transport which is reported as follows on page 2302 of Hansard:
In view of the angry and justified protests of the residents of the Mississagua area to the expansion of the airport facilities at Toronto, would the minister reconsider the plans for extension of the airport?
I asked this question because on Wednesday, October 30, 700 persons of Applewood Hills in Mississaugua attended a public meeting at Burnhamthorpe school to study the question, or to protest the expansion of facilities at Malton, at the Toronto International Airport. Two hundred people were turned away from that meeting, between members of the homeowners association and members of the Society for Aircraft Noise Abatement. All there protested the expansion of airport facilities.
Toronto International Airport at Malton comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport, and those at the meeting had two main objections to the expansion of the facilities. The first dealt with the question of noise and the second with the question of
November 4, 1968

pollution. Persons at that meeting listened to the recorded sound of a jet taking off, amplified to a maximum 100 decibel tolerance level. They were told that by 1980 jets taking off would be twice as loud as the loudspeaker sound they heard that night. When one considers that 50 decibels constitutes ordinary office background noise, he can appreciate the concern of those who attended that meeting.
Forecasters have indicated that, though Toronto International Airport will handle 4 million passengers this year, by 1980 it will handle 14 million, and 19 million by 1985.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Also, those at the meeting were told that one jet engine while taking off spews out an amount of pollution that is the equivalent of the pollution generated by 225 motorcars starting up. Four jet engines spew out pollution equivalent to that of 900 cars starting up. This causes a tremendous amount of pollution, and one can understand the concern these people feel, especially when this is coupled with the problem caused by fantastic noice. Their homes will depreciate in value, and this is a further cause for concern. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) is in an awkward position, because though he has stated he would like to see an extension to the airport he has to take into account a development in the area which would provide 43,900 housing units-3,900 in the area of Etobicoke and 40,000 at Mississauga. So he has to decide whether he should extend the airport facilities at the expense of 43,900 housing units, or whether to forgo his plans. It has been stated that no decision is expected on the future of Malton until early next year. Insiders say however, there is no alternative to the plan which the minister has set forth. Nevertheless the Ontario department of municipal affairs has issued a booklet which sets out three plans. Two of them would not require further land acquisition, and the third-the one proposed by the minister- would.
It is understandable that the province, and those directly affected, would like to hear about these alternative plans, and have them examined. They would like to hear more about the effects of noise and the extent to which studies in this field have developed. They would like to know how the department proposes to take care of this tremendous noise problem. This is why the minister should hold public meetings, set out the policy of the department, and listen to the objections
2417
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion raised by residents in the area before making his decision. This is why 700 people assembled at Burnhamthorpe school last night to register their protest in connection with a development about which they had not been consulted, and with regard to which there has been none of the participatory democracy the government talks about. The people of this area would like to hear the minister set forth his policy at a public meeting, and listen to the objections.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has received many representations from residents of the Mississauga area regarding the expansion of Toronto International Airport.
For the past few weeks there have been numerous meetings between officials of the Department of Transport and representatives of the province of Ontario, and municipalities involved in the area of the airport. Important considerations such as land use, noise, associated ground transportation systems and trends in the growth of major population areas are all considered at these meetings. It is the hope of the department that from these joint conferences a mutually satisfactory plan for the final stages of the airport expansion will be decided upon.
Immediate interim measures must be taken however, to alleviate the serious overcrowding of Toronto International Airport, which is operating at 135 per cent of capacity. This means the construction of an addition to the terminal facilities now at the airport. Once this addition is completed it hopefully should be able to maintain adequate terminal services until the final expansion is ready for use.



HEALTH AND WELFARE-MEDICARE-PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon on orders of the day I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the answer to which I had hoped would be one of reassurance. I regret it did not work out that way and I hope that tonight there may be a clarification which will be better than we got this afternoon. I asked the Prime Minister in view of disturbing reports in Winnipeg if he would assure the house and the country that it was not the intention of the federal government to get out of medicare in 1972, but rather that as far as
2418	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the federal government was concerned medicare was here to stay. In his reply the Prime Minister, after a few introductory words, said to me that the law was such that at the end of five years there would be a straight transfer of tax room. I believe I am quoting him verbatim.
This concerned me for reasons that I may have time to give in a moment, and so I put a supplementary question to him in which I asked that he give the assurance that the federal government would not get out of medicare at the end of the five year period on a unilateral basis-that it would not do so without consulting the provinces.
To my astonishment the Prime Minister's reply was that I should study the act, that I should know what was in it, and that I should realize-and I shall quote him directly-that the law says in five years we will get out of it. As hon. members are aware, I posted this question for the earliest possible late show and I am glad that that opportunity has come tonight because that is not my reading of the law and, with all respect to the Prime Minister, I think his reading is incorrect.
The section in question is section 8 of the Medical Care Act. I was very much involved in every stage of that legislation. Indeed Hansard records that I took part in the discussion on section 8, which provides that at roughly the end of a five year period.
-the Government of Canada shall review the provisions of this act respecting the amount and manner of payment of the contributions payable by Canada pursuant to section 3 with a view to formulating proposals for any changes therein that appear then to be necessary or desirable-*
There is more to the section. It is a long one but I have read the heart of it. The heart of it is that at the end of five years, or six months before the end of five years, there shall be a review with a view to formulating proposals for change, if they then seem necessary or desirable. But the Prime Minister said this afternoon that the hon. member should realize that the law says in five years we will get out of it.
There is an alarming difference between a provision in the law which says there shall be a review and proposals made, and the view stated this afternoon that it is automatic, that it is in the law, that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was simply operating within the law when he made his recent comments on this matter. I know that, when it comes to the interpretation of the law, courts pay no attention to what is in Hansard; but hon. members of this house will be interested to note that
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre) .1
DEBATES	November 4, 1968
when section 8 of the act was under debate in the house on December 6, 1966, it was spoken to not by the then minister of health but by the then minister of finance, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). He referred to some questions I had put to him and admitted my contention that this section was not legislative in effect, that it was merely the statement of an intention. However, he went on to make it clear that the government wanted it in the act, that it was the government's intention at the end of the five	years-let	me quote him
exactly-to-
-put forward proposals to the provinces for a change in the method of compensation-
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a commitment to put forward proposals to the provinces implies consultation; it implies bringing the matter before parliament; it implies consideration. But this afternoon the Prime Minister did not say that. He simply said that the hon. member should realize that the law says in five years we will get out of it.
I was concerned about section 8 when it was before the house, and it does not say that. On December 6, 1966, I asked the then minister of finance certain questions in an effort to find out from him what would happen in five years time. I draw attention to these words of the then minister of finance:
This clause is intended to require the government-
I admit the strength of the word "require"; but what was required?
-five years from now to make such a review and to make proposals.
Please note that two or three minutes earlier he had said, "proposals to the provinces". Now listen to this from the then finance minister:
But it does not in any way, as far as I understand the intent of the bill, place any limitation upon the scope of the act or upon the longevity of the payments themselves.
I suggest that the Liberal members of this house were as astounded as I was to learn this afternoon the Prime Minister's interpretation of the medicare legislation is that it was guaranteed for only five years. I am not fighting with the government about this legislation. I fought too hard to get it. The country spent nearly 50 years trying to get it. We thought we got it as a permanent piece of legislation in this country. I suggest it is very alarming to hear now that at the end of five years the federal government is to get out.
November 4, 1968
It is not good enough to tell us that what the Prime Minister was saying is simply that tax room will be made for the provinces. That is a very wide open statement. Surely it is clear that once the federal government withdraws its contribution to the medicare programs in the provinces it throws the provinces back to the pre Rowell-Sirois days and prevents us from having uniform standards of hospital and medical care across this country.
I stand here tonight, not in an argumentative mood. I do not stand here haranguing the government. I stand here pleading with the Liberal government, bearing in mind the years it took to get this legislation on the books, not to let it go down the drain because of an interpretation of the act which I say is incorrect. I am prepared to stand by and accept the words in the act and in Hansard which say that what is to be done at the end of five years is that there will be a review and proposals if necessary, but let us not give the country the impression that at the end of five years medicare is out so far as the federal government is concerned. I am sure this is not the impression which was intended to be given. I hope there will be a proper clarification at this time.


Mr, H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the interpretation of the words of the Prime Minister in the light of the provisions of section 8 of the act, and the question of the interpretation of section 8 of the act in the light of the words of the Prime Minister are questions of interpretation which I do not think can be dealt with fully in an adjournment debate of this type. It seems to me there
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion is nothing basically inconsistent with what I understand the Prime Minister to have said. May I suggest that his words could be taken as referring to a change in the amount and manner of payment under the act in lieu of the contributions specified thereby.
Let me go on to say that the national medicare act has been passed by parliament; it is the law of the land and obviously the federal government is obligated to live up to its terms. I think we should recall that the creation of a national program for medical care, through the passage of this act, was the achievement of a Liberal government. It was a Liberal government that presented the medicare law to parliament. I for one am proud to be among those who supported this measure. This measure did not come within 50 years of the Pearson Liberal government taking office; it came within less than four years. It came as a result of a Liberal government supported by members such as myself, along with others on this side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
where do we stand now?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional standing order 39A the motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this house stands adjourned until two thirty o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.27 p.m.
[The following items were passed in Committee of Supply this day:]